Well done Rxspence, now we all have to have more than half a page of uncritical un-self-aware stupidity to marr this thread. Can an admin remove these stupid posts please?

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable. — ssu

What is this branch? Where can I get me some? Sounds successful and popular.

I think human motivations (bodily) are behind the intellectual problems we work out. The process of thinking itself maybe isn't influence by it, but the initial motivation for it seems to be.

My reasoning here is that the physical, biological forms came first, and then we evolved thinking brains because it increased survival chances of some biological forms. So to me that is the reason d'etre of thinking... i'm not sure what to do with the idea of just taking that away, what would be the point of any of it? — ChatteringMonkey

Here of course I agree with you. But think, what really does a human being (as animal) need to survive? On pure subsistence, we need a little water, some food, a little exercise etc. And yet most of the articles of consumption are not for pure bodily subsistence. Our mind needs diversion, conversation, love, pleasurable sensation, diverse diet, meaningful work etc. None of this is simple subsistence, in fact if any of us were to eat porridge oats every meal (like one of our cabinet ministers here in the UK suggested that those on welfare should do to save money), we would go crazy, feel completely undignified, spiritually destroyed and so on.

On your second point, of course I cannot answer that immortal question, 'why/when did human consciousness emerge?' But I can answer the implications you draw from it. Human thought is no longer 'tethered' to biological considerations. That is, those processes that were once regulated by the biological order, have come to be fully regulated by that wholly distinct and higher order of being, the social order. You can also call this the 'symbolic' order or in Marxian terms, the moment when human society must be actively (consciously) reproduced by man himself, as opposed to the 'just being' of animals. That means that the human mind is forever separated from nature. We can only know that we were once 'natural' because we became (for whatever reason) separated from this nature. We can only see this point of departure after it has already gone forever. We can only 'see' at all, because we took this point of departure from nature. Now that we have the social order, biology doesn't enter into it. Our brains are exacctly the same as the brains of the ancient Greeks, and yet conceptually we are leaps and bounds ahead of them. If human thought was even remotely regulated biologically, this would be an impossibility. How can biology act upon 'you' if you can already, in thought, abstract yourself as a self? That is, if you can abstract an element from the chaos of nature in thought, you are already unbound by that chaos, that undifferentiated 'thing-in-itself that is nature (which doesn't really exist).

Sure, I just wanted to voice some concerns with the idea of uploading digitally, which many futurist seem to take for granted. — ChatteringMonkey

You know, I really find technology boring to be honest, and I am not familiar with futurist writings. Do you have any good reccomendations? My thrust is always first and foremost philosophical, but I try to take things to the end, and I see uploading as a nescessary possibility in any future society who's drive will consist in the conflict between the world of man (society) and non-human nature.

As for the link with what we have been saying and climate change, I hope it is evident that it is relevant. The way we ideologically conceive of climate change is most often by attributing to nature this 'humbling' power, as something that punishes the hubris of man. I hope I demonstrate here that I find this view revolting. I will write more on it later.

You are right, it is possible that this physical separation of mind and body (in all relevant respects they are already separated anyway but that's another story) is impossible.

As far as concerns 'whats the point of thinking if you don't have a body?' I know what you mean but isn't it the case that in all ways that matter, you really do think without a body. Think about thinking, when you are thinking, are you really concerened/aware that you have a body? Is not the act of thinking itself it's own proof that we are not our bodies? When you are deep in thought, you are working on some ideas or whatever, it doesn't matter to you, you lose awareness even that you have a body.

Also why would this be an issue? Surely inter-subjectivity (in whatever form) would survive this 'upload'? I cannot imagine that we would all become totally insular self-referential computers, not at all. Surely human society would continue, simply that human beings become physically what they were spiritually all along, pure subjectivity. This is not about 'computation for computation's sake', I am not suggesting that we degrade the idea by associating this with meagre computing power (whatever that means). This would be society, but in a higher form.

Doesn't sound appealing? Well it doesn't sound appealing to me either! I am not suggesting this as an action taken tomorrow, but as one of the possible points a socially self-conscious (let me cut the BS here, I mean a communist) society would approach, long into the future, as contingent impediments to humanities' conquering of the galaxy and mortality are overcome. This is deep future, don't worry I will not now force you to climb into a USB stick or whatever.

As for the heat death of the universe, I don't see this as likely. More likely to me is that the universe is infinite. But even if entropy is real, I have faith (ok I know I sound insane) that man can conquer this entropy as well.

No I'm not saying that. I really do mean it when I say the technological mastery over the biosphere. 'Working with nature', what does this actually mean? Nature is chaos, catastrophe, meaningless processes etc. The aim of a self-conscious society should be toward domination of these processes, whereby the reproduction of human society more and more relies on the 'artificial'.

Think of it like this. If you terraformed a barren planet, you would not be saying 'work with nature', you would be saying 'how can we artificially produce a society out of the bare bones elements we find on, say, Mars or Europa?' Here 'nature' as you are conceiving it (i.e. biological life) is non-existent, the only way to conquer these barren planets are pure artificial human productive processes, converting different elements, combining them, dragging ice asteroids into the atmosphere, digging boreholes or whatever.

This is exactly how we should think of Earth's biosphere. We are already 'mastering' this, but it is of course unplanned, chaotic, self-defeating etc. (i.e. global warming). Forget all that sentimentality about 'disturbing nature', we are already doing it, it is inevitable that there will be mass-extinctions and so on. The point is to 'disturb nature' in such a way that you have self-conscious and rational technological mastery over these processes. I am thinking of, why not, the rings in the video-game 'Halo', or the transformation of Mars in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

But let's go even further. Once we rid ourselves of this religious-like superstition about 'not messing with nature (a nature which doesn't even exist the way most people conceive of it), why not go to the end? The human body, that fragile meat sack which gets cancer and so on, let's get rid of it. Why not upload our subjectivities into an artificial technological infrastructure? I claim this would be the result of a self-conscious societies' drive toward immortality, the end of ageing, disease etc.

It's not about 'superceding' nature, of course everything outside of human subjectivity does exist and you cannot exist outside of this material. It's about ending arbitrary processes like freak weather, ageing, even death.

hypericin is not saying that the Leftist alternative is 100% going to be just as polluting as capitalist production. He is saying a minor point, that the ecological record of the communist countries was/is not good at all. Nothing controversial here.

But if capitalism is "a tool like a hammer" like you say, then it is the wielder who really matters. There is no 'written in the stars' or totally worked-out blueprint for a post-capitalist society. The point is for men and women to have complete democratic mastery over the economy and all spheres of life, so that society only goes where its constituents will that it should go. In such a self-conscious society, the issue of global warming could be solved very simply. Nobody knows precisely how, but it is not superstition to suggest that with enough resources and a united planet, the conditions for technological mastery over the biosphere would be possible.

Well I feel like that covers only a small range of people, those who proscribe things that they themselves wouldn't have to do because they are shielded by money in one way or another.

Global warming is like a guest at a dinner party who embarrasses everyone, doesn't respect the rules of polite conversation, mentions the elephant in the room etc.

We could spend trillions on geo-engineering but we don't. We don't because rich people have all the money and states work for them. The logical conclusion is to get rid of rich people, but that's awkward because for many decades rich people have made us believe that they are gods.

What to do in such situation?

Public transport.

The solution is planetary-scale geo-engineering, all other solutions are moot at this point.

I don't think people have understood yet the full implications of golbal warming and the response this will require.

On the other hand at a practical level it seems incredibly easy. Just direct, say, 3 trillion dollars every year toward geo-engineering and research, as well as producing good policy, mass-transit etc.