LISTSERV - TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

Hi Waldemar,

Thanks and good point.

I haven’t really considered the value of not being dependent on others, like this. I guess I’m kind of a social being, and thinking we're all just one big happy family. The same really, especially once we can computationally bind all of our consciousness together. (I know, I know, that's what the "borg" are, right? ;)

Still, I have a problem with people that believe in Hellfire and Damnation. I ask them if, when they are in heaven, and a loved one is burning in hell, if they’ll feel uncomfortable at all? They tend to do things like dig up scriptures that more or less say every tear shall be dried, and nobody will be sad, even though they admit they don’t know how. I just had a 7^th day Adventist tell me exactly this to this question on an airplane the other day. But for me, any such (maybe the kind of psychological programming you’re suggesting?) which could make people comfortable with a loved one burning in hellfire - my conscience tells me that any such programming would be nothing but devilish.

I understand. If resurrecting someone isn’t yet possible, or if the person really does want to be dead (for some reason I can’t understand), then yes. Psychological programming could help. I believe in the opposite of the golden rule. The traditional golden rule dictates that I resurrect Peter, because it is what I want, and Peter should let me die, because that is what he wants. I think the better rule is: “Do unto others as THEY want.” So, if that is truly the case, I don’t think I’ll need much additional psychological programming. 😉

Brent

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:52 AM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I am touched by Brent’s and others’ comments - thank you all for sharing.
I want to comment about the Peter Lloyd scenario which Brent poses.
My concern, in general terms and not pointed towards anyone, is about person A who apparently cannot live without the presence or access to person B.
That raises my concern that person A regards themselves, their meaning, and/or importance to be less than that of person B.
And/or, person A perceives their importance/significance/role as being dependent upon person B - rather than being augmented by person B.
If so, that suggests that person A might benefit from psychotherapy - psychotherapy in the sense of helping person A to adapt a more functional and healthy “philosophy” of their existence.
That is, person A might benefit from modifying their worldview, lifeworld. lifequest, personal narrative, and existential perspective.
It appears that person A is living in pain which may be entirely of their own creation.

Best regards,

Waldemar

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

On Oct 31, 2019, at 5:48 PM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thank you Lene.
Living forever, or even for just half of forever, would be hell.
Dying gives life meaning.
P

Peter Lloyd Jones
[log in to unmask]
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.

On Oct 31, 2019, at 2:42 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic Bildung / Fremvirke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I don't want it either.

Part of maturing is realizing your mortality and not only coming to terms with it but finding great relief and existential depth in it.
One version of hell would be living entirely surrounded by people who think they are going to live forever.

/ L

On 31-10-2019 19:17, Zachary Stein wrote:

You see, I do not want this:

Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I want my knowledge of my spirit, and all my memories, to live forever in hundreds of different computationally bound brains/bodies, brains that can be aware of not just 3 primary colors, but thousands..... at trillions the resolution....

I admit that I have an instinctual emotional reaction/revulsion at this idea. That is, this reaction happens *if* I take it as a serious desire. Whereas I mostly take it as something like a grandiose fantasy/fiction to amuse/distract the ego from more serious, real, living desires about ones life and death.

Taken seriously, this transhumanist longing for techno-immortality seems like one of those desires for heaven held by a few that will end up creating hell on Earth for everyone else. We’ve had a lot of these over the course of history. This is why I (and I think Lene) are so concerned.

Deeper questions:

Why is it believed to be so bad to simply die, as humans always have?

Why do we trust our technologies more than nature?

Why do we want the ego-personality to continue in perpetuity, as if this were a good thing for us personally and for humanity?

My sense is we should all be preparing to die in the good old fashion way and not mixing science fiction so far into our identities that we forget what is inevitable and real about who and what we are.

Not really writing this for you, Brent, but for all the techno-optimist transhumanist rationalists who have lodged their adolescent notions into the heart of what might otherwise be a serious public discussion about digital technology and the future of humanity.

zak

P.S. If you want to “live forever” you will need more than “hundreds” of new bodies. How long to you think “forever" is?

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1