... that committing atrocities or acts of kindness are identically psychologically motivated, no? — 180 Proof

Speaking from my experience with peak experiences, one absolutely can be full of bliss regardless of what's going on outside of oneself, and yet still have sensible preferences between atrocities and acts of kindness.

It occurs to me now that perhaps this relates to another topic I'm commented on before: empathy as a supposed origin of morality. I've commented in the past about how I generally don't actually feel bad about other people's suffering, but nevertheless I'm completely committed to alleviating their suffering as much as I reasonably can, not because I'm emotionally driven by the need to stop this thing that's making me feel bad, but because I've intellectually reasoned that that is the thing to do.

Writing that out now, I can hear how that sounds like some cringey "hurr I'm a smarty who thinks with my intellect not with my feelings", but I can't think of a better way to put it. I literally don't feel bad for other people, but I still decide to help them anyway. So, there's some kind of motivation to commit acts of kindness rather than atrocities besides that atrocities feel bad.

Actually, now that I write that out, I realize that even though I don't feel bad at seeing other people suffer, I would feel very bad about causing other people to suffer on purpose. But even if it wasn't the case that causing people to suffer made me feel bad, if it merely diminished the degree of otherwise constant good feeling, that would still be a motive not to do it.

Speaking from my experience with peak experiences [ ... ] — Pfhorrest

Yeah but, anecdotes aside, my reply addressed "mastery of the reward circuitry ..." with which any sort of "experience" happens and motivates seeking / reproducing it. Such "mastery" can turn any perception or behavior into a "peak experience". Any, or rather every "experience" – even boredom, even e.g. slow amputation without anaesthesia / pain-killer – because "experience" is output of perception-memory-biases through our "reward circuitry". Psychosurgery, it seems to me, that results in (btw, whose?) "mastery of the reward circuitry" would give every autocrat / theocrat a permanent hard-on.

You were replying to David's reply to me wherein I supposed that giving everyone constant peak experiences was part of the aim of the transhumanist project, which David confirmed, elaborating that "mastery of our reward circuitry" was the means to that end. So it seems clear to me that he's talking about us (humans generally) obtaining the technological means to change the way we feel about things, with the aim of changing it in a way that always feels like a peak experience at worst. Your reply to him in turn seemed concerned with the behavioral consequences of feeling like that all the time, so I was elaborating on the way that those kinds of feelings have impacted my own behavior, as an example of how letting everyone feel like that all the time doesn't have to have the behavioral consequences you fear.

The same technology could, of course, be used to different ends, that could have the consequences that you fear, but nobody here is advocating that.

My mother used to wonder how bodies would look in heaven, and I wonder the same about transhuman bodies. Would they look artificial, rather like steampunk robots? — Jack Cummins

:grin:

I here that.

For my part, I find that when people's ideas become a tangled confusion between the reality of science and of science-fiction, they do a grave disservice to the PR of empirical sciences, if nothing else.

"mastery of the reward circuitry" would give every autocrat / theocrat a permanent hard-on. — 180 Proof

Direct interventions to enhance emotional well-being could enrich everyone's default quality of life. For sure, whether we consider using drugs, genes or electrodes, such tools could also be abused. But we need a a serious ethical debate. Do we want to conserve our existing reward architecture indefinitely? Or aim for radical hedonic uplift?

In my work, I've focused on hedonic set-point recalibration (rather than crude happiness-maximisation) not least because recalibration is salably conservative. Thus if, for example, you're a rugged individualist and active citizen – or maybe even a natural rebel resistant to authority – then re-engineering yourself with a higher hedonic set-point won't make you docile.
Contrast the effects of long-term opioid administration or Huxley's fictional soma.

No doubt. Still, it seems to me, the ethical problem remains: if 'negative affects' are eliminated by "radical hedonic uplift", then disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedbacks of) antisocial and immoral behaviors will be, effectively, eliminated as well. How will this not produce catastrophic consequences? – which would be unintentionally yet foreseeably 'harmful' and, therefore, ought to be avoided, no?

Still, it seems to me, the ethical problem remains: if 'negative affects' are eliminated by "radical hedonic uplift", then disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedbacks of) antisocial and immoral behaviors will be, effectively, eliminated as well. How will this not produce catastrophic consequences? – they would be unintentionally yet foreseeably 'harmful' and, therefore, ought to be avoided, no? — 180 Proof

It's counterintuitive. But "disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedback of) antisocial and immoral behaviors" can play out just as effectively within the upper and lower bounds of even a vastly higher hedonic range than today's norm. Leave aside here my wilder transhumanist speculations on future life based on information-sensitive gradients of superhuman bliss. Focus instead on today's genetic outliers - "hyperthymics" with an unusually high hedonic set-point. OK, I don't know of any rigorous quantitative study to prove it, but there's no evidence that hyperthymic people are more prone to antisocial and immoral behavior than their neurotypical counterparts. Sure, people with mania are prone antisocial and immoral behavior. But that's because (as in chronic unipolar depression) their information-signaling system for good and bad stimuli has partially broken down.

Ethically speaking, I think we should aim for a hyperthymic civilization.

Interesting. I agree, just not 'hyperthymia via psychosurgery'. Both Brave New World's "soma" and (inversely) A Clockwork Orange's "Ludovico Technique" come to mind, but much more invasively and totalitarian.

Transhumanism: Treating death as a problem

My mind is blown! What an awesome statement this is. This belongs into the category of assertions that upend established norms - ways of thinking that's become so ingrained in people that we can't, as some say, see past the majority opinion on them, that itself being a function of tradition, culture, mindsets, and so on. It appears that humanity has spent the better part of its existence on this planet either complaining about death or, some would say, doing something about it. In other words, there really was no doubt that, we were all 100% certain that, death was/is/will be a problem. I wouldn't go so far as to say mortality isn't a thorn in our side but, all things considered, some of us, like the OP, had the good sense to get up and ask, in a crowd convinced that the Grim Reaper is enemy no. 1, "are we sure?"

I won't go into the whys and hows Thanatos isn't the dreaded foe we make fae out to be; others will do a better job of it. Instead I'll tell you a thought-provoking joke (its a spinoff of another I listened to on TikTok). This is going to sound slightly wicked but I have no choice. The joke: We all want our enemies dead. That simply means we want death to, well, work for us and that, in a sense, simply means death is the enemy of my enemy and as the ancient proverb goes, the enemy (death) of my enemy is my friend :rofl: Death could be a powerful ally, no? :rofl:

Like that old blues song says

"Everybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die"

which is the essence of the transhumanist daydream.

Like that old blues song says

"Everybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die"

which is the essence of the transhumanist daydream. — 180 Proof

That single sentence is the logic bomb designed to blow up in theism's achilles heel (the unverified/unverifiable nature of its claims); upon detonation, the blast radius should be big enough to obliterate the entire theistic world.

As for transhumanism, they, at the very least, are doing the utmost to keep it real! Kudos to them.

"Everybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die" — 180 Proof

:scratches head:

To go to heaven in the religious sense you have to die. But the transhumanist is saying we can have a heaven on earth AND not die. So the lyric is inapt.

:roll: "scratches head" ...

What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented with technology or longevity extension type ideas? — Shawn

It'll probably take many many billions (trillions?) of dollar$ (or euro€) of discretionary spending to hoover up all the best, world-class, researchers around the globe working in hundreds of labs to meliorate mid/late-life crises of Bezos & co who are seriously financing the latest technotopian-crazed iteration of "Gilgamesh's quest" (which actually just might cash-out down stream ... :chin:)
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/04/1034364/altos-labs-silicon-valleys-jeff-bezos-milner-bet-living-forever/

NB: If you're a functionalist-embodied cognitionist, then it's the substrate, baby! :nerd:

As an unforeseen consequence of a (universal) cancer vaccine [ ... ] — 180 Proof

Link to a sketched premise for a story where I link "cancer" to "immortality / longevity" as an unforeseen consequence (curse? blessing?). Definitely a biotech cautionary tale I wish I was smart (talented) enough to write.

Addendum to

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/feb/17/if-they-could-turn-back-time-how-tech-billionaires-are-trying-to-reverse-the-ageing-process

I don't consider Death a problem, so am unclear on the OP in general. What exactly is the game plan? Immortality? Sounds like a straight up nightmare.

Immortality would not be very different from death. Death by boredom. There would be no room for anything or anyone new. Things would be eternally static. One needs to destroy the old in order to construct the new. Death and life are two sides of the same coin.

Immortality would not be very different from death. Death by boredom. — Olivier5

I imagine the fail safe for being bored to death could be this .

The idea of not dying seems to make things rather pointless, one would become a master at everything, just like everybody else that isn't dying. Big shitty hairball.

Even the idea of not dying can lead us to have suicidal thoughts due to their paradox. When you are aware that our life is limited you tend to value it more

yep.

Why would an immortal bother with becoming "a master of everything"?

So our souls must die so that our bodies can live? Ironic...

what else do you do with your time?

what else do you do with your time? — Book273

Most of the people don't know how to avail time. They are always wasting it on worthless things. Another paradox: feeling timeless could lead us to not use the time properly.

I don't see the relevance of your question to this topic.

If you say so. That's not my interpretation. We lose memories, like dead cells, daily throughout our entire lives; ecology-situated, embodied subjective – phenomenally self-aware – continuity is, as far as I'm concerned, "the soul".

I think our attitude towards death is scarier than death itself. If you want to explore life extension, fine, but death is not the enemy. Just look at how fearful we all are. That's the worst part about it.

I don't think it's either noble or ignoble to want to live forever, but I can see the scenario becoming one where we're forced to go on, just because we won't be able to admit there's any justification for death.

I mean, look at assisted suicide...

continuity is, as far as I'm concerned, "the soul". — 180 Proof

But you won't have continuity in your system. People over 100 yr old would forget all their childhood. If you forget your childhood, who are you?

So in your system our souls would die to save our aging bodies.

I'd rather make children and die, than live forever and forget who I am in the company of other very old and forgetful people. I guess I just don't love old people the way I love children.

The Antinatalism-Immortality Paradox

Once we've solved death and we become immortal, we can't have anymore children. Where's the space? So, just as the situation improves on a world, suffering becomes a thing of the past, natalism, paradoxically, stops being viable or reasonable. Odd that, given how the promise/guarantee of eternal life is, unequivocally, an invaluable gift you can bestow on the living.

Nothing odd there. If one suppresses death, one must also suppress life. They are two sides of the same coin. To live forever is exactly like being dead.