You do realise that all of this is interpretation. Even Darwinian evolution and this notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ are constructed according to assumptions (fears) and preferences (desires). — Possibility
There is no ‘of course’ about it. — Possibility
We like to think/hope that science and transhumanism will enable us ALL to gain control over death, but this is no less a bedtime story than religion is. — Possibility
Science is motivated by answers to questions and pays zero attention to humanity when left to its devices. And frankly, transhumanism smacks of self-interest masquerading as philanthropy, tbh. — Possibility
In the end, I think all these interpretations of who we intend to be as humans point towards a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves: if it came down to a choice between living and loving, which would I choose? And if the answer is ‘it depends’, then perhaps we still have need of god, after all - if only as as a framework for our understanding. — Possibility
Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears — universeness
I see no reason for trying to fill such gaps with something as lazy-minded as the god posit. — universeness
You have said this many times already. That god comes from nothing but primal fear. That's not true. I know it's not so for me. Well, maybe fear of thinking that science has the answers. That's a bed time story all the same. "Don't worry child, the big bang made it all for you. Although it knew nothing, the stuff back then was completely ignorant, it still brought itself into existence — Haglund
what caused the stuff and rules it obeys into existence? — Haglund
but why strings and dimensions exist in the first place is not answered by string theory — Haglund
Yes, I have, and I intend to keep doing so until it's proven demonstrably incorrect — universeness
Why not 'random happenstance?' — universeness
Like providing meaning or reason. — Haglund
That doesn't provide a reason to live. At least, not for me — Haglund
If we remove god as your answer for a moment. Does your life lose all meaning? What would change? — universeness
So am I yet I don't accept god as the answer. How come I can do that if god is so essential/fundamental to any meaning or reason in life as you suggested earlier. The burden is on you to explain anomolies such as me in your god posit.I'm always looking for what it all means and why we're here — Haglund
gives a kind of liberated feeling — Haglund
If you abandoned god now would your 'squeeze' have less meaning to you? — universeness
Darwinian evolution is fact, it is not an interpretated construct. Natural selection is also fact.
Survival of the fittest or those that develop the most successful survival strategy is evidenced by the fact that we have more control over our fate compared to any other species on the planet. — universeness
Are you saying that the god posit is a surprising/unexpected one, given the ignorance within which it was first suggested by the ancients? — universeness
Well I understand what you are saying but its similar, in my opinion, to me chiseling on a clay tablet addressed to you 1000 years ago that I think that in 1000 years we will be able to communicate with another human anywhere on the Earth, using machines and my words will reach you seconds after I despatched them, no matter how far away from me you are on the Earth.
I am sure the response of many, would be:
'We like to think/hope that future science will enable us ALL to communicate so quickly but this is just a bedtime story.' — universeness
The most significant science on this planet is performed only by humans so in what way are these human scientists ignoring their own humanity?
Transhumanism satisfies both, unashamedly! self-interest and philanthropy. Nothing wrong with that is there? — universeness
So don't accept the answer 'it depends,' exclaim an imperative to balance between both in all judgments and don't exclude either. — universeness
'Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears and need god the superhero to reassure them when they are alone or scared or close to death.
I have not completely conquered my own fears, primal or otherwise, nor would I want to, but I have made enough progress to not need a god fable to help me when I am in trouble. I would rather rely on fellow humans. If I am in pain, I will turn to medical personnel, not useless prayer.
If I am close to death, I will revel in the fact that I am going to disassemble and become part of that which I came from, universal raw materials. I am content with that. — universeness
Because then it could be explained by science. In principle. — Haglund
The evidence for the evolution of species is strong enough to be fact in my opinion and I think that is a majority opinion, in the absence of equally strong evidence of an alternate origin.Darwinian evolution is a theory — Possibility
What do you mean by 'variable?' There is more variety in dog type or bird type than human type.we evolved into the most highly variable organism, enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility
as are:The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival — Possibility
Which further supports 'best at species level survival.' You provide support for this 'ridiculous contrivance.'enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility
Yet you offer no alternate view of why the god posit was initially formed. If not from human primal fear then from what human thought processes/needs, do you suggest god formed from? or do you think it was in direct communication with the ancients?I’m saying that you’re assuming this is how the god posit was first suggested, when there is no evidence to confirm this. — Possibility
Sure, and saying we should therefore focus on building machines rather than fashioning writing implements or training horses would be presumptuous, don’t you think? — Possibility
I agree.That’s right - science requires humanity not just as a conscious observer, but a self-conscious, ethical participant. — Possibility
Not a viewpoint I share. We are creatures that ask questions, that is our prime directive. We are incapable of stopping our need to question, in my opinion. We must be wise, yes, we must tread carefully and consider the consequences of what we do and why we are doing it but we must not become too afraid to do anything. If taking a chance is the only alternative to stagnation then I vote for taking the chance. I would be content to die in pursuit of new knowledge but I would also be devastated if others died because of my decision to take the chance and I would have to live and die with that decision but I would still understand why I made it. No one has ever said life is always easy.When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future. — Possibility
I agree, this would be a wise approach.Science is as destructive when carelessly handled as it is useful. There is a framework needed here — Possibility
So you are basically a pessimist then? or at least as far as the possibilities offered by transhumanism go. I don't agree.transhumanism doesn’t appear to be it.
Transhumanism doesn’t account for the inevitable hierarchical distinction between self-interest and philanthropy, let alone between ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘all’ humans. Nor does it hide its anthropocentric priority. It harks back to the wide-eyed enthusiasm for Humanism, and all the marketing hype that hits us right in our primal fear, promising the world... — Possibility
Ok, pardon granted. You have the right to vote against.In other words, talk as if loving but act as if living, and pretend you offer the ‘best’ of both - just like every other religion. You’ll pardon me if I don’t buy it... — Possibility
we just need confidence in the accuracy of our next move. That’s all we’ve ever needed. — Possibility
The gods are eternal, mysterious, a riddle. — Haglund
I think you are talking about life, not gods. I think you just use the god label because you like a little woo woo in your life and it has the extra benefit of sating your primal fears, even though you deny it.
When your god posit is just based on, n my opinion. pure irrational emotional need, we are left with nothing but an exchange of opinion. — universeness
primal fear — Haglund
Holy mother of God! — Agent Smith
What do you mean by 'variable?' There is more variety in dog type or bird type than human type.
If you are saying that we have more variety in actions then this is part of the evidence which supports:
The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival
— Possibility
as are:
enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration.
— Possibility
Which further supports 'best at species level survival.' You provide support for this 'ridiculous contrivance.' — universeness
Yet you offer no alternate view of why the god posit was initially formed. If not from human primal fear then from what human thought processes/needs, do you suggest god formed from? or do you think it was in direct communication with the ancients? — universeness
Where did I suggest abandoning horses or pens because we have cars or computers? I advocate prioritising new tech over old but old tech can be very useful at times. The point you make is trivial. — universeness
When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future.
— Possibility
Not a viewpoint I share. We are creatures that ask questions, that is our prime directive. We are incapable of stopping our need to question, in my opinion. We must be wise, yes, we must tread carefully and consider the consequences of what we do and why we are doing it but we must not become too afraid to do anything. If taking a chance is the only alternative to stagnation then I vote for taking the chance. I would be content to die in pursuit of new knowledge but I would also be devastated if others died because of my decision to take the chance and I would have to live and die with that decision but I would still understand why I made it. No one has ever said life is always easy. — universeness
There is insufficient evidence to assume that ‘survival’ is the purpose of evolution, just because it happens to be a result of natural selection. Natural selection explains how diversity occurs, not why it occurs — Possibility
all insufficiently explained by Darwinian evolution theory. — Possibility
The notion of god or gods can just as easily develop from curiosity as from fear, even from a combination of both — Possibility
What do you mean by 'THE answer?' I suggest that they are AN answer, a way to improve the range of human choice when it comes to our individual termination and a way to decrease the chance of going extinct.The point I make is analogous to claims that we should focus on prolonging life and getting off this planet, as if they’re the answer. — Possibility
only pointing out that science is a tool, and our current interests are motivation - neither should be mistaken for a purpose or goal in itself. — Possibility
think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' — universeness
I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition — universeness
Killing the planet, the natural world, getting rid of other species and cultures is not seen in the natural world. — Haglund
A nice dream. But just look what technology brought us. What's so special about technology and its advancement? It's time humanity turns away from it and acknowledges the so-called scientific progress is a dead end road and looks for new more natural ways of life. Only like that we'll survive. And let's be honest. We know how the universe came to be, we know the particles in it, we know about evolution, and now it's time we should resume a path from which we digressed about 3000 years ago, to take the path of knowledge while not knowing shit. Except for some isolated pockets — Haglund
Holy mother of God!
— Agent Smith
Grandma of JC! Could it be that God Himself fertilized the egg from which He sprang? Could we call it an immaculate conception? Retro-Sex maybe? In Vitrus Sanctus? — Haglund
Why are your god's such bad designers — universeness
Aye! God was/is genuine as for as motherf**ckers go. — Agent Smith
99% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are extinct. This is an estimate but is based on fossil evidence etc. http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556
Pretty strong evidence if you ask me. I think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' but we can of course still go extinct due to our own behaviour or if we continue to exist only on this planet. — universeness
Oh come on! did you really expect it to explain the list you mentioned? and for you, the fact that it does not explain the contents of the list you typed means it might be wrong about the events it does cover?
Einstein didn't explain the origins of human altruism or unconditional love either does that devalue his theories as well? — universeness
Sure, you can combine primal fears with any other human emotion/intuition/instinct you like to get to the origin of the god posit but primal fear is the foundation. — universeness
I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition, and the range of choices each person has.
I advocate for better/wiser/immune to nefarious ba******, global politics as well as much more focus and support of scientific endevours, without ignoring the everyday needs of people and planet and all flora and fauna on it.
I declare it loudly and proudly but I don't advocate a 'blunderbuss' approach at all. I agree with a cautious approach which must have democratic majority mandate before it can be actioned. — universeness
That’s evidence of diversity, not of ‘survival’ as the reason for diversity. The question isn’t ‘why are all these other species extinct?’ It’s ‘why has evolution led to our particular arrangement of systems and structures?’ This myth that survival, dominance and procreation are the prime directives - you know that’s not true. I believe we will go extinct only if we keep insisting that this is the plan — Possibility
I respectfully disagree. Our prime directive is to ask questions - you said so yourself. — Possibility
That all sounds noble, I’m just cautious of the attitude. There’s a lot of competing needs there, and it seems like all your confidence is placed in science tempered by common sense and democracy. I wish I had your confidence in this combination at the moment, but I don’t. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.