Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

If FleshGalen ever becomes MechaGalen he'll probably still like building and running trains, but in ways far beyond what any human could do. What's more, he'll improve himself in terms of intelligence, rationality and knowledge to further that goal. He'll innovate in ways we can't imagine, he'll have long since improved himself beyond anything a fleshy human could. He'll corner all global markets to acquire resources to make more and better trains, using his superior intelligence. He'll dominate the globe easily, exponentially increasing his intelligence and power.

Eventually he'll be so far beyond us that'll probably convert the solar system to one giant train.

All aboard, meatbags.

 

Okay, but the pedant in me still wants to know if the lack of clarity engendered by interchangeable usage is just something that bugs me, or whether it might be nice if at some point people adopted a formal vocab for some of these things. I don't care if they use my definitions, just so long as whatever they do pick is consistent!

All I ask for is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

Haha. Fair enough. (Although the quibbler in me wants to say something along the lines of: "...*mumble*...cognitive dissonance...*mumble*...technically...*grumble*...still a conflict of sorts...*mumble*..." )

So, out of interest, what are you up to these days? (Apart from getting hung-over )

I'd contend though, Beef, that (unless there's something about post industrial culture that fundamentally changes us on a biological level) it's all just adaptation to social context-- meaning that as the world changes (say, for example, the global population actually starting to dip and go backwards) societies will change to better accommodate this fact and with changing of social patterns the population decline could very well stabilise and either go up again or find a (rough) floating point.

From a theological, non-physicalist, perspective I'd suggest that the diastase is seated in a subconscious, root understanding that you are a composite being of both flesh and non-flesh; the separation thereof being "an unnatural breach betwixt spirit an' flesh".

(Weee, this is fun, dropping commentary in on things while keeping my own perspective closer at hand. )

Owch. I don't think I've felt this patronised in a long, long time.

 

FBB, that's the idea that my parents told me as a child, and the same one that they're now telling my siblings, and, bluntly, I think it's bullshit. I don't like eat mushrooms, and does that therefore mean that my dislike of mushrooms is seated in a subconscious knowledge that they are inferior to potatoes?

No, it's because making a copy of my mind doesn't mean it's me. If I cloned myself in the perfect sci-fi sense, an identical copy, then I'm still the version that is 'inside' my body. That clone isn't me, it's a copy of me, even though it doesn't know that.

Downloading my consciousness onto a computer doesn't simply move it from one place to another, it essentially copies and pastes it, with the requirement that the original, the me that I exist as, remains entirely non-digital, in what I understand.

Of course, if the process was a gradual augmentation procedure, then I could handle that just fine.

 

I could, you know, point out that I was somewhat taking the mickey on that one; but then that'd spoil the fun...

While it's possible that your dislike of mushrooms is due to a deep-seated pathological fear of fungi; might I point out that you're (inadvertently, I assume?) creating a strawman by taking your analogy of 'shrooms and relating it to the point I made. Just because unconscious motivations are (probably) not the root cause of your dislike of mushrooms doesn't mean that they can't be the base motivator in other circumstances.

There are, ofc, reasonable reasons for holding my suggestion (or, possibly, even your parents' --although, given the level of info we've received, hard to say) with some scepticism; but the reason you've given isn't one of them.

Sorry, old bean. Try again.

 

That's a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution just says the most fit survives, and therefore there's a gradual change in successive generations. It doesn't make any such implications.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose but birth rates are still collapsing and there's no trend to suggest otherwise.

We only think it sad because of our survival instincts. I'm more asking is there a rational basis for those instincts.

Why not, is what I'm asking.

We absolutely will die out by the way. It's inevitable. Either by success, and we change beyond being human, or regular old extinction, we will die out as a species.

This is too far removed from what I originally wanted to discuss but I'd like to give my take on it anyway; Emotions are mostly heuristic survival mechanisms. They're not even limited to humans. Not even to primates. Humanness would just be being a homo sapien, and beyond that, humans can vary a lot.

Also alturism, assuming that's what you mean by caring, isn't limited to emotions at all. Earlier in the thread Sac was talking about logic/moral, similar thing. That's a good thing too.

I don't think there's an answer beyond "our survival instincts say so, because the things who didn't die died off". If that's the best answer, and it seems to be, then we'll have to fall back on the giving our own lives meaning.

Actually it does change us in subtle ways (mandible getting smaller, that bit at the back of your head getting larger, lower sperm rates, lower testosterone rates), all of which actually suggest we're self domesticating, which is interesting, but not fertility destroying, no.

Anyway, Europe's population is already falling. Germany's would be a few hundred thousand less if it wasn't for immigration. As I said earlier, immigration is a stop gap measure so we're not feeling the hurt as bad as we would, but Germans aren't having more kids. The opposite. Once a culture stops having kids, it seems it would be incredibly difficult to start again. People value leisure time over child rearing, and I don't blame them. So long as we're comfortable I don't see that changing.

The number of hardcore people who just fuckin' love having kids isn't enough to maintain current global civilization levels (which requires a minimum of 400 million skilled people, according to a blog post I read this one time).

Maybe the majority of current humans will die out and the humans with super strong parenting instincts live on.

Anyway, we probably have to accept we have to give our own lives meaning. I knew that on a distant, rational level for ages but it only properly hit me beyond an individual level recently ;_;

ps the "extinction should be comfy" line is p cool, right?

 

It's fabulous. Was actually kinda jelly when I first read it.

Actually I've read a few books of a "social-science fiction" bent which suggested that with falling birth rates among those of higher SES there might very well come a point in the future when all the "urban sophisticates" have, in effect, "breed themselves out of the game". But yes, I have to agree that once thing pass a certain point (and they may have already done so for much of the world) birthrates will only continue to fall until (I content) the loss of new births effects society's ability to continue to function in a fashion that's adverse to higher rates of baby-making. The next few hundred years should prove interesting for humanity.

Yes. Ofc, I'd suggest that it's not always necessary that we find our meaning; that, sometimes, it finds us. But however one spins it: having meaning in life is a fundamental necessity to remaining a balanced individual.

 

Yup, that post from me was definitely a shitty argument, which is what I expect from me at 2am. The ridiculousness of my suggestion still reflects how I feel about the idea that I have some kind of subconscious knowledge about souls.

For a bit of background, my dad has been a minister and a RE teacher, and has a degree in theology. He's a strong Christian, and therefore his children are brought up not only totally submerged in Christianity, but also in ignorance of any other faith systems. Seeing my younger brothers argue over who gets to say grace without actually understanding why or what they're arguing over doing (it just being the routine phrase "Dear Jesus, thank you for our food and thank you for a lovely day, Amen" at this point) just makes me want to hit people.

I'd like to have evidence at this point, because I spent so goddamn long being spoon-fed shit by a community of ignorant people, and I haven't seen any evidence forthcoming.

Ferne, I don't necessarily know that is how that situation will turn out. I do know that I feel like I'm a state of continuity. Making a copy of me interrupts that for the original me, and, even though the copy has no idea that it's the copy, I would feel uncomfortable with it. Hell, I might not even be the original, and I'd never know, but we'd still be separate from that point onwards.
It's not a logical thing, it's gut feeling. I feel uncomfortable with the concept of having my mind transferred into a super computer.
Have we now satisfied todays quota for deep and relevant topics?

 

Fair enough; although, to also be fair, I was less talking about you unknowingly knowing about "souls" and more about you possibly possessing some awareness that what makes you you is more than just your intellect or your physical being; that the you that you think of as "myself" would be hopelessly and inadequately reproduced as an imprint in a computer-- thus making the eternal life (of a sort) offered by being stuck in a computer actually an eternally hellish caricature/mockery of your previous, fleshy, existence. Was just speculative wonderings on my part; apologies if it struck a nerve.

Damn, Hella. That really smarts. Both from a more personal perspective (I'm trying to imagine my life, only with my parents attempting to blindly indoctrinate me, and it's moderately depressing/terrifying) and from the perspective of being a Christian scholar with a special interest in education (I trained as a teacher) and the nitty-gritty aspects of "what is the faith? what are the important bits? what's just window dressing?" (I was home educated in a strongly Christian family where constant inquiry into the whys of our faith, and robust comparison to other worldviews/faiths, was not only permitted but actively encouraged-- so much so that to this day I still spend a few weeks every year actively reviewing what I believe and seeing if I still hold to like I did last year, ensuring that I hold to things for my own reasons, not just because they were taught to me).

I can totally see (from the snap-shot you've given) why you'd be wanting to hit things. Actually, tbh, I kinda do too! Passing one's belief's onto one's children shouldn't be brain-washing; in fact, it should be the opposite of brain-washing! Share your joy and delight in the faith that gives your days their meaning, but then turn around and say to the kid "this is what I think is true, but you'll have to make your own mind up on the matter--I can't do it for you!". No, I'm actually really annoyed with your parentals now; going off what I know. Fwiw, Hella (and I realise it's probably not worth a lot, at this point :/), I'd contend that you've not really been shown the real deal. The impression of Christianity I'm getting from you is comprised of hollow, routine phrasage; which is not only devoid of the vitality it should possess (if it's being done like they make out in that ol' book), but is simply, merely, completely... trite. Ugh.

I'd agree. One would want some evidence after that amount of time phaffing about. A thought that comes to mind though, given the light of what I've written above, is that after a lifetime of people feeding you tasteless pap you'll probably find that your palate has been... erm... biased against things that seem even remotely resemblant of the mush that went before.

This might seem an odd point to make, but (along with a strong aversion to discussing core beliefs, at any real length, in public [I already get fouled enough whenever some prick in academic circles discovers I'm a Christian and spends vast amounts of time needling me --something that happens, on average, a couple of times a week]) it's why I'm not all flush to furnish you with "evidences" for the creed I hold to be 'the truth'. Because, sadly-but-logically, if people aren't in a space where they wanna hear then they ain't gunna hear-- no matter what one says.

I guess so. Kinda feeling melancholy after reminding myself of the shit I had piled on me during my last-but-one tutorial ("A Christian at uni? Hah, boy you must love you some double-think."). Also it's 1 am. Yeh, gunna go sleeps now.

 

I don't like to think that I'm biased against it all now; there were still a lot good folk of faith in my life, but my dad has always been a leader; he looks into things, makes his decisions, then holds to them through thick and thin. If he doesn't agree with something, well, then, it must be wrong. He's hopelessly close-minded, and that has always led to problems for him without him actually realising it. I'm still fond of him, provided the discussion doesn't stray towards ethics and/or religion.
Rather than just being set against that one point of view, it's led me to a kind of universal scepticism, which may or may not be healthy.

 

*takes bait*

So are you calling me blind, close-minded, and devoid of common sense?

(Actually, not even a little butthurt. Just gunna point out though: do take care with how your phrase things, ferne. Us religious-types have feelings too you know).

Hey! Scientology is totally a legit religion! I mean we've even got Hubbard on record saying

which just proves its legitimacy! I mean, he even used the word "religion" and everything! Take your filthy criticism of our cultish brain-washing practices and go!
---

@hierbo - for someone who claims to be all amateurish at this, you certainly bring some good, considered, thought to the table.

 

Ha. Ahahaha. Haha.

Only, you see, the thing is... I really don't care about being fair to Scientology.

Unlike what "most parents" do, a number of standard Scientological practices are actually brainwashing and should be decried as such. Practices like auditing, disconnection, Fair Game and R2-45 --all of which enjoyed status as legit practices ("cannon", if you will) within Scientology as expressed by Hubbard himself-- are highly destructive of people as individuals and, especially when taken together, serve to manipulate and/or dominate participants into accepting the practices/teachings of Scientology as normative. I'll say it again: these practices manipulate and/or dominate people into non-deviant behaviour re: the Scientological cult.

Yes, that's right, I called it a cult. Deal with it.

Now. Let's go back to the part where you explain to me how the activities of "most parents" (I presume you're implying "of a religious persuasion", because otherwise why would you be saying they are "shov[ing] religion", etc.) stacks up against Scientological practices:

• Nope. Wait. I don't really care to spend the next half hour carefully stepping through the compare/contrast chain just so you can see that actual brainwashing practices =/= to parents "[not] letting [their young children] make up their own minds [re: religion]".

Even Hella's parents were nowhere near doing that; and you saw how badly I reacted to his account of how they were trying to impart their faith!

{edit}
Look. Basically, @PUNK123, you're implying that somehow this:

• Parents attempting to inculcate a particular attitude/belief in their kids so they (the kids) can go out into the world and do well, and succeed, and... stuff.

is somehow analogous to this:

• The aggressive, manipulative, domineering, deceptive, and isolationist practices of a cult with a well documented history of fucking up people's lives simply for having the nerve to disagree with said cult.

Sure, the parents might be wrong in their beliefs, or misguided in how they decide to go about imparting their faith to their children, but there is a world of difference between this and real, actual, brainwashing. I should know. I lost a good friend to Scientology.

At one point she was studying social policy and looking to blow the rest of her year (and the year above!) away with her grade average. Then suddenly she got involved with the Scientology brigade and started hanging with them. And after a while started displaying all the little signs that, were she not single, would have made you think she was being manipulated by an abusive boyfriend-- like refusing to catch up, and always rushing off when we crossed paths, and always failing to turn up at the last minute the few times we had to meet up (due to group work for a tutorial). And then she was gone and I haven't heard from her in, what, almost 7 years now.

People rag on about various faiths as being "cults", etc. but they don't get the half of it. This shit is real. And it really does eat people such that when (if) they turn up again they're like complete strangers to their previous friends and family.

I'm sorry for any offence I've caused, @PUNK123, in ripping into your post the way I have; but experience has made this particular area one I'm (painfully) well versed in.

tl;dr
>Scientology in a nutshell