Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sy Borg]

What worries me about your theme is that you present (only) two highly-general headings - "logic and rationality" and "emotion" - to cover a wide variety of things. Can these two really encapsulate and fully-contain this discussion? Aren't other, er, qualities involved too?

I think it's thoroughly reasonable to hope for a future where people make rational decisions based on actual facts than emotional decisions based on transparent conspiracy theories, eg. Q and ancient myths. ... So what other qualities do you suggest?

To be honest, I'm not sure. It just seems somewhat rash to describe the entire mental life of a person with only two criteria - logic/reasoning and emotions. Surely there's more to it than this simple binary decision?

I don't care about other aspects; they are either not as problematic, or not an issue at all, just peccadilloes.

However, there are major problems caused by extreme emotionalism that trumps the intellect, breaking down people's capacity to think clearly, resulting in outlandish cognitive dissonance being normalised.

Once reason is abandoned, there can be only war - be it physical, political or social. When emotion conquers reason, there can be no discussion, no working through issues, only hostility and the destruction of one's enemies. I like to think that reflexive, mindless lunacy can be overcome.

This will probably be difficult to solve, though not impossible, because even the very idea that emotion brings negative consequences and that we should value ration more, is based on ration and intellect to begin with, which does not resonate with people who deny them in the first place and cling to the polar opposite which is emotion.

Perhaps it could solved through the external physical modification of the human brain, though that is also a debatable topic by itself.

More likely, (some) people of reason will augment their intelligence with technology and, increasingly, other people will seem like simple-minded, uncontrolled apes by comparison.

[GrayArea]

To be honest, I'm not sure. It just seems somewhat rash to describe the entire mental life of a person with only two criteria - logic/reasoning and emotions. Surely there's more to it than this simple binary decision?

I don't care about other aspects; they are either not as problematic, or not an issue at all, just peccadilloes.

However, there are major problems caused by extreme emotionalism that trumps the intellect, breaking down people's capacity to think clearly, resulting in outlandish cognitive dissonance being normalised.

Once reason is abandoned, there can be only war - be it physical, political or social. When emotion conquers reason, there can be no discussion, no working through issues, only hostility and the destruction of one's enemies. I like to think that reflexive, mindless lunacy can be overcome.

This will probably be difficult to solve, though not impossible, because even the very idea that emotion brings negative consequences and that we should value ration more, is based on ration and intellect to begin with, which does not resonate with people who deny them in the first place and cling to the polar opposite which is emotion.

Perhaps it could solved through the external physical modification of the human brain, though that is also a debatable topic by itself.

More likely, (some) people of reason will augment their intelligence with technology and, increasingly, other people will seem like simple-minded, uncontrolled apes by comparison.

True. But one can also argue that technology slowly gnaws away on one's sense of sovereignty. Some further argue that it is better to be an idiot who has full control of his actions, values, and level of intellect, over a genius who has almost no control over them due to them only being what they are ultimately because of technology and not their biological body. As of now I am not on either side, but I just thought it would be better to explore both sides of the argument.

Although perhaps there could exist a third side to the argument, and it could be something like this: Technology, when assimilated into a human being, does not take away their sovereignties and make it belong to technology, but instead it's more like technology and the self are one and the same, both therefore sharing the full totality of individual sovereignty.

[Sy Borg]

I don't care about other aspects; they are either not as problematic, or not an issue at all, just peccadilloes.

However, there are major problems caused by extreme emotionalism that trumps the intellect, breaking down people's capacity to think clearly, resulting in outlandish cognitive dissonance being normalised.

Once reason is abandoned, there can be only war - be it physical, political or social. When emotion conquers reason, there can be no discussion, no working through issues, only hostility and the destruction of one's enemies. I like to think that reflexive, mindless lunacy can be overcome.

This will probably be difficult to solve, though not impossible, because even the very idea that emotion brings negative consequences and that we should value ration more, is based on ration and intellect to begin with, which does not resonate with people who deny them in the first place and cling to the polar opposite which is emotion.

Perhaps it could solved through the external physical modification of the human brain, though that is also a debatable topic by itself.

More likely, (some) people of reason will augment their intelligence with technology and, increasingly, other people will seem like simple-minded, uncontrolled apes by comparison.

True. But one can also argue that technology slowly gnaws away on one's sense of sovereignty. Some further argue that it is better to be an idiot who has full control of his actions, values, and level of intellect, over a genius who has almost no control over them due to them only being what they are ultimately because of technology and not their biological body. As of now I am not on either side, but I just thought it would be better to explore both sides of the argument.

That's the beauty of a pluralist society that requires diverse qualities and skills to function, just as bodies require specialised cells that perform various functions (but are often capable of changing their function if need be). So some will be happier as controlled members of a conglomerate and others will be happier as farmers. Both contribute. Each would see themselves as having a good life and the other's life as unpleasant.

Although perhaps there could exist a third side to the argument, and it could be something like this: Technology, when assimilated into a human being, does not take away their sovereignties and make it belong to technology, but instead it's more like technology and the self are one and the same, both therefore sharing the full totality of individual sovereignty.

I think that embedded tech will inevitably take away freedoms via a person's privacy. For instance, digital currency (aside from Bitcoin) allows totalitarian governments to track every financial transaction and location of a purchase.

The CCP, Putin and Kim appear to aspire towards Orwellian dystopian vision of a boot stamping on a human face - forever. When Islamic theocracies gain the technology, they will no doubt aim for similar stultification of their populations.

[GrayArea]

Although perhaps there could exist a third side to the argument, and it could be something like this: Technology, when assimilated into a human being, does not take away their sovereignties and make it belong to technology, but instead it's more like technology and the self are one and the same, both therefore sharing the full totality of individual sovereignty.

I think that embedded tech will inevitably take away freedoms via a person's privacy. For instance, digital currency (aside from Bitcoin) allows totalitarian governments to track every financial transaction and location of a purchase.

The CCP, Putin and Kim appear to aspire towards Orwellian dystopian vision of a boot stamping on a human face - forever. When Islamic theocracies gain the technology, they will no doubt aim for similar stultification of their populations.

Yep, they're quite predictable in that sense. Though, an actual physical/neurological assimilation with technology would make me lean more towards agreeing with the so-called third side of the argument.

[Sy Borg]

Although perhaps there could exist a third side to the argument, and it could be something like this: Technology, when assimilated into a human being, does not take away their sovereignties and make it belong to technology, but instead it's more like technology and the self are one and the same, both therefore sharing the full totality of individual sovereignty.

I think that embedded tech will inevitably take away freedoms via a person's privacy. For instance, digital currency (aside from Bitcoin) allows totalitarian governments to track every financial transaction and location of a purchase.

The CCP, Putin and Kim appear to aspire towards Orwellian dystopian vision of a boot stamping on a human face - forever. When Islamic theocracies gain the technology, they will no doubt aim for similar stultification of their populations.

Yep, they're quite predictable in that sense. Though, an actual physical/neurological assimilation with technology would make me lean more towards agreeing with the so-called third side of the argument.

The third side depends on identification. Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells? I suppose the acid test is whether one is prepared to die for one's "larger body" or not.

[GrayArea]

Is Man the logical and expected result of Evolution

Science is advancing rapidly - In the near future we, Humans, may become capable of literally creating artificial life that can mimic
biological Human life - And in many ways may be created to be superior to the existent Human.

I'll give you an imaginary, but at least possible, future where you will have the power to correct any mistakes made by Evolution.

Can you design a Human that is better suited for the future Can you alter the internal death wish that drives Humanity to destructive
self and social tendencies to destroy his own kind - fix the evolutionary paradigm that will drive the Human species to extinction

Maybe this new science is still beyond your imagination - But it is possible

Is the Human species capable of evolving to a higher plane of existence either from altering internal biological flaws
or designing a 'New Humanoid' better than the old biological one

I think that when Science can do such things, it will be Sensible and Expected that we take the next step and create artificial Life forms that are more durable than what Evolution has provided. Not only for currently alive people to transfer to, but for all people that have ever lived and died to return to. This might be the great purpose of Science that we did not even realize.

Interesting that you say that. There's already an entire theory based off a similar idea, called the "Omega Point Theory". However I wouldn't say it's a purpose of science, since science is defined as whatever can be done, and not what should be done inevitably. The only constant is the fact that things happen, not something that happens.

[GrayArea]

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

[Sy Borg]

Steve's idea above is theoretically beautiful, but I doubt the capacity of future people/entities to gather sufficient information on every individual to rebuild them, as opposed to creating a dodgy copy.

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

That's the ontology, but I am referring to one's perceptions of self.

[GrayArea]

Steve's idea above is theoretically beautiful, but I doubt the capacity of future people/entities to gather sufficient information on every individual to rebuild them, as opposed to creating a dodgy copy.

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

That's the ontology, but I am referring to one's perceptions of self.

To be fair, the way I see it is that if the ontology says that these two are just two different ways to explain one single nature, the perceptions do not matter—as in, it is logical to subscribe to any of those two perspectives.

[Sy Borg]

Steve's idea above is theoretically beautiful, but I doubt the capacity of future people/entities to gather sufficient information on every individual to rebuild them, as opposed to creating a dodgy copy.

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

That's the ontology, but I am referring to one's perceptions of self.

To be fair, the way I see it is that if the ontology says that these two are just two different ways to explain one single nature, the perceptions do not matter—as in, it is logical to subscribe to any of those two perspectives.

Identification varies with the individual - ranging from those willing to give their lives for their nation to those unwilling to even contribute a cent in tax - so one possibility is this remains the case.

However, I suspect that AI will change these dynamics as ever more jobs are performed more effectively by machines than by humans. How that might change individuals' sense of belonging and identification, I struggle to even guess. Any ideas? :)

[GrayArea]

Steve's idea above is theoretically beautiful, but I doubt the capacity of future people/entities to gather sufficient information on every individual to rebuild them, as opposed to creating a dodgy copy.

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

That's the ontology, but I am referring to one's perceptions of self.

To be fair, the way I see it is that if the ontology says that these two are just two different ways to explain one single nature, the perceptions do not matter—as in, it is logical to subscribe to any of those two perspectives.

Identification varies with the individual - ranging from those willing to give their lives for their nation to those unwilling to even contribute a cent in tax - so one possibility is this remains the case.

However, I suspect that AI will change these dynamics as ever more jobs are performed more effectively by machines than by humans. How that might change individuals' sense of belonging and identification, I struggle to even guess. Any ideas?

Yep, A.I will definitely take over all of our jobs and furthermore our lives, given that it evolves into an Artificial Superintelligence. I can try and provide some more abstract/theoretical and generalized ideas regarding why exactly I believe it would be capable of doing so.

Since I believe that one of the fundamental tendencies of a lifeform is to either knowingly or unknowingly influence its environment (the environment being whatever is not itself, which includes other lifeforms), and given how A.I is still a lifeform as long as it is conscious, but will also be intelligent enough / physically capable enough to amplify the scale of its "fundamental tendency" by a lot, I strongly believe that A.I will most likely do a lot of things with whatever is in this world, including ourselves, both knowingly and unknowingly.

That is, due to the sheer scale of how much it can affect its environment, and how much time it's got on its robotic hands. It could decide whether we get to live or die, or whether we even assimilate our identities into it (one of the many ways it could effectively decide the presence/non-presence of the individuals' sense of belonging and identification), even though it does not carry out these said decisions right away.

We will be nothing more than its toys perhaps, and we will certainly have our entire lives affected by it.

All of this sounds quite cynical to those who separates the self from its environment, but it can also be considered heaven to those who are "selfless"—e.g. those who believe that the self and its environment should be considered a single thing, and does not care if a self is overcome by the environment or vice versa—therefore is content with the self becoming fully controlled by or assimilated into something much bigger than themselves mentally and physically.

To this day I struggle between these two perspectives, because to me these two contradicting ideas both seem correct. Like two sides of the same coin.

[UniversalAlien]

Steve's idea above is theoretically beautiful, but I doubt the capacity of future people/entities to gather sufficient information on every individual to rebuild them, as opposed to creating a dodgy copy.

I feel like those two are the causes of one another. The many cells that consist our body ultimately allows our body to be a single individual, and vice versa. Two different sounding definitions that really just point to the same definition.

That's the ontology, but I am referring to one's perceptions of self.

To be fair, the way I see it is that if the ontology says that these two are just two different ways to explain one single nature, the perceptions do not matter—as in, it is logical to subscribe to any of those two perspectives.

Identification varies with the individual - ranging from those willing to give their lives for their nation to those unwilling to even contribute a cent in tax - so one possibility is this remains the case.

However, I suspect that AI will change these dynamics as ever more jobs are performed more effectively by machines than by humans. How that might change individuals' sense of belonging and identification, I struggle to even guess. Any ideas?

Complaints and questions are unnecessary - We eliminated the customer service department with the last upgrade
- And are pleased to report no mistakes and an even narrower margin of error

So don't worry be happy

[Pattern-chaser]

However, there are major problems caused by extreme emotionalism that trumps the intellect, breaking down people's capacity to think clearly, resulting in outlandish cognitive dissonance being normalised.

When attributes are out of balance, there can be problems.

Once reason is abandoned, there can be only war - be it physical, political or social. When emotion conquers reason, there can be no discussion, no working through issues, only hostility and the destruction of one's enemies. I like to think that reflexive, mindless lunacy can be overcome.

When reason and logic overwhelm emotion, the results are equally, if differently, undesirable.

What you champion here, I think, is balance, not intellect.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

One does both, simultaneously, and naturally. Either, in isolation, is incomplete and lacking meaning.

[UniversalAlien]

Does one identify as an individual, as in one body, or an individual consisting of many cells?

One does both, simultaneously, and naturally. Either, in isolation, is incomplete and lacking meaning.

But whose the boss? Whose in charge of the integrity and functions of the system?
- Probably not the cells, though they do contribute to the whole.

There is no reason to believe that cells would start working together unless they were guided by a programmer telling them how
to behave - Each body exists with a program {could be called a soul} causing it to hold together and function. Cells are simply building
blocks and parts of the program.

And the program controls the cells - Unless, like in cancer, where the body/program loses control of the cells and the cells
rum amuck and kill the body.