Post-tribal human: Redesigning the human brain

Author: Avery ,

Posts

Total: 17
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
The chief issue with tribalism is that it results in inaccurate/wrong ideas being pushed. This happens due to: people collectively bargaining (which is an effective evolutionary practice), those people having common ideas, and those common ideas being pushed through collective bargaining. So, the legitimacy of those common ideas can take the backseat to the fact that they are common ideas. This is often seen in victimhood narratives wherein the group has a story about how they were wronged (e.g. Holocaust, African American slavery), thus it excuses them doing whatever to reclaim what is theirs, or at least rebalance the previous injustice. The legitimacy of the victimhood narrative is rarely questioned, especially by those who benefit from it.

However, tribalism does have the positive benefits of preventing freeloading and keeping people loyal to a group. These positive benefits need to be accounted for because freeloading is always a net-negative to a group (i.e. people taking resources without giving back) and keeping people loyal to a tribe means they'll do pro-social things for it, often without cost.

A possible solution to tribalism is to reengineer the human mind to be algorithmic.

This could first involve usage of CRISPR gene-editing to cut parts of the brain which generate tribalism, Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9 - YouTube  (although CRISPR currently has limitations regarding the human brain (even a single cut can create toxicity in the braincell, causing it to die) CRISPR and the brain: how gene editing benefits neuroscience | IDT (idtdna.com) . Whilst the genetic sources of tribalism have yet to be discovered (AFAIK), cluster analysis and eventually gene isolation should advance sufficiently to identify the genes that contribute to tribalism  Bioinformatics: Finding Genes (genome.gov) . If cluster analysis is the method used, comparing DNA profiles of differing people to determine their genetic makeups, and then comparing that to their attitudes towards tribalism, could be used to pinpoint the sets of genes generating tribalism. 

The second part is to make the human brain more algorithmic, in order for reason to be at the forefront of decisions. Making rational decisions could be more emotionally weighted, so as to give the emotional impact of tribalism without the shortcomings of it (so that it can compete in a harsh environment, or perhaps the algorithmic mentality would be enough??). Putting reason at the forefront of human decision should drastically improve efficiency of societies. It could also make other inefficiencies, like motivation, obsolete. Theoretically, this could be done by improving overall intelligence ('g' factor) in humans (maybe through manual insertion of genes which are associated with higher intelligence Genetics of Intelligence - I.Q and Human Intelligence (human-intelligence.org) ) and expanding the human brain's memory capacity to overcome memory-shortage issues like Dunbar's number Dunbar's number - Wikipedia , in conjunction with the removal of tribalism. It's possible that other emotional shortcomings will need to be removed, too. This is far more theoretical than the first part.

This reengineering of the human brain is fundamentally different from the historical issue of science, atheism and reason being held up as the solution to problems, because humans are being physically changed to delete/modify the evolutionary baggage, rather than people thinking they can simply think above those shortcomings (i.e. thinking you're above tribalism when you're not, and making decisions based on thinking you are (PDF) Tribalism Is Human Nature (researchgate.net)).

Of course, keep in mind that I'm not a neurologist or geneticist. But these are some theoretical arguments that I've tried to make a bit more practical, in order to move past human tribalism.
That2User
That2User's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 377
0
2
3
That2User's avatar
That2User
0
2
3
Hope to read this all when I wake up, CRISPR is deeply fascinating
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
It's not that humans are not adapted well to changes brought about by the industrial revolution. It's that the technological society is trying to turn humans into a cog in the wheel.

Look I am not going to go into this.

Just read Uncle Ted's manifesto so he can explain how your are looking at this backward 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 8,120
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @WyIted
Millions of years of material development.

Then intellect, organic intellect, hybrid intellect, inorganic intellect.

Why?

To further the process of material development perhaps.

Why?

Chance or purpose?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 507
3
3
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
3
3
6
I tried changing my sick brain through apps. So far its giving some results.

(If you wonder why my brain is sick, check my debates)

(If you complain that this is off topic, I assure you I barely even looked at the topic).
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
It's not that humans are not adapted well to changes brought about by the industrial revolution. It's that the technological society is trying to turn humans into a cog in the wheel.
I don't think what humans currently are is worth preserving. We're a bunch of unintelligent design that focuses on survival at all costs, damn the feelings of anything involved. Life was harder pre-industrial revolution, and the novelty of living like 'the olden days' with wilderness everywhere would soon wear off.

Besides, the developments humanity has made aren't going back in Pandora's box, and even if they could, humans would trend towards the same developments anyway. 

Just read Uncle Ted's manifesto so he can explain how your are looking at this backward 
He's certainly a pretty smart guy, but I agree with his underlying assumption that humanity should be preserved.

David Pearce's Hedonistic Imperative (the other thing you showed me somewhat recently) was far more convincing.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
--> @Avery
David Pearce's Hedonistic Imperative (the other thing you showed me somewhat recently) was far more convincing
I thought that was you. I know this is odd but I am very attracted to something about you. I am not sure what it is. Whatever it is, it's probably just a mask and it would disappear if I tried to actually grasp it. Like some sort of 3d projection. 

Besides, the developments humanity has made aren't going back in Pandora's box, and even if they could, humans would trend towards the same developments anyway. 
That of course is a legitimate concern. I think Uncle Ted addresses this in one of his follow up works. I will have to look into it, and believe it or not he anticipated rebuttals from transhumanists in his manifesto as well and seems to take some of those on. Like there argument that more advanced tech will erase the damage he talks about from industrialization.

Life was harder pre-industrial revolution, and the novelty of living like 'the olden days' with wilderness everywhere would soon wear off.

Life is harder is actually one of the arguments about why humans were more fulfilled.

I don't think the olden days feel would actually wear off. Like you said. Humans are tribalistic. 

A major problem of colonialists when America was being founded is that often people were kidnapped by Indians or ran off to join Indians and when colonialists saved them, they would have to be guarded to stop them from running away and returning to them.

The reverse is not true. Indians had no interest in joining the more advanced society. If we return to tribe like states. It might be hard as hell for the progress minded people to drag us back to civilized society. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
David Pearce's Hedonistic Imperative (the other thing you showed me somewhat recently) was far more convincing
I thought that was you. I know this is odd but I am very attracted to something about you. I am not sure what it is. Whatever it is, it's probably just a mask and it would disappear if I tried to actually grasp it. Like some sort of 3d projection.
It might be just a mask, but this is the closest I've ever been to being myself on the internet (i.e. I'm not pretending to be someone else anymore; I'm just not actively revealing every part of myself). It's just too dangerous to be yourself, but I haven't covered every part of myself.

Besides, the developments humanity has made aren't going back in Pandora's box, and even if they could, humans would trend towards the same developments anyway. 
That of course is a legitimate concern. I think Uncle Ted addresses this in one of his follow up works. I will have to look into it, and believe it or not he anticipated rebuttals from transhumanists in his manifesto as well and seems to take some of those on. Like there argument that more advanced tech will erase the damage he talks about from industrialization.
Do you know the title of his follow up work? I don't remember him making this argument.

Life was harder pre-industrial revolution, and the novelty of living like 'the olden days' with wilderness everywhere would soon wear off.
Life is harder is actually one of the arguments about why humans were more fulfilled.
I agree that humans would be more fulfilled, but that comes at the expense of life being harder. In other words, the mechanism which allows humans to become fulfilled is inefficient (it requires suffering), hence that's a part of humans that should be redesigned, rather than placated. Being fulfilled without suffering is the preferred state of being -- that's what should be engineered in humans.

I don't think the olden days feel would actually wear off. Like you said. Humans are tribalistic. 
People would have memory of what it was like to live in the non-olden days. That comparison would induce negative affect in them. They would become irritated of having to grow their own crops, distill their own water etc. 

But okay, the positive tribalism feeling would spring to life if people lived like in the olden days -- working in close-knit communities that are battling in a tough environment really brings people together. Although, people can already trigger this by supporting sport teams, and still live in modern times.

A major problem of colonialists when America was being founded is that often people were kidnapped by Indians or ran off to join Indians and when colonialists saved them, they would have to be guarded to stop them from running away and returning to them.

The reverse is not true. Indians had no interest in joining the more advanced society. If we return to tribe like states. It might be hard as hell for the progress minded people to drag us back to civilized society. 
I don't know enough about this specific scenario to comment on it.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
--> @Avery
Do you know the title of his follow up work? I don't remember him making this argument.
I think he dedicates approximately 2 sentences to it in his manifesto, and he never uses words like transhumanist or other such things that only came to popularity after he was imprisoned.

As far as his follow up works are concerned. It has been 10 years since I have even glanced at anything and I would check Amazon first. If they aren't on Amazon it might require a difficult scavenger hunt that involves reaching out to various green anarchist groups. 

I was only looking into his work because I consider myself a transhumanist and I wanted to see the strongest rebuttal possible. I know he does a good job of writing people back who write him, but I didn't want to disrespect him by making him reiterate any points he already made in his published materials. 

Being fulfilled without suffering is the preferred state of being -- that's what should be engineered in humans.
If it's even possible to engineer that. https://youtu.be/8I4BtnZ6Vmk

But okay, the positive tribalism feeling would spring to life if people lived like in the olden days -- working in close-knit communities that are battling in a tough environment really brings people together. Although, people can already trigger this by supporting sport teams, and still live in modern times.

The problem is replicating it feels hollow. You can often see the tension of society in the media it likes to consume. They hide their anxieties in stories. 

Have you ever wondered why sitcoms with a dad and no mother with lots of kids were popular in the early 90s. Things like full house? It represented an anxiety about more women entering the workforce and losing their mother.

I would say zombie movies being popular is the same thing. https://youtu.be/iSwAbQD-gZU

If you watch that 5 minute video you'll see the professor talk about that hollow tribalism brought about by following football teams or joining clubs etc. 

No doubt people would miss modern conveniences, but we also miss things like having real bonds, and engaging in the tribalistic parts of our brain/inner being.

I don't know enough about this specific scenario to comment on it.
It's a boring subject but if you just know how common it is for people to run away from civilized societies to a more tribal one, than you would get the gist. However I will point to something more modern to highlight the same point 

These special forces teams are famous for not only having a strong tribe they belong to when in battle, but their suicide rates when they return home.

Look up the suicide rate of special forces returning home at some point. What people don't realize is that these people don't commit suicide when deployed or in the harshest environments. It is only when they return home to the comforts of modern living that they blow their brains out.

It's said that special forces members are in fact safer in battle than they are returning home to the comfort of modern life. They literally kill themselves when that tribal part of them is not activated.

So here we have people who are in your theoretical situation. Modern people reverted back to being tribal. The results don't really line up with what you think will happen.

I think you are likely correct, when they are in a foxhole eating MREs, I am sure they miss stuff like a nice home cooked meal and internet and air conditioning. However what we can also see is that they don't miss it enough to kill themselves, however when they lose the tribal atmosphere and go to modern comforts, they miss it so bad the blow their brains out. 

I wonder if a similar thing happened to Lannan. He had a brotherhood and tribe that just couldn't be replicated at home, as sad as that is. 

It's just too dangerous to be yourself, but I haven't covered every part of myself.
Yes, removing the mask entirely would be harmful. We need one, we just have to be careful not to become the mask, otherwise it loses it's purpose. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
Do you know the title of his follow up work? I don't remember him making this argument.
I think he dedicates approximately 2 sentences to it in his manifesto, and he never uses words like transhumanist or other such things that only came to popularity after he was imprisoned.

As far as his follow up works are concerned. It has been 10 years since I have even glanced at anything and I would check Amazon first. If they aren't on Amazon it might require a difficult scavenger hunt that involves reaching out to various green anarchist groups. 

I was only looking into his work because I consider myself a transhumanist and I wanted to see the strongest rebuttal possible. I know he does a good job of writing people back who write him, but I didn't want to disrespect him by making him reiterate any points he already made in his published materials. 
So, his counterargument is along the lines of: not all technology causes/contributes to industrialization, that technology which does not is permissible, and that the technology which is permissible is the only technology that would exist? I'm struggling to see (theoretically) how he would prevent any technology that caused/contributed to industrialization would be stopped and also prevented in the future. For starters, too many creature comforts come from industrialization (e.g. supermarkets). 

I suppose I should have a look for his actual argument.

Being fulfilled without suffering is the preferred state of being -- that's what should be engineered in humans.
If it's even possible to engineer that. https://youtu.be/8I4BtnZ6Vmk
I don't have a step-by-step guide, but it's clear that suffering is an unnecessary limitation of the human psyche. The issue of suffering is further compounded by the fact that it's derived from a negative sum psychology (i.e. the human mind makes problems for it to fix).  Even if it turns out to be impossible (and perhaps then we could attempt to develop post-humans), it should be attempted.

I think the issue with the Matrix conception is that it's attempting to work with what humans are, rather than attempting to change humans. It's been the issue with any major Progressive work -- humans psychology overrides cerebral notions.

Through the barbaric, primitive lens of human existence, suffering had great evolutionary utility, and I can perhaps agree that suffering is needed for human existence (as human existence currently exists). Untested, untrained and coddled humans didn't last long in antiquity. So, I can understand why Ted would say that a harder life is better, but I'd counter by saying that even no life would be preferred to that life, and also that we could simply evolve past that limitation.

 But okay, the positive tribalism feeling would spring to life if people lived like in the olden days -- working in close-knit communities that are battling in a tough environment really brings people together. Although, people can already trigger this by supporting sport teams, and still live in modern times.
The problem is replicating it feels hollow. You can often see the tension of society in the media it likes to consume. They hide their anxieties in stories. 

Have you ever wondered why sitcoms with a dad and no mother with lots of kids were popular in the early 90s. Things like full house? It represented an anxiety about more women entering the workforce and losing their mother.

I would say zombie movies being popular is the same thing. https://youtu.be/iSwAbQD-gZU

If you watch that 5 minute video you'll see the professor talk about that hollow tribalism brought about by following football teams or joining clubs etc. 

No doubt people would miss modern conveniences, but we also miss things like having real bonds, and engaging in the tribalistic parts of our brain/inner being.
Look, I'm not going to argue that supporting sport teams is preferable tribalism to close-knit community tribalism, taking into account the comfort of one and the hardship of the other. If I had to pick one, I'd say that close-knit tied with hardship is preferable, but I don't have to pick either. I think tribalism needs to go, regardless of what form it takes.

I'm not sure about your anxiety argument. It's made inductively and I'm not sure all other variables are controlled for. It's possibly true, but it's a just-so story.

I don't know enough about this specific scenario to comment on it.
It's a boring subject but if you just know how common it is for people to run away from civilized societies to a more tribal one, than you would get the gist. However I will point to something more modern to highlight the same point 

These special forces teams are famous for not only having a strong tribe they belong to when in battle, but their suicide rates when they return home.

Look up the suicide rate of special forces returning home at some point. What people don't realize is that these people don't commit suicide when deployed or in the harshest environments. It is only when they return home to the comforts of modern living that they blow their brains out.

It's said that special forces members are in fact safer in battle than they are returning home to the comfort of modern life. They literally kill themselves when that tribal part of them is not activated.

So here we have people who are in your theoretical situation. Modern people reverted back to being tribal. The results don't really line up with what you think will happen.

I think you are likely correct, when they are in a foxhole eating MREs, I am sure they miss stuff like a nice home cooked meal and internet and air conditioning. However what we can also see is that they don't miss it enough to kill themselves, however when they lose the tribal atmosphere and go to modern comforts, they miss it so bad the blow their brains out. 

I wonder if a similar thing happened to Lannan. He had a brotherhood and tribe that just couldn't be replicated at home, as sad as that is. 
This is another just-so story. 

Perhaps they're committing suicide due to PTSD (and hence the exact opposite reason). Perhaps they're doing it because of what you said. Perhaps it's another reason. There's nothing deductive to conclude what you're arguing. 

I have no doubt that meaningful tribalism is sought-after by humans, though.

It's just too dangerous to be yourself, but I haven't covered every part of myself.
Yes, removing the mask entirely would be harmful. We need one, we just have to be careful not to become the mask, otherwise it loses it's purpose. 
Right.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
--> @Avery
So, his counterargument is along the lines of: not all technology causes/contributes to industrialization, that technology which does not is permissible

I am not going to scroll up to remember what I posted more accurately, but I wasn't talking about how we would or would not return to the same state. 

I think his argument against transhumanism was basically that the transhumanists claim that the downsides of industrialization will be eliminated by some future technology, and kazynski was merely skeptical of the claim this future technology was likely and he certainly felt like if it was possible than the current sacrifices weren't worth it. 

I think the issue with the Matrix conception is that it's attempting to work with what humans are, rather than attempting to change humans. It's been the issue with any major Progressive work -- humans psychology overrides cerebral notions.
Can humans fundamentally be changed? If we implanted cockroaches with some sort of super powers and increased their intelligence, wouldn't they just be really smart and powerful cockroaches? 

Ted would say that a harder life is better, but I'd counter by saying that even no life would be preferred to that life, and also that we could simply evolve past that limitation.
Cassie, the sooner we can drop this notion that life will be better, the better off we will be. You can't be great and have a comfortable life. You must suffer. Forget the rest of human society who seek to be like the pampered babies in Wall-E . 

As contradictory as it seems. You will never be happy unless you wake up every single day and impose as much suffering on yourself as humanly possible. 

Your mind is your enemy no matter how smart you become. In fact becoming smarter just makes your mind a more formidable enemy to yourself.  

Get up. You want to sleep more in the morning but if you want greatness you need to go for that jog. Your body wants the sugary cereal when your are done with the jog but you must suffer more and eat a nutritious breakfast. 

When you go to work, you will want to slack off and not go your hardest because you won't get recognized for your effort and it is easier, but you need to impose suffering on yourself. 

When you get off of work you'll want to watch a movie or blow some steam on Dart. Don't do it. Suffer more. Work on a new business or some philosophical book (you have the brain for it). 

When your boyfriend annoys you, you'll want to lash out. Don't do it suffer in silence and make yourself amused by his lame attempts at humor or his annoying habits.

You will not be happy until you suffer. Stop trying to escape from it. In fact don't just embrace suffering. Hope for it. Hope that the johs every morning turn into stress fractures so you can show how tough you are by not quitting.  Hope that your friend brings a cake over so you can try to repair that relationship when you throw her gift in the trash. 

Suffer. Just suffer and find more suffering. Be a warrior and go to war with yourself. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
So, his counterargument is along the lines of: not all technology causes/contributes to industrialization, that technology which does not is permissible
I am not going to scroll up to remember what I posted more accurately, but I wasn't talking about how we would or would not return to the same state. 

I think his argument against transhumanism was basically that the transhumanists claim that the downsides of industrialization will be eliminated by some future technology, and kazynski was merely skeptical of the claim this future technology was likely and he certainly felt like if it was possible than the current sacrifices weren't worth it. 
In that case, I'd like him to justify current human existence, particularly in opposition to antinatalist positions. It's a contradiction to "sacrifice" something that is a negative.

I can kinda agree that this future technology (which one eliminates the downsides of industrialization) may be unlikely. The technology is still mostly theoretical and that is certainly an issue. But I'm coming a place of having nothing to lose, whereas he is coming from a place of having something to lose.

I think the issue with the Matrix conception is that it's attempting to work with what humans are, rather than attempting to change humans. It's been the issue with any major Progressive work -- humans psychology overrides cerebral notions.
Can humans fundamentally be changed? If we implanted cockroaches with some sort of super powers and increased their intelligence, wouldn't they just be really smart and powerful cockroaches? 
Yes, and I would be upset if that's all transhumanism could provide humans. The underlying psychological issues of humans needs to be rectified. In fact, people thinking that becoming more powerful and intelligent would solve our problems, is precisely one of the issues I talk about in the OP: people thinking that they can think their problems away (they can't. History is littered of examples). Transhumanism needs to physically change the human brain, in order to rectify the issues of human psychology -- that's the real goal.

Ted would say that a harder life is better, but I'd counter by saying that even no life would be preferred to that life, and also that we could simply evolve past that limitation.
Cassie, the sooner we can drop this notion that life will be better, the better off we will be. You can't be great and have a comfortable life. You must suffer. 
Firstly, this whole argument isn't about me. It's about the trajectory of humanity.

Secondly, you're making my argument for me. The fact that you can't have a "great life" without suffering is proof that human life is inefficient and could be improved. 

Forget the rest of human society who seek to be like the pampered babies in Wall-E . 

As contradictory as it seems. You will never be happy unless you wake up every single day and impose as much suffering on yourself as humanly possible.  [...]
I think your life advice comes from a well-intentioned place, but this thread really has nothing to do with me personally.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
--> @Avery
The underlying psychological issues of humans needs to be rectified. 



Why?  I know this is probably tough to answer because instinctually we think suffering is bad because it is painful. A pain of sorts anyway. Often people will justify their current pain thinking about some distant reward and they cope that way. I know you are used to arguing against the normal cope of suffering can lead to greater pleasure, but get out of your comfort zone for a minute.

Why should I or anyone for that matter, value pleasure or hate suffering? Why should I even try to avoid suffering? 

Sure it is painful, but would becoming a sort of masochist solve for that. Wouldn't that be an easier route to deal with human suffering than say working on rewiring the human brain if that is even possible or if you can even call us human, once it is done. 



fact, people thinking that becoming more powerful and intelligent would solve our problems, is precisely one of the issues I talk about in the OP: people thinking that they can think their problems away (they can't. History is littered of examples). Transhumanism needs to physically change the human brain, in order to rectify the issues of human psychology -- that's the real goal
Would you choose to be hooked up to a machine that gives you unlimited unending pleasure?

What about tickles which derive pleasure in a person, even if it is involuntary. Would you be okay with 3 people who dedicated their life to non stop tickling you and slept in shifts for eternity?

It's non stop pleasure after all.


Secondly, you're making my argument for me. The fact that you can't have a "great life" without suffering is proof that human life is inefficient and could be improved. 
Why is that? Why is a great life without suffering preferable to one with suffering?

You know why depressed people have a hard time beating depression? They like it . It activates the reward centers of their brain and they enjoy suffering. That's kind of beside the point.

I think we are missing a lot due to the limitations of English and perhaps and human language. We label suffering as in pleasurable but depression activates the brains reward system. We get a type of high from running 10 miles. Not only after the run but during the last hardest stretch.

Cold showers are torture but if you can withstand it for the first few seconds it makes you smile. 

The words pain and pleasure are both imprecise at truly describing the range of feelings we have and they certainly aren't opposites as they go hand in hand. 

People do this a lot with seemingly opposite emotions. For example love and hate. Ayn Rand said the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. Pain and pleasure are not opposites.

It's why some of us get horny when we are given an atomic wedgie. 

I think your life advice comes from a well-intentioned place, but this thread really has nothing to do with me personally.
Well my time here is limited and I thought since I have given you so much bad advice in the past I should try to make up for it
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 8,120
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @WyIted
Pain, or discomfort or sadness or grief etc. etc.

That's the problem with the English language, we create a word distribute it widely and thereby dilute its meaning.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
The underlying psychological issues of humans needs to be rectified. 
Why?  I know this is probably tough to answer because instinctually we think suffering is bad because it is painful. A pain of sorts anyway. Often people will justify their current pain thinking about some distant reward and they cope that way. I know you are used to arguing against the normal cope of suffering can lead to greater pleasure, but get out of your comfort zone for a minute.

Why should I or anyone for that matter, value pleasure or hate suffering? Why should I even try to avoid suffering? 
Valuing pleasure and hating suffering is axiomatic. Suffering is the evolutionary adaptation tied to avoidance behavior -- we've adapted to avoid things that make us suffer. The inverse is true for pleasure. So, there is no choice, hence there is no question of "why should I?"

Sure it is painful, but would becoming a sort of masochist solve for that. Wouldn't that be an easier route to deal with human suffering than say working on rewiring the human brain if that is even possible or if you can even call us human, once it is done. 
I haven't thought of this before. It's certainly an idea.

I think this may lead to external forces destroying humans (or the new things humans become), because what we consider to be natural, healthy boundaries wouldn't exist, and thus there would be no barrier to stop genuinely damaging things affecting humans (that's currently a function of suffering).

It could also lead to an infinite loop of humans accidentally triggering suffering to a human, and then that triggers suffering in another human, and there's suddenly an infinite loop of people distracting each other with suffering.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more concrete plan for universal masochism, either. My objections are only theoretical, too, so it doesn't hold too much weight.

fact, people thinking that becoming more powerful and intelligent would solve our problems, is precisely one of the issues I talk about in the OP: people thinking that they can think their problems away (they can't. History is littered of examples). Transhumanism needs to physically change the human brain, in order to rectify the issues of human psychology -- that's the real goal
Would you choose to be hooked up to a machine that gives you unlimited unending pleasure?

What about tickles which derive pleasure in a person, even if it is involuntary. Would you be okay with 3 people who dedicated their life to non stop tickling you and slept in shifts for eternity?

It's non stop pleasure after all.
Yes. I think if transhumanism/posthumanism fails to improve the human condition, I think I would choose this over human extinction (I have thought about this one before).

A limitation with this is that the unending pleasure might need to increase exponentially in intensity, as the human body will adapt to the constant pleasure (similar to how drug addictions make each subsequent but equal hit less effective).

I'm also not convinced that human generated meaning is an objective requirement, particularly when you consider that the brain can be unable to tell the difference between reality and unreality (e.g. vivid dreams feeling real, and your body physically responding to them). So, I'm just fine with a 'meaningful life' becoming extinct for the trade of a constantly pleasurable life.

Secondly, you're making my argument for me. The fact that you can't have a "great life" without suffering is proof that human life is inefficient and could be improved. 
Why is that? Why is a great life without suffering preferable to one with suffering?
Avoidance of suffering is axiomatic. Masochism is a mental disorder. 

You know why depressed people have a hard time beating depression? They like it . It activates the reward centers of their brain and they enjoy suffering. That's kind of beside the point.
I'm not sure this is true. Do you have proof of this?

I think we are missing a lot due to the limitations of English and perhaps and human language. We label suffering as in pleasurable but depression activates the brains reward system. We get a type of high from running 10 miles. Not only after the run but during the last hardest stretch.

Cold showers are torture but if you can withstand it for the first few seconds it makes you smile. 
This is inefficient and the suffering-pleasure sequencing can lead to only negative affect being generated sometimes.

It would be superior (and more efficient) if only pleasure (or any positive affect) were generated.

When engaging in a run, the suffering is guaranteed but the pleasure is not, so there are times when only suffering is generated (especially in the case of an injury). Cold showers can be so brutal that you can turn it off and only suffer (although you probably won't get injured in the shower).

The words pain and pleasure are both imprecise at truly describing the range of feelings we have and they certainly aren't opposites as they go hand in hand. 

People do this a lot with seemingly opposite emotions. For example love and hate. Ayn Rand said the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. Pain and pleasure are not opposites.
People avoid pain. People gravitate towards pleasure. I think that paradigm makes them opposites. Ayn Rand is not the final say on what is factual.

It's why some of us get horny when we are given an atomic wedgie. 
Sounds like you're talking from experience. My underpants don't go that high :)

I think your life advice comes from a well-intentioned place, but this thread really has nothing to do with me personally.
Well my time here is limited and I thought since I have given you so much bad advice in the past I should try to make up for it
Well okay. Thank you.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 659
3
4
6
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
6
Do you have proof
I got it from this book and a lot of psychologists seem to quote similar things. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1626251207/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1626251207&linkCode=as2&tag=spacforrent-20&linkId=77N7NCUP6RIJGHSV

Valuing pleasure and hating suffering is axiomatic
Agreed.


So, there is no choice, hence there is no question of "why should I?"

Sure, naturally we suffer right? We all get old and get sick and die. I can just tell you that personally I am working real hard on myself to embrace pain. To seek it out. It's made me happier. Pain doesn't equal sadness nor does happiness equal pleasure. 

Let's be honest here. We lack enough words and descriptors in the English language and perhaps any language to actually be able to talk about the nuances of different types of pains and pleasures and how they overlap. If somebody feels physical pain while simultaneously getting sexual pleasure it's confusing  because by your definitions of pain and pleasure or how I perceive your definitions, than you shouldn't be able to feel both at once and certainly pain can't simultaneously cause pleasure or pleasure simultaneously pain, but we know both dichotomies can happen. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a more concrete plan for universal masochism, either. My objections are only theoretical, too, so it doesn't hold too much weight.
I think some religions and pseudo religions do this to a certain extent so we have examples. I would say that stoics, Buddhists and neo platonists are generally happier and all don't mind suffering. 


It would be superior (and more efficient) if only pleasure (or any positive affect) were generated.
This is bullshit. I don't know what it is like for females but . I have came and the mushroom head of the penis feels intense pleasure sensations afterwards. So intense that a continual rubbing of it is unbearable. I hear it is even worse for uncircumcised males. If a woman were to try and rub the sensitive area for too long I would have to smack her hand away because the intense pleasure is painful. I thought tickling would be a close comparable thing. I think overstimulation of the clitoris could be an example in some or most females even. 

I knoww there are women that have up to 100 involuntary orgasms a day and they virtually all seek a solution because they don't like it. To tickle a kid even after they ask you to stop is torture and in fact was used as torture in some ancient societies. 

I think your philosophy needs either a more clear definition of suffering and pain or we need to admit it falls short of accurately describing what the human condition seeks. 

He'll even the more elementary definitions for pain and pleasure don't work. Have you ever seen anyone who is rich young, is desired by the opposite sex to a strong degree and the people of the same sex all aspire to be them. These people often follow self destructive paths. They hate the lack of suffering and pain in their life. I would say it is torture to deprive a person of pain. 

This hurts me to tell you a lot of this because I consider myself a transhumanist and I want to see radical life extension, but I think it's downfall is how many transhumanists are in general very hedonistic. 

When engaging in a run, the suffering is guaranteed but the pleasure is not, so there are times when only suffering is generated (especially in the case of an injury).

You should look at David Goggins talk about his first 100 mile run. Afterwards he had shit himself and pissed himself and was bleeding out of his dick. He couldn't move. His wife wanted to take him to the hospital. You know what he told her.


"I know I need to go to the hospital but let me enjoy this"

He said he never experienced so much pain in his life and he just wanted to enjoy it before the hospital gave him pain killers. There is some pleasure maybe immense pleasure in pain. 


Cold showers can be so brutal that you can turn it off and only suffer (although you probably won't get injured in the shower
It is tough and it sucks everytime. I enjoy lifting weights but am forced to do bodyweight exercises now. I can tell you the weights I find fun, but the body weight stuff is torture. Yet I do it. I willingly suffer and embrace it. 

Ayn Rand is not the final say on what is factual.
Correct she is not the final words on things I disagree with her on

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
--> @WyIted
Which part of the book demonstrates what you're arguing? What's the line of reasoning? Is there reference to particular parts/interactions in the brain? 

So, there is no choice, hence there is no question of "why should I?"

Sure, naturally we suffer right? We all get old and get sick and die. I can just tell you that personally I am working real hard on myself to embrace pain. To seek it out. It's made me happier. Pain doesn't equal sadness nor does happiness equal pleasure. 

Let's be honest here. We lack enough words and descriptors in the English language and perhaps any language to actually be able to talk about the nuances of different types of pains and pleasures and how they overlap. If somebody feels physical pain while simultaneously getting sexual pleasure it's confusing  because by your definitions of pain and pleasure or how I perceive your definitions, than you shouldn't be able to feel both at once and certainly pain can't simultaneously cause pleasure or pleasure simultaneously pain, but we know both dichotomies can happen. 
We don't need to delve into that nuance because it's preferable to only experience pleasure, rather than pain and pleasure. So, we should aim to reconstruct humans to only experience pleasure (and deal with other issues, like motivation, without pain in the paradigm). 

I wouldn't mind seeing a more concrete plan for universal masochism, either. My objections are only theoretical, too, so it doesn't hold too much weight.
I think some religions and pseudo religions do this to a certain extent so we have examples. I would say that stoics, Buddhists and neo platonists are generally happier and all don't mind suffering. 
Stoicism offers mitigation against suffering, rather than indifferent or totally in favor of it. They certainly don't see it as a good thing, but rather something to contend with and minimize the impact of. 

Buddhism involves around the mantra 'life is suffering', and again attempts to circumvent the harshness of suffering by altering human mental states. 

I don't know a whole lot about neoplatonism, but stoicism and Buddhism are not machoistic. They are ways of thinking to mitigate or tolerate suffering, rather than ways of thinking to enjoy pain.

It would be superior (and more efficient) if only pleasure (or any positive affect) were generated.
This is bullshit. I don't know what it is like for females but . I have came and the mushroom head of the penis feels intense pleasure sensations afterwards. So intense that a continual rubbing of it is unbearable. I hear it is even worse for uncircumcised males. If a woman were to try and rub the sensitive area for too long I would have to smack her hand away because the intense pleasure is painful. I thought tickling would be a close comparable thing. I think overstimulation of the clitoris could be an example in some or most females even. 
If the pleasure becomes pain, then isn't it just pain? I don't see issue with my definitions in your first example.


I knoww there are women that have up to 100 involuntary orgasms a day and they virtually all seek a solution because they don't like it. To tickle a kid even after they ask you to stop is torture and in fact was used as torture in some ancient societies. 
As for the involuntary orgasms, that's quite a tricky one. I don't think there is issue with the pleasure, but rather the form in which the pleasure takes, and hence there is a kind of pain involved. Whether it's experienced in a public setting (which would cause embarrassment), or perhaps in front of your children (more embarrassment), or perhaps when you're trying to complete a task (annoyance), it's never the pleasure itself that is the issue, but always the circumstance.

Nonetheless, this only further makes my argument that the human brain needs to be redesigned. For example, you wouldn't feel interrupted in completing a task if you didn't first have the desire to complete one (which is a human problem -- wanting to complete tasks in order to feel fulfilled). 

I think your philosophy needs either a more clear definition of suffering and pain or we need to admit it falls short of accurately describing what the human condition seeks.
I still think pain and suffering are okay to use. The closest an example got to becoming an issue is masochism, and even then you could argue that the physical pain effectively becomes pleasure, and vice versa. If you wanted to use comfort/discomfort instead, that might make the language clearer, but I still think the semantics are fine.

He'll even the more elementary definitions for pain and pleasure don't work. Have you ever seen anyone who is rich young, is desired by the opposite sex to a strong degree and the people of the same sex all aspire to be them. These people often follow self destructive paths. They hate the lack of suffering and pain in their life. I would say it is torture to deprive a person of pain. 
This is showcasing my argument. You can give someone everything you'd think they would want, and they STILL need goals and ambition to get through life. Their brain starts to create problems to fix. Moreover, the problems don't actually exist, but people's minds will create some just to help people feel their lives are worthwhile.

We don't need people's minds to create fake problems. We don't need to make broken chairs in order to have something to fix. We need to redesign the human mind so that it stops doing this objectively pointless activity.

This hurts me to tell you a lot of this because I consider myself a transhumanist and I want to see radical life extension, but I think it's downfall is how many transhumanists are in general very hedonistic. 
What else should a transhumanist be then? I think recreation of human fantasies (e.g. super-strength, super-speed) are rather stupid because they're built on the objectively pointless goals of humans. I think indifference to suffering is denial of an axiomatic fact. I don't see what other goals transhumanists should have.

When engaging in a run, the suffering is guaranteed but the pleasure is not, so there are times when only suffering is generated (especially in the case of an injury).
You should look at David Goggins talk about his first 100 mile run. Afterwards he had shit himself and pissed himself and was bleeding out of his dick. He couldn't move. His wife wanted to take him to the hospital. You know what he told her.

"I know I need to go to the hospital but let me enjoy this"

He said he never experienced so much pain in his life and he just wanted to enjoy it before the hospital gave him pain killers. There is some pleasure maybe immense pleasure in pain. 
Why couldn't we have a contraption that releases the dosage of pleasure he experienced? We do we need to have him run around and destroy his body? It's just not efficient at all and objectively pointless. Why go to point A and B when you can just go to B?

Cold showers can be so brutal that you can turn it off and only suffer (although you probably won't get injured in the shower
It is tough and it sucks everytime. I enjoy lifting weights but am forced to do bodyweight exercises now. I can tell you the weights I find fun, but the body weight stuff is torture. Yet I do it. I willingly suffer and embrace it. 
I completely understand that the current human needs suffering to properly interact with the world. I just think the current human can be improved upon. Imagine getting the benefits of weights without ever lifting any.

Ayn Rand is not the final say on what is factual.
Correct she is not the final words on things I disagree with her on
Very funny.