Total posts: 407
-->
@Lemming
"A popular fan theory claims that James Bond is a codename assigned to whichever agent is serving as 007, and while it's clever, it's incorrect."Course there were also some web pages that argued James Bond 'was a code name,007, I could believe to be a code number,But I 'think (Am not certain) that there is only one James Bond,Like there is only one Superman,Even if there is Superman in older era movies,And Superman in new era movies,Just his position in time changed,Not the person.I don't think that the character of James Bond has a history of being played by different races or lifestyle choices,Seems odd to me, to change it,Characters have a look, an identity.
Ian Fleming invented the character and according to his
books, which I read many years ago, James Bond was English and white. Fleming
even objected to Sean Connery playing him because he was Scottish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
As I have said previously I have no dispute
with the logic of Benatar’s argument but no
matter how logical it is unless it can be realistically implemented it simply
isn’t viable.
To address this point you make:
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.
If they are not convinced then what is their motive and what
would motivate people to abandon their most basic biological instinct to
survive and to ensure the survival of their genes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
sure, but i guess a little too abstract for everyone to take as seriously as some sort of interdimensional intrusion
Looks good, unfortunately it is only available on Sky here in the UK and I don’t
subscribe to Sky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"climate change" is another attempt to do this
Well we certainly created it but unlike the alien invasion anthropogenic
climate change is very real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the conclusion is that in order for humanity to consider themselves as a single ingroup - they must perceive an alien threat
I would hope there maybe alternative ways to uniting the human race but
that would probably do it. I think the odds of an actual alien invasion are
rather unlikely, but as we are quiet good at manufacturing enemies and we have
the technology, I’m sure we could invent something suitably nasty to scare
people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you familiar with the story of the watchmen ?
No, it isn’t a story I’m familiar with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Re-reading older posts in topic as I think, noticed these posts talking about empathy for outgroup,I'd argue that such empathy can be felt because the outgroup is 'also an ingroup,Take soldiers of different countries at war,Ingroup one first thinks of is their nations,But they also have ingroups of their humanity, as fellow soldiers, as same ethnic group or culture at times.
It is possible to increase your in-group to include those who
you may have perceived as being outside that group. This can be achieved through
integration but there has to be willingness to integrate or to have circumstance
that force it on you.
Unfortunately concept of the tribal out-group is a politely useful tool, those in power use it frequently and would not be willing to relinquish it. An example was Brexit here in the UK, where it was used to denigrate the EU. Europeans were the bad guys who wanted to take away our national identity and our freedoms; we were the good guys, British and proud of it. Tribal nationalism is easy to provoke and people fall for it.
There is however one group of people who seem to transcend this group identity and that is children. We tend to have feelings empathy towards children, even those who are complete strangers, and we have an instinctive feeling to protect them from harm.
Personally I would like to see the group identity encompass all humanity. I don’t know if it is possible, you would need to eliminate nationalism, racism and religious divide … not easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Yes, those are problems, but that does not affect the veracity of the Benatar's argument.If you were able to step outside the maze of your personal life and the emotions involving it, and looked at all life in general, what would you conclude? Would you think 2 year olds dying from dehydration in Africa was good? How about prey, like rabbits and antelopes, living in fear most of their lives? That's the argument which should be addressed because it accounts for all life and objectively evaluates the situation.Furthermore, you wouldn't need to convince everyone that life isn't worth living, in order to carry out its logical conclusion (cessation of reproduction). Not saying I'm about to do anything of that sort, but it's something to understand.
If I was to step outside my personal life and emotions, then
I would be indifferent to 2 year olds dying from dehydration.
You would need to convince people to cease reproduction and that isn’t going to happen as it goes against a most basic instinct. Even in a world that is becoming overpopulated people are not going to stop reproducing.
You would need to convince people to cease reproduction and that isn’t going to happen as it goes against a most basic instinct. Even in a world that is becoming overpopulated people are not going to stop reproducing.
I accept the validity of Benatar’s argument from a logical
position. But pleasure and suffering are not objective concepts, they are subject
to human perception and the problem with the argument is that it is looking at
existence from a human perspective which is driven to an extent by emotion and
yet is trying to introduce a concept that attempts to bypass that emotion. It
doesn’t work.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are actually a lot of current hypotheses from this year.
Any current hypotheses regarding the origins of the coronavirus
would be of interest.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I know you guys are having a back and forth on this, but I actually supplied evidence of the lab leak theory. . .
Not really, the article’s main purpose seemed to be to attack
Dr Fauci. We know that the Wuhan laboratory received funding from the US and that it was studying coronavirus. If there is any evidence to support genetic
manipulation, I would have liked to see some links or a mention of peer reviewed
research that could be looked up.
My original post related to the creation of the virus through genetic manipulation, not the possibility of a lab leak.
I found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. They didn’t just sell seafood but a wide variety of animals.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
My original post related to the creation of the virus through genetic manipulation, not the possibility of a lab leak.
I found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. They didn’t just sell seafood but a wide variety of animals.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
More likely no recent supporting evidence is available. It's why scientists ask for multiple studies to get a reliable conclusion.
If there is no evidence of genetic manipulation then I can’t
see how you would try to find another lack of evidence to support the previous
lack of evidence.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That makes the claim a little bit suspicious then.The scientific method relies on repeatable outcomes from similar data. If the claim is strong, this outcome should have some literature from this year.
Or it could suggest that no new evidence is available.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am transcribing notes for a deaf person at the moment so I don't have time to do in depth research right now. Do you have any articles from this year?
No, nothing recent I’m afraid.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
On “Media Bias Fact Check” it is received High for factual reporting.Media Bias Fact Check is a hack website run by a climate-change cult member and a hardcore anti-alternative-medicine skeptic.His idea of science is a democratic vote by western, particularly European Liberal Democrat and Corporate American, scientists. And his idea of a fact check is whatever the ICFN says is fact, even though the ICFN has promoted conspiracy theories, like the Trump-Russia Collusion, and other patently false statements as fact.Just ask the folks over at https://examine.com/ or https://www.lifeextension.com/ if there is zero credible evidence that a great many alternative treatments work. They have literally hundreds of studies that prove many alternative treatments work, and hundreds of studies showing which ones probably don't work. Alternative medicine is not pseudoscience. Many of the assertions of it have been proven in multiple studies, showing high falsifiability. But the owner of Media Bias Fact Check rejects anything that isn't Western Liberal Democrat Corporatist medicine as fact.In fact here is his opinion of The Epoch Times:Further, the Epoch Times frequently publishes pseudoscience news, such as Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses. They also publish false claims from Pseudoscience and anti-vaccination activist Joeseph Mercola who has a long track record of publishing misinformation. Finally, the above referenced NBC News report states, “In addition to claims that alien abductions are real and the “deep state engineered the drug epidemic,” the channel pushes the QAnon conspiracy theory, which falsely posits that the same “Spygate” cabal is a front for a global pedophile ring being taken down by Trump.”The "pseudoscience" that The Epoch Times promotes is articles written by medical doctors and psychologists on meditation and other alternative and ancient Chinese treatments. I would know, since, until very recently, I was a regular reader of their website. Joseph Mercola is not a pseudoscientist. He is a medical doctor with an actual medical degree who actually cites studies in his articles. You don't have to agree with him. But calling a medical doctor who cites research and studies in every article a "pseudoscientist" is highly spurious behavior.One again, you don't have to agree with Dr. Joseph Mercola. But a medical doctor publishing summaries of research is certainly not "pseudoscience" simply because his positions disagree with yours. That is extremely lazy fact checking.Also, did you notice how they called a scientist giving his opinion on supernormal abilities pseudoscience? The CIA extensively researched ESP and meditation for years and came to the same conclusion. Is the CIA a bunch of pseudoscientific hacks?The only thing that website consistently gets right is the bias of the websites. But any attempts at labeling them pseudoscience or propaganda is based purely on his own cherry picking of sources. Not based on any real, objective criterion.One such example was when he "fact checked" Just Facts by using a gun study with atrocious methodology as a response to an article in Just Facts Daily that cited at least 5 or 6 studies and government reports on gun violence. He later had to heighten his credibility rating for Just Facts after the website eviscerated his "fact check" of their website.The guy who runs that website is a hardcore liberal Democrat who lets his bias show. BUT, he does get the bias correct. And that is one reason I consistently go to the website. Just solely to find out the bias of a website.
Thanks, I didn’t know all that, “Media Bias Fact Check”
has certainly gone up in my estimation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Provoke controversy?? Dude, the site I clicked bombarded me with pharmecuetical ads. You have some chutzpah with that claim.
I use an addblocker. Carrying adverts doesn’t equate to provoking
controversy. However, I am wary of news sources and having done a quick check on Genetic
Engineering and Biotechnology News (GEN) it would seem that is largely free from bias. On “Media Bias Fact Check” it is received High for factual
reporting. Here is a link:
You have no further information on the origins of coronavirus
and the possibility of genetic manipulation then, as I would be genuinely interested.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That article is 2 years old lol. When we had a lot less information.
Then perhaps you could provide a link to this new
information and I would suggest a reputable scientific site and not some public
media source, which may simply seek to provoke controversy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.
The argument is to prove the existence of God, exclusively
the Christian God and as such ignores the possibility of other gods. The problem
is that the argument could be equally used to validate the existence of those
other gods. So if it can be used to validate the existence of other gods, then
the Christian God whose main attribute is his uniqueness cannot exist.
Created:
-->
@Vici
well considering how they created the virus, I wouldn't put it past them. who actually disagrees with this post? W OP
There is no evidence to support allegations that the virus
was created in a Wuhan laboratory
beyond conjecture. Scientific evidence shows it evolved naturally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this should be done with all royal assets
Most royal properties are open to the public, including Balmoral Castle where the Queen died. Although they are not totally open to the public if the Monarch
is in residence, for privacy and security reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
In the future, I'm going to make a more concrete post operationalizing some of the core arguments of transhumanism/posthumanism, so look out for that if you're interested.
I will keep an eye out.
It's funny that you're directing me to David Benatar because that's precisely whom I got the argument from :)I won't mince words: unless humans can get their act together and bring about a far better existence for life (not just human life), I don't think life is worth continuing.Anyway, as to your position, you say that if we have "not existed" and that "suffering and pleasure do not exist", then wouldn't this nothingness state be neutral? Obviously, there would be no one to judge this, but if people were to exist, we immediately enter a worse state (suffering).
I
read David Benatar's book “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into
Existence” some years ago and it is hard to fault the logic of his asymmetry argument.
As to whether life is worth continuing, I’m not sure how to evaluate “worth” I don’t think you can, we are simply animals and there is no more worth to our existence than any other living thing. Our existence only matters to us and is of such importance many of us refuse to accept the finality of death, hence a belief in an afterlife. That is why I think any attempt to realise David Benatar's argument would fail, because we are not totally driven by logic, we are driven by emotion and instinct, and our most basic instincts are to survive and procreate.
Is non-existence neutral, I don’t see why not but if it is neutral then there is no better or worse.
As to whether life is worth continuing, I’m not sure how to evaluate “worth” I don’t think you can, we are simply animals and there is no more worth to our existence than any other living thing. Our existence only matters to us and is of such importance many of us refuse to accept the finality of death, hence a belief in an afterlife. That is why I think any attempt to realise David Benatar's argument would fail, because we are not totally driven by logic, we are driven by emotion and instinct, and our most basic instincts are to survive and procreate.
Is non-existence neutral, I don’t see why not but if it is neutral then there is no better or worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the sticker price of the assets doesn't include the SAVINGS of all the maintenance and upkeep expensesmany old estates can't afford these fees and are forced to sell and or fall into disrepair
Many of the old estates have been opened up to
the public and their owners charge an admission fee to pay for upkeep and maintenance.
Some estates have been handed over to organisations like English Heritage and the National Trust, they are funded by charging admission fees, grants from the National Lottery and as many of these old houses are of historic interest there are also government grants.
Visiting old stately homes and castles is something I enjoy.
Some estates have been handed over to organisations like English Heritage and the National Trust, they are funded by charging admission fees, grants from the National Lottery and as many of these old houses are of historic interest there are also government grants.
Visiting old stately homes and castles is something I enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Reading through everything so far we seem to have reached some
agreement, apart from your final point.
If you've never existed, you cannot suffer or experience pleasure.
If you exist, your suffering is guaranteed but pleasure is not.
That's how we can say one is better than the other.
My position is that if we have not existed then suffering
and pleasure do not exist and you can’t say that suffering or pleasure is worse
or better than something that doesn’t exist.
However, I think we may be looking at existence from a different perspectives, what you say reminds me of an Anti-Natalist viewpoint and for me there are some logical arguments that do substantiate that viewpoint.
If you are not familiar Anti-Natalism, rather than doing a cut and past, here is link to an article on it. I would suggest you check out Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument, it is quite brief and I think it may corroborate what you are saying.
However, I think we may be looking at existence from a different perspectives, what you say reminds me of an Anti-Natalist viewpoint and for me there are some logical arguments that do substantiate that viewpoint.
If you are not familiar Anti-Natalism, rather than doing a cut and past, here is link to an article on it. I would suggest you check out Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument, it is quite brief and I think it may corroborate what you are saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
and should be auctioned off and given to THE PEOPLE or at least made available for PUBLIC USE
I think there would be huge public objection to selling them off as they
are seen as part of our heritage. Their estimated value is 4 Billion which is
far less than the money we wasted on our two silly aircraft carriers.
Although if we were to sell them off I’m sure Donald Trump would love the Imperial State Crown to wear.
Although if we were to sell them off I’m sure Donald Trump would love the Imperial State Crown to wear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I said that the language used to attack them was of a kind normally reserved for serial killers, not that they were serial killers.They were portrayed as serial killers.You said it your self, “I said that the language used to attack them was of a kind normally reserved for serial killers.”They were in the country when the Queen died and will remain here until after the funeral.Harry was the last to arrive at Balmoral and first to leave for London the next day. They cannot associate the Queens death with Harry.So far Charles seems to be doing a good job and from the reaction of the crowds he appears to be well liked.Wait till Australia, Scotland and the Caribbean islands break away ties from the monarchy after queen's death.
Okay, total communication breakdown, I give up.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Acrophobia.Fear of heights.Perhaps you lived in a ground floor apartment.Though it's good to hear that acquired immunity to COVID has elevated your perspective.
Agoraphobia, my bad.
Although I’m not keen on heights either.
Although I’m not keen on heights either.
I think that having Covid and although it was unpleasant, I have
had colds that have felt worse, that eased a lot of the trepidation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Obviously they were not serial killers. They were not even in the country when the Queen died.Charles is finally King. He doesn’t need help to embarrass the monarchy.
I said that the language used to attack them was of a
kind normally reserved for serial killers, not that they were serial killers.
They were in the country when the Queen died and will remain
here until after the funeral.
So far Charles seems to be doing a good job and from the
reaction of the crowds he appears to be well liked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the royal family are literally the most expensive welfare family in historythey are merely ornamentalthey have no place in governmenttheir jewels should be auctioned off and their assets seized by the statebecause what they "own" is property of the british people
They are not poor but most of what they have belongs to “The
Crown,” which is a term used to represent the legal position of Monarch as head
of state, rather than personally or as an individual. So all the stuff like the palaces
and the jewels actually belong to the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
They were on the Oprah Show airing their grievances.
They had been attacked and maligned by the press long before
that interview. When you read some of the remarks in the comments section of
these newspapers, the language used is of a kind normally reserved for serial
killers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If King Charles screws up. The monarchy will be damaged beyond repair.Just look at the damage Harry and Meghan have caused.
Harry and Meghan have done nothing to deserve the
condemnation they have received and that has been driven by the gutter press,
particularly the Sun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is the biggest load of old bollocks I have ever heard. Humans are the most unsuited species for nature than any single species on earth. Humans will very rarely last one single night in his natural state in the wild.
Modern humans who live in our technological society probably
wouldn’t do well but humans adapted to living in the wild state do very well. We
evolved as tool users and with our intelligence, our ability to communicate and work together, combined with our stamina, humans can outrun almost any animal over long distances,
we were able to hunt any animal, even something the size of a mammoth, as for predators
they soon learnt that human meat came with sharp points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Maximizing pleasure is way more than "remotely" objective. It's abundantly obvious when you're suffering or in a pleasurably state most of the time. Maybe there are fringe cases where you have trauma that you don't consciously realize, but people can tell the difference between getting shot and eating ice-cream.Another superior trait (one which you touch on next) is the ability to stay in a blissful state, thus further eradicating suffering and even baseline neutrality (where mood is somewhere in the middle). Yes, that would kill incentive -- I 100% agree. However, incentive originates from suffering, of which is a negative experience (i.e. you have to lack something in order to have incentive to want something). Plus, if it's possible to program humans to simply do the right thing (and yes, there will be difficulty in establishing 'the right thing'), then incentives will be rendered obsolete.As for a 'personal feeling of satisfaction', these could be the solutions:(a) You manually trigger the neurons to simulate a 'personal feeling of satisfaction' experience (ideally permanently)(b) You remove this brain complex altogetherOf course, this is super theoretical, but society could theoretically function without incentive.
As you say it is theoretical but to try and envisage an
environment that includes only pleasure. There would be no need for external
factors that give pleasure like social interaction, acquiring knowledge, any sort
of entertainment, physical activities, reading and watching films etc. Unless
they could be eliminated basic physical needs would have to be catered for. I’m
imagining something akin to that scene in the Matrix where everyone is kept in
these pods that supply their physical needs. To take it further just eliminate
the body and keep a brain that is permanently stimulated to receive pleasure.
I am making no value judgments regarding this; I am simply trying to look at it objectively.
I am making no value judgments regarding this; I am simply trying to look at it objectively.
If you truly think that, that we can't say one is better than the other, perhaps it's better to have never been if there is no guarantee that your life will be a positive experience? Especially since that if we were guaranteed a positive life, that still wouldn't be better than no life? Maybe it's not worth having life at all?In other words, it is better we orchestrate a graceful exit for life on Earth.Wouldn't you agree?
The reason that we can't say one is better than the other, is
that non-existence by its very nature doesn’t exist and as such you can’t
improve on something that doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t say existence is
better, and there is nothing to agree to.
Created:
Posted in:
I think a college/university education is beneficial, certainly
regarding the job market, although there are those who make a financial success
without such an education. It was beneficial for me as I obtained employment
in a job I enjoyed and that was reasonably well paid.
I do think tuition fees should be abolished and entrance to university should be based on merit not on personal wealth. Higher education here in Britain used to be effectively free, as the state paid tuition fees and also offered maintenance grants to many. Then tuition fees were introduced across the United Kingdom in September 1998, ironically under Tony Blair’s supposedly Labour government.
I have personally known a number of young people, with the necessary academic ability and who have been put off applying for university simply because they didn’t want to accumulate the huge debts from taking out student loans.
Education should be for everyone, not based on social background and the ability to pay.
I do think tuition fees should be abolished and entrance to university should be based on merit not on personal wealth. Higher education here in Britain used to be effectively free, as the state paid tuition fees and also offered maintenance grants to many. Then tuition fees were introduced across the United Kingdom in September 1998, ironically under Tony Blair’s supposedly Labour government.
I have personally known a number of young people, with the necessary academic ability and who have been put off applying for university simply because they didn’t want to accumulate the huge debts from taking out student loans.
Education should be for everyone, not based on social background and the ability to pay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
You’re right, technically not black, but still people of color and African.
“People of colour” seems a somewhat ambiguous term, all
people are of colour, even the white ones.
Turks consider themselves to be white.
Turks consider themselves to be white.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Bet you didn't know white Europeans were enslaved by blacks (Barbery pirates)
The Barbary Pirates were not black, they were Ottoman corsairs who had settled on the Barbary Coast, so predominantly Turkish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
drugs don't cause crimea lack of drugs causes crime
On a serious note, I have always thought that here in the UK we should make heroin available to addicts through prescription and that way
you remove the drug related crime and destroy the market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it may be cheaper to keep them basically sedated (especially on fentanyl which is ridiculously cheap)80% of inmates return to prison on new charges
You would definitely have a crime wave when all those addicts
are released and need money to feed their addiction and will do anything to get
it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps we should provide free opium and or heroin and or fentanyl to prison inmates
I think creating a prison full of addicts may just cause a
few problems when they are released.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I think emotion could be dealt with in various ways so that it doesn't have to enter complete extinction:(1) I think you could decouple it from life's interactivity, and so have people in a constant state of bliss regardless of what is happening to them (outlined in one of my previous responses). Deactivating parts of the brain (or individual synapses) could achieve this.(2) More theoretically, I think it could be morphed into something else that produces far more positive affect more frequently yet retains interactivity. Perhaps tinkering with connectome exchanges, or even at the basal neuronal level, could help achieve this.(3) An artificial emotion replacement, one that is superior (i.e. with less/no negative affect; with more positive affect), replaces emotions but not in spirit. I'm not sure what that would be, though.
How it is technically achieved and whether it is possible
doesn’t really matter if there isn’t a definable objective. There is still too
much subjectivity as to what would constitute a superior human, the only
remotely objective concept would be to maximise pleasure. However, to live in a state of personal
bliss would probably kill the incentive to achieve anything, as such incentive
is driven by the need to obtain some personal feelings of satisfaction and by living
in a state of bliss that satisfaction would already have been attained. I don’t
think society could function under those conditions.
I think having masses of positive affect, especially in absence of negative affect, is better than nothing.Wouldn't you agree?
As existence and non-existence are such profoundly different
states, I don’t think one can be said to be better than the other, particularly
as non-existence has nothing that can be improved upon.
From a position of debate I try to remain detached, but to answer
that question from a purely personal perspective. As an animal with a survival
instinct and a reasonable quality of life I would say existence is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Brits spend 51% of their day looking at TVs, pcs, laptops, smartphones all products of American science and culture. Since 33% of the day is spent sleeping that leaves 16% of each day for other activities. It is therefore accurate to say the average Brit spends 3 times as much time being entranced by American cultural artifacts then they do any other activity.If you are not impressed by the internet, films like Star Wars and the Avenger, TV shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad, music such as Rock & Roll, Hip-Hop, food like candy, peanut butter, fast food, potatoes, tomatoes, corn, soda pop, hamburgers, fried chicken, tech such as the transistor, the integrated circuit, dishwashers, refrigerators, microwave ovens, atomic energy, GPS that's fine- we have other interested customers.
You said “Americans” which I took to mean the people and
presumably their culture, not the technology or local produce. Perhaps “entranced”
wasn’t the best choice of words as it suggests something that inspires wonder
and delight and I doubt if all Americans see it from that perspective.
Personally I think America has produced some amazing technological achievements and some great thinkers. Conversely,
I don’t think MAGA did the country any favours, although it did give us across the
pond something to laugh at.
Created:
Posted in:
Firstly the books, I really enjoyed the first three books despite
George R R Martin’s occasional laps into trivia, mainly what people are wearing
or eating. The next two books I found something of a disappointment, apart from
Arya Stark’s story nothing really develops and the further I got into them the
more I thought he was loosing the plot and he would have problems pulling it together.
I have now lost interest and the Winds of Winter has been so long in coming
that when it does I may not bother reading it.
The TV show I also thoroughly enjoyed and I think the writers did an excellent job considering they had run out of source material. That was until the last two series, where for me and I think for many others things went totally wrong.
Firstly there was a sense of everything being rushed, the writing became lazy and there was little depth to the dialogue. The final series was a disaster, firstly there had been this build-up from the first series that “Winter is Coming” and with it the scary white walkers, bringing a sense of slowly impending doom. Then all of a sudden, big battle, all the white walkers are dead, time to quickly move on, a total anticlimax.
Secondly, there is Daenerys Targaryen, this beautiful young girl who we are with from the first episode, we see her suffer, overcome adversity, the hatching of her dragons and her rise to power. She is the hero, she defends the oppressed and we are rooting for her all the way. Then all of a sudden, for very little reason she goes mad and exterminates loads on innocent men women and children, then gets killed … WHAT!
There were other disappointments but those are the main two. I have the box sets of all the series in my DVD collection and I had looked forward to watching them repeatedly but after that ending I will probably donate them to a charity shop.
The TV show I also thoroughly enjoyed and I think the writers did an excellent job considering they had run out of source material. That was until the last two series, where for me and I think for many others things went totally wrong.
Firstly there was a sense of everything being rushed, the writing became lazy and there was little depth to the dialogue. The final series was a disaster, firstly there had been this build-up from the first series that “Winter is Coming” and with it the scary white walkers, bringing a sense of slowly impending doom. Then all of a sudden, big battle, all the white walkers are dead, time to quickly move on, a total anticlimax.
Secondly, there is Daenerys Targaryen, this beautiful young girl who we are with from the first episode, we see her suffer, overcome adversity, the hatching of her dragons and her rise to power. She is the hero, she defends the oppressed and we are rooting for her all the way. Then all of a sudden, for very little reason she goes mad and exterminates loads on innocent men women and children, then gets killed … WHAT!
There were other disappointments but those are the main two. I have the box sets of all the series in my DVD collection and I had looked forward to watching them repeatedly but after that ending I will probably donate them to a charity shop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
We can strive for perfection within certain circumstances; I can for instance attempt to draw a perfect circle as I know what one is. As to human perfection you mention physical perfection and this may to an extent be identified and improved, say the elimination of physical ailments the alleviation of suffering, this could be considered an aim towards physical perfection. As to what is attractive, this is a more abstract concept, particularly with humans. Sexual attraction should be based on finding a partner who we consider the fittest to carry our genes and for that purpose there may be a few identifiable standards, but when it comes to sexual attraction we can be a very strange beast indeed.Look I know I kinda started this part of the discussion (on physical, external transhumanism -- bigger muscles, faster, smarter etc.) but it's largely a waste of time. It's the neurology that's the biggest issue with humans. Even if objectively better standards are met with physical human development, humans are still going to want more. It would be better if humans were not afflicted with this insatiable desire.Regarding your comment:“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.Does knowledge make people happy? Not necessarily.Does bliss make people happy? Yes.The "drive" is a means to an end. The "knowledge" is a means to an end. It's really the positive affect that matters at the end of the day.Besides, you could have knowledge acquisition methods programmed into a transhuman/posthuman, so that they automatically do knowledge acquisition without the pain of desiring it. There might be other, better methods of acquiring information that haven't been thought of yet, too.If you are going to implement transhumanism you need to have an identifiable objective and you mention obtaining a high IQ as a possible objective, the problem with IQ, is that doesn’t measure rationality.I think ridding humans of universally negative experiences is a clear enough objective, and is probably the easier one to start with (it's more grounded in reality).IQ is a measure of potential for rationality. It's a proxy for 'g' (intelligence) and it's a damn good one.
To try and get to what I think is the main point. To implement
transhumanism I maintained the need for an identifiable objective and you responded
with this. “I think ridding humans of universally negative experiences is a
clear enough objective, and is probably the easier one to start with (it's more
grounded in reality).”
I agree that it is more grounded in reality. So following this to a logical conclusion, by ridding humans of universally negative experiences, would a perfect human be one without emotions, simply programmed to perform whatever tasks are deemed necessary, or to take it further, if we want to remove all negative experiences, could perfection be found in non-existence.
I agree that it is more grounded in reality. So following this to a logical conclusion, by ridding humans of universally negative experiences, would a perfect human be one without emotions, simply programmed to perform whatever tasks are deemed necessary, or to take it further, if we want to remove all negative experiences, could perfection be found in non-existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
They speak English. I'd argue that the English are even more entranced by Americans.
I can’t speak for everyone but from personal experience of
my fellow countrymen I would say we are not at all entranced by Americans, we are sometimes
fascinated but not always in a positive way.
Created:
Posted in:
Having watched the first two episodes, so far I’m enjoying
it and looking forward to the next episode. Although it is set in Middle Earth
it isn’t really an interpretation of Tolkien’s books, so has to be taken on its
own merit.
Apart from the Fellowship of the Ring, I didn’t really rate Peter Jackson's interpretation of Lord of the Rings, as for his Hobbit, he turned Bilbo and the dwarves into action super-heroes. I watched the first two films with growing dismay and then gave up.
Apart from the Fellowship of the Ring, I didn’t really rate Peter Jackson's interpretation of Lord of the Rings, as for his Hobbit, he turned Bilbo and the dwarves into action super-heroes. I watched the first two films with growing dismay and then gave up.
Created:
I must admit that the lockdown made me somewhat paranoid and
acrophobic, but now I have had three jabs and I caught Covid, so I have decided
my antibodies should be pretty resilient and I am now out and about again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
You originally said "more perfect" and I don't think that is subjective to the degree you're mentioning it.
If you asked a big group of people, they will want to be more physically attractive, intelligent and stronger (especially for men). That's really enough to show there is some degree of objectivity for human perfection. But I'm not interested in transhumanism that makes people more of those things because humans will simply adapt to those things and become bored/unsatisfied again.
We can strive for perfection within certain circumstances; I
can for instance attempt to draw a perfect circle as I know what one is. As to
human perfection you mention physical perfection and this may to an extent be
identified and improved, say the elimination of physical ailments the alleviation
of suffering, this could be considered an aim towards physical perfection. As
to what is attractive, this is a more abstract concept, particularly with
humans. Sexual attraction should be based on finding a partner who we consider
the fittest to carry our genes and for that purpose there may be a few
identifiable standards, but when it comes to sexual attraction we can be a very
strange beast indeed.
What trends closer to perfection is a human that isn't burdened with a psychology that is insatiable. THAT is a fence to swing for. Imagine not needing to work, work out, drive through peak hour, deal with tricky conversations etc. in order to grind out some meaning in life? All those pesky, annoying tasks that generate meaning in our lives could be bypassed if that type of meaning were not required, or if a post-human replacement for meaning (something with stronger affect) were genetically hardwired into our genomes, of which could be generated in a more efficient way.
Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.
Those seem to be "more perfect" than what we currently have. I think if those were pitched to humans, that would be your "we" deciding to strive towards these goals
Regarding your comment:
“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”
This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.
“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”
This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.
I think those who fully embrace transhumanism (especially posthumanism) would simply make those "imperfect" obsolete, and thus unable to remain in power. Super smart transhumans with 3500 I.Q. (relative to humans) would be too smart for any human trickery.
It is strange to think about how a posthuman would wield power. We know that humans are easily corrupted by it (although, not all the time), but a posthuman? Or even transhuman? I think that's where some issues may manifest.
If you are going to implement transhumanism you need to have
an identifiable objective and you mention obtaining a high IQ as a possible objective,
the problem with IQ, is that doesn’t measure rationality.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The metal bolt is to discharge any static buildup during oral sex.
Not something I have experienced.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why do we have to define what a woman is but not what a man is? And why should men have any say what a woman is and why should women have anything with a man is?
It equally applies to someone identifying as a man.
Created:
Tongue piercing, the idea of kissing a girl with a large metal
bolt through her tongue I find totally repulsive. But sadly my days of being a
total babe magnet are long past.
Created:
Posted in:
Something I really enjoy, eating out. Make an evening of it,
being waited on, good company, good food and decent wine, particularly decent
wine. I like the whole ambience and we have a few chosen places we repeatedly
visit, mostly pubs rather than restaurants.
Created:
I do have a problem with gender identify and that is with
those who claim that gender identity is simply a matter of personal identity. This
would mean that the definition of a woman is someone who identifies as being a
woman. This is circular reasoning and gives no actual definition as to what a
woman is.
Created: