• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Immortality

Etheri

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 18:39
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
1,000
Slightly related ...

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism." - The brothers karamazov, Dostojevski

Why does the idea of immortality keep us so busy? Personally, I don't think i'd want to live in this mess -forever-? If you'd rather not discuss the ethics of the subject in this thread, just tell me and i'll get rid of this post :confused:
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
No that's fine.
Of course I still think you're wrong :D

Cannibalism isn't inherently immoral, if I could have lab grown human burgers I'd be eating them three times a week, it makes sense if you think about it, what could be more nutritious than human? If the meat came from "wild" humans, well I'd be a bit more cautious, just as I'd be more cautious about eating wild animals, I don't imagine the meat of a smoker, alcoholic or drug addict would taste very nice, the meat of a fat person on the other hand...

Anyway I don't see why life couldn't go on after immortality is achieved, I understand there's a kind of postmodernism about it, as an immortal I wouldn't be saving up for my retirement, nor would I bother with getting married and raising kids. But we're living in the postmodern world, y'know most of us no longer find purpose in serving our faith, nation or ideals, yet dispute lacking a purpose to live we continue living anyway.

I found this earlier, click the lowest one, then the upper "Prev" to go through the story, if you misclick and the translations disappear just click anywhere on the image and they're reappear again.
http://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=parent:914416
Be warned this isn't a work safe site.
Safebooru doesn't have webcomics on it though.

So yeah, life goes on, I'm a little concerned about when we can alter out brains and thus our psychological drives, having few desires certainly makes life easier but how far do you go with that until you're an emotionless automaton?

I like to joke that I am one, or that I want to be, although it's a dark thing to joke about, like suicide but without actually having to die.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
No that's fine.
Of course I still think you're wrong :D

Cannibalism isn't inherently immoral, if I could have lab grown human burgers I'd be eating them three times a week, it makes sense if you think about it, what could be more nutritious than human? If the meat came from "wild" humans, well I'd be a bit more cautious, just as I'd be more cautious about eating wild animals, I don't imagine the meat of a smoker, alcoholic or drug addict would taste very nice, the meat of a fat person on the other hand...
Human meat would give you everything that you'd need in meat, but also everything that you don't: human meat doesn't alter the balance of nutrients when consumed, so your lacks will go unfulfilled, and your excesses will be driven ever-higher.

Anyway I don't see why life couldn't go on after immortality is achieved, I understand there's a kind of postmodernism about it, as an immortal I wouldn't be saving up for my retirement, nor would I bother with getting married and raising kids. But we're living in the postmodern world, y'know most of us no longer find purpose in serving our faith, nation or ideals, yet dispute lacking a purpose to live we continue living anyway.
The meaninglessness of existence eliminates the need for justification.

So yeah, life goes on, I'm a little concerned about when we can alter out brains and thus our psychological drives, having few desires certainly makes life easier but how far do you go with that until you're an emotionless automaton?
But wouldn't you therefore be unable to enjoy the gratification of having made your life easier? I suppose that one could make the easing of one's life one's only desire, but such a desire implies that life is nothing but pain to be eliminated, for efficiency is not an end in itself, but an end pertaining to one's means. Moreover, a desire for maximum efficiency recursively eliminates itself in its own name.

I feel an adage coming on...

Don't improve useless things, and don't make things useless in seeking to improve them.

I like to joke that I am one, or that I want to be, although it's a dark thing to joke about, like suicide but without actually having to die.
Indeed, but such a fate can be avoided by simply not tampering with ourselves.

-Duxwing
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
The meaninglessness of existence eliminates the need for justification.
Tell that to the human ego.

But wouldn't you therefore be unable to enjoy the gratification of having made your life easier?
That's not the point, the elimination of pain is a goal entirely of itself, I wouldn't remove the ability to feel hunger for the pleasure of not being hungry, I would do it because I dislike being hungry and if I'm a brain in a jar there simply isn't any reason to continue suffering it.

Moreover, a desire for maximum efficiency recursively eliminates itself in its own name.
Precisely, even pleasure is again in its absence, so the elimination of all pain as a goal in of itself (the only goal remaining for a creature that has superseded nature) which eventually dictates the self elimination of humanity, though of course we will linger, our still animate machinery working, our immortal eyes open, our minds still aware, but not caring.

Except there's still the ego isn't there?
So long as we are self aware our ego will be inescapable, and it demands meaning, a purpose, a reason for existing, justification for the indignity of being anything less than all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, perfection.

We all want to be gods and before the end we'll either merge or kill each other to see who gets to be the final One.

Don't improve useless things, and don't make things useless in seeking to improve them.
Indeed, but such a fate can be avoided by simply not tampering with ourselves.
There's no stopping it.
 

Felan

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 12:39
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
Unauthorized personnel only

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
Tell that to the human ego.
Accepting the 'meaninglessness' of your life is much easier when you realize that you were perfectly fine without 'meaning' and that 'meaning,' if found, would be incomprehensible to humans. One could even reasonably conjecture that 'meaning' is really just codified, accepted emotional judgment by which we live our lives. What stands between most and their 'meaning' is an arguably erroneous, absurd, and intellectualized definition of the same: they want a set of self-evident categorical imperatives and values from which can be derived a consistent and complete morality.

Ultimately, the experience of nihilism proves to some of these aforementioned people that existence is 'meaningless,' and they fall into a depression or even kill themselves. But they're not sad about the absence of 'meaning'-- indeed, by their own logic, the absence of meaning is meaningless-- but because they implicitly believe that emotion, unsupported by 'meaning,' must be suppressed. Their execution of this principle, often made unrelenting by the sheer willpower necessary to reach nihilism without allowing their emotions to carry them off into ego-protecting delusion, leads to terminal emotional starvation.

Therefore the answer to existential despair arrived at by cold, exacting logic is understanding that nihilism itself is meaningless and consequently allowing oneself to experience and express emotion. Such a course of action is messy, painful, and even frightening for those accustomed to the Void (myself included!) but we nihilists must recognize that philosophy is within the head, for the perceived world seems Absurd. To do otherwise is to spiral into an infinite loop of intellectualization and rationalization.

That's not the point, the elimination of pain is a goal entirely of itself, I wouldn't remove the ability to feel hunger for the pleasure of not being hungry, I would do it because I dislike being hungry and if I'm a brain in a jar there simply isn't any reason to continue suffering it.
But is there not pleasure in satisfying a craving? Does water poured into a throat of thirst unslaked not taste all the sweeter? And would we not know that our pleasures were created by a lotus-eater machine, thereby experiencing pain?

Precisely, even pleasure is again in its absence, so the elimination of all pain as a goal in of itself (the only goal remaining for a creature that has superseded nature) which eventually dictates the self elimination of humanity, though of course we will linger, our still animate machinery working, our immortal eyes open, our minds still aware, but not caring.
@scorpiomover You're going to enjoy what I'm about to say very, very much. You know why.

The conundrum that Cognisant presents is one of those rare cases wherein a normally fallacious argument is not only a valid line of reasoning, but the only valid line of reasoning. In this case, Argument From Emotion. If what we feel that we want and what our model tells us that we want don't match up, then the model is wrong. In other words, if the elimination of pain necessitates the elimination of the human race, and we don't like that outcome, then let's ask ourselves why we don't like that outcome and change the axioms of our model accordingly.

Except there's still the ego isn't there?
So long as we are self aware our ego will be inescapable, and it demands meaning, a purpose, a reason for existing, and a justification for the indignity of being anything less than all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, perfection.
Fixed: An all-powerful being can have a meaning, purpose, and reason for existing-- in fact, it can create one for itself. As for being anything less than omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, no harm exists in being so. The 'harm' exists in a sense of pointlessness in the absence of challenge; gods always win. To prevent this harm, engage in sport. And among sports, Pokemon stands out in acknowledging this problem, stating its solution to the player at the beginning of each new game: "Remember, it's not about whether you win or lose, but about the journey on which you embark and the people that you meet, the experiences that you have, and the feelings that you share."

For an example of such a journey, imagine that you and I-- gods both-- knew that our great Forum Lord Ragnar had been captured by internet trolls. In our infinite power, knowledge, grace, mercy, and wisdom, we could simply teleport Ragnar back to us, safe and sound, or work out any number of perfect, idealistic scenarios-- and we could very well do so for pure pleasure and enjoyment-- but we could also pick up our spears and shields, strap on some bright and terrible bronze armor, and tear into the enemy lines like lions into a herd of sheep as an army of two if blood, bronze, and testosterone were our favorite pastimes.*

We all want to be gods and before the end we'll either merge or kill each other to see who gets to be the final One.
Or elect a God.

There's no stopping it.
There's no stopping you carving your throat open with your kitchen knife, either, but somehow, you're (thankfully) still here. Humanity is not perfect, but we've managed to avoid destroying ourselves-- even when given all the tools and all the reasons to do it.

-Duxwing

*Frankly, I wouldn't mind such an adventure if Proxy (leader, if only by virtue of having more Te than all of us combined) Scorned Reflex (funny and zany) Proletar (Lancer, see TV Tropes) and Gopher (Heart, see TV Tropes) joined us. You could be the Gadgeteer Genius, and I'd be the Smart Guy (I'm not tooting my own horn; I just don't have any other plot-relevant skill!). We'd come home heroes, the head of the Troll Chieftain mounted on our blood-stained spears.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:39
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,693
Cannibalism isn't inherently immoral,
Cannibalism's inherent immorality comes from the same source as the inherent morality behind not killing another human being. We kill cows for meat. We kill carrots by ripping them from their life source, the ground, and their roots, and then we chop them up and eat them. We kill wheat in much the same way, only we roast it in an oven first and call it bread.

We don't kill each other, for self-preservation. If one of us thinks it's OK to kill another human being, then he's a human being. So why can't other humans kill him? If he's stronger than any one human, then more than one human can gang up on him and kill him, like Cavemen would kill much bigger animals like mammoths. Then he gets to kill one human, but 6 billion others are ganging up against him, to kill him as well. He can't reasonably watch his back all the time. Sometimes, he has to sleep. If he trusts his friend, or his girlfriend, to watch over him, maybe she'll kill him while he sleeps. Even if he camps out in the middle of nowhere, some human might come across him by accident and kill him. Even if not so, merely by leaving human habitation and living in the jungle, he is now at threat from every wild animal out there, and from the many diseases that he can catch from being bitten by smaller insects.

Humans live together for self-preservation, so they protect each other from wild animals and diseases. In the process, they are also at threat from each other. So to offset that threat, humans agree to generally not kill others of the same social group, unless they've broken one of the rules of the commune that most find easy to follow and avoid breaking.

Anyway I don't see why life couldn't go on after immortality is achieved,
There is also the fact that vampires are humans that have gained immortality and eat humans, and humans usually consider them an entirely different species, because they are immortal. The mere fact that one becomes immortal, changes an inherent factor in being human. One might be killed for preying on humans, such as with vampires. Even if one doesn't eat humans, and is simply an immortal human, one might be perceived as a different species anyway, and a potential threat to humans, because one is no longer afraid of being killed by others, and then one would no longer have a compelling reason not to kill others (to avoid being killed in return), leading to one being a potential threat to all other humans, such as Connor Macleod is perceived, in the 1986 film "Highlander".

Anyway I don't see why life couldn't go on after immortality is achieved, I understand there's a kind of postmodernism about it, as an immortal I wouldn't be saving up for my retirement, nor would I bother with getting married and raising kids. But we're living in the postmodern world, y'know most of us no longer find purpose in serving our faith, nation or ideals, yet dispute lacking a purpose to live we continue living anyway.
Obviously, one could. But there is a price to pay with everything. Your friends, girlfriends, children would die. You might not deliberately seek them out. But you'd probably get friends, fall in love, have sex and make the woman pregnant, at some point, and they'd all die, because they're not immortal. You can tell yourself not to. But the mind tends to ignore such rules in general.

One could consider humans as a lesser species, as humans do with cows. But then you'd probably end up eating them, and then you'd end up being considered a threat to human life, and you'd end up being hounded out of any human habitation where they recognise you.

One way to avoid that pain, would be to avoid all mortal humans as much as possible, and only hang out with immortal humans. Then you'd exist. But you'd be hardly seen. Even if you did introduce yourself to a human, those humans who did see you, would be in a similar position to those humans who claimed to have met aliens. You'd avoid humans in general, and then the majority of humanity would say there was no evidence, and would consider the humans that saw you, as suffering from a hallucination.

So for all intents and purposes, you'd be outside of humanity, and then you'd have to figure out your own meaning, for yourself, just like humans did.

So yeah, life goes on, I'm a little concerned about when we can alter out brains and thus our psychological drives, having few desires certainly makes life easier but how far do you go with that until you're an emotionless automaton?
Watch the Doctor Who stories with the Cybermen and the Daleks. They're both cyborgs that can live forever.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
So I take it you've played "Vampire: The Masquerade"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines

To be clear I don't advocate killing people, too messy, but if the same meat can be lab grown then why not, heck it could be grown from my own DNA, gives a whole new meaning to you are what you eat no? :D

@Duxwing
There's always the choice not to discard emotions, and one may indeed choose not to for a very long time, eventually however the pointlessness of it wins out, I mean you could cook every meal you eat and if you did so the food would be better, you would enjoy eating more, so why aren't you doing it? You don't because you don't have to, and when you don't have to do something you stop doing it, even if it's something you benefit from, because you don't want to do it, we are by nature reactive agents and without a natural state to react to our actions will become fewer.

That is contentment, if you didn't have to eat, sleep, or anything, you would be content to just sit and watch, and maybe that doesn't appeal to you now, that's understandable, but in a few hundred years time you may feel differently. If then you don't then maybe in a few more hundred years, and so on and so forth, it seems inevitable that the desire to be human for its own sake will eventually be insufficient to continue motivating us.

Argue the case for absurdity if you wish, my point is that if it can happen it will happen, it's only a matter of time, and no amount of absurdity will change that, no game is so engrossing that you could never grow tired of it.

Basically, why not be content?

Or elect a God.
No you misunderstand, I'm talking about a will to power that is inherent to the ability to think self consciously, in the absence of all human desire a mind would still seek to increase its influence, just to be proud of it, or to feel more secure in one's existence (wouldn't want to get taken out by an asteroid).
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Are there any vegetarians on this thread?

And how long and how well do you think these prolonged human beings will want live without any sensory apparatus?
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
Brain computer interfaces are currently under development.

Or you could have followed the link and you would have known that.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
@Duxwing
There's always the choice not to discard emotions, and one may indeed choose not to for a very long time, eventually however the pointlessness of it wins out, I mean you could cook every meal you eat and if you did so the food would be better, you would enjoy eating more, so why aren't you doing it? You don't because you don't have to, and when you don't have to do something you stop doing it, even if it's something you benefit from, because you don't want to do it, we are by nature reactive agents and without a natural state to react to our actions will become fewer.
Causality makes every agent 'reactive'; the question of the future of the human race is really one of psychology. Do you have a will to do things, to excite yourself? Eternal, motionless contentment is boring, and if we were to remove our ability to feel boredom, then entering such a state would be tantamount to suicide.

That is contentment, if you didn't have to eat, sleep, or anything, you would be content to just sit and watch, and maybe that doesn't appeal to you now, that's understandable, but in a few hundred years time you may feel differently. If then you don't then maybe in a few more hundred years, and so on and so forth, it seems inevitable that the desire to be human for its own sake will eventually be insufficient to continue motivating us.
This word implicitly pervades your argument, and it leads you to your conclusions. One can also act not on the basis of need, but want-- pleasure, enjoyment, sport. And when one game tires us, we move to another; and some of us love making games. The whole point of increasing efficiency is to make doing what we love easier, not to defeat the purpose of doing what we love. Let me make an example of soccer, a game of simple rules and great fun: the point is not to put the ball in the net as many times as possible, but to see what you can do as yourself-- to test your strength, skill, endurance, wit, and will. Now imagine that you're playing against Pele, one of the greatest soccer players of all time, and he trounces you. Fuming, you storm back to your apartment and give yourself a cybernetic ball-shooting leg brace, then return to the field and beat Pele: you put the ball in the goal more times than he did, I guess, but you've ruined the fun of the game. Nice job breaking it, hero.

Fun, pleasure, enjoyment, and meaning are not products of our actions, but byproducts of acting according to our inclinations without introspection. The cold logic of proper self-analysis is cold for a reason: we suppress our present emotions to prevent distraction while we think, but happiness, meaning, etc., are all present emotions. And if you counter that such a point neglects neurochemistry, then I refer you back to the bionic soccer player. Sure, you'll be 'happy,' but you'll also be aware that you are or have painted the happiness onto yourself and would not choose to do so on the grounds that you'd have to forget that you ever did it and make yourself unable to ever deduce-- or care, if preventing deduction is impossible-- that you are in a lotus eater machine, which is again tantamount to suicide.

Stop trying to engineer happiness through applied neurochemistry. It doesn't work and brings you grief. Instead, accept your feelings (in Jungian terms, dredge your Fi up from the depths of your unconscious) and enjoy yourself as you'd imagine it. If being a god is not ideal, then don't be a god! You don't have to become one if you dont' want to. And if you hold that 'other people' will do this, then ask yourself:

"If a twenty-something Aussie sitting in his flat can divine that a particular application of cybernetics will spell the doom of human kind, then certainly the people who will design such cybernetics as will be necessary to effect that end will also be able to divine the same."

In essence, you're not the only one who is aware of this problem, and humanity, as stupid and herd-like as it may seem, is not bent on self-destruction.

Argue the case for absurdity if you wish, my point is that if it can happen it will happen, it's only a matter of time, and no amount of absurdity will change that, no game is so engrossing that you could never grow tired of it.
I counter with another work of children's entertainment.

"What happens when your dream is broken? Dream a bigger dream." Sharkboy and Lavagirl

No game is engrossing enough to be forever engaging, but have you noticed that whenever we've grown bored with certain games in the past, a few of us have invented new games?

Battlefield 1942
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 2
Battlefield Bad Company
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4

In less than a decade, just a couple thousand hairless apes have banged their sticks and rocks together until these beauties popped out.

Basically, why not be content?
Because you'll get bored? Other emotions exist? Ever read a tragedy just to cry?

No you misunderstand, I'm talking about a will to power that is inherent to the ability to think self consciously, in the absence of all human desire a mind would still seek to increase its influence, just to be proud of it, or to feel more secure in one's existence (wouldn't want to get taken out by an asteroid).
That in itself is a human desire. A doll--to use your recurring example--desires no power, nor does my computer.

-Duxwing
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
Eternal, motionless contentment is boring, and if we were to remove our ability to feel boredom, then entering such a state would be tantamount to suicide.
And what's wrong with that? Nothing, that's the point.

"If a twenty-something Aussie sitting in his flat can divine that a particular application of cybernetics will spell the doom of human kind, then certainly the people who will design such cybernetics as will be necessary to effect that end will also be able to divine the same."
But I don't want to prevent it, I like it :D

Life and death are both undignified, but this in this cybernetic limbo neither can claim me, I no longer have to choose to endure living or the defeat of death, I can have it a third way, my way, it's like having my cake and eating it too, while the fat kid (god) watches and cries.

That in itself is a human desire. A doll--to use your recurring example--desires no power, nor does my computer.
A doll is my metaphor for a corpse, this is not death, it is undeath.
Beyond good & evil, beyond the pleasure and pain from which they're derived, above it all.

To lay dormant in a tomb for centuries, awake the entire time but possessed of infinite patience, only rising if the tomb comes under threat or if I'm beseeched sufficiently to reawaken my dormant emotions, this is all very appealing.

This isn't nihilistic despair, it's a celebration of nihilism.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
And what's wrong with that? Nothing, that's the point.
There's nothing wrong with it, sure, but there's nothing 'right' with it, either. Killing oneself is the 'ultimate' answer when one ruthlessly eliminates all strains on a system; yet such an answer defeats the purpose for which such a system was made, namely to serve us.

But I don't want to prevent it, I like it :D

Life and death are both undignified, but this in this cybernetic limbo neither can claim me, I no longer have to choose to endure living or the defeat of death, I can have it a third way, my way, it's like having my cake and eating it too, while the fat kid (god) watches and cries.
[/quote

There won't be any 'you' to enjoy your victory if you rip all your emotions out and stick your brain in a jar. Like I've said earlier, what you propose is tantamount to suicide. And why do you care about 'dignity'? Such a desire is all too human.

A doll is my metaphor for a corpse, this is not death, it is undeath.
Beyond good & evil, beyond the pleasure and pain from which they're derived, above it all.
An undead being is an animated corpse, and you will become such a one if you carry through your plan. You will be 'above it all' in the same way that your doll is 'above it all'; it no longer feels or thinks. You'd feel no regret in setting it alight because you very well know that no epiphenomenous being exists within it.

To lay dormant in a tomb for centuries, awake the entire time but possessed of infinite patience, only rising if the tomb comes under threat or if I'm beseeched sufficiently to reawaken my dormant emotions, this is all very appealing.
A-ah-ah. Laying dormant for centuries and arising when the universe needs you is far cry from your original argument that you'd like to permanently rid yourself of your feelings:

Beyond good & evil, beyond the pleasure and pain from which they're derived, above it all.
Not only is your new argument so, but it is also strikingly similar to what you do already: sit around until you find something interesting to do. You've gone half-way around the moon in order to demonstrate what is already self-evident for any rational, self-interested agent.

This isn't nihilistic despair, it's a celebration of nihilism.
If you'll permit me to engage in some armchair psychology (and by no means do I intend the following to belittle you): Your plan is anything but nihilism. A true nihilist would simply enjoy himself while the fun lasted and go to his grave with a forlorn sigh. You, on the other hand, have taken great pains to intellectualize and rationalize your emotions into a wholly unnecessary worldview: You don't like pain, so you create a cyborg body that can't feel it (admittedly, this isn't a huge deal, but read the rest and you'll see how it fits in). You want power and dignity, so you make yourself a god. You can't stand your life, so you create a near-permanent sleep state (a.k.a., suicide). Learn to enjoy the small things. The smile on your friend's face, the softness of your bedcovers, the smell of flowers on a hill. For without these even the coldest thinker's heart will soon grow hungry and drive him to seek oblivion. That's what happened to me, at least.

-Duxwing
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:39
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,693
So I take it you've played "Vampire: The Masquerade"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines
Never heard of it, until I read your post just now.

To be clear I don't advocate killing people, too messy, but if the same meat can be lab grown then why not, heck it could be grown from my own DNA, gives a whole new meaning to you are what you eat no? :D
Oh, so you're asking if it would be reasonable to eat grown human meat? As long as it's pure muscle growth, with no sentient brains involved, then there is no murder involved.

I can see a lot of people being against it anyway, simply because you are eating human flesh, and thus, there might be a concern that it might lead you to start killing and eating humans.

So if anyone did want to eat it, I'd suggest to them that they tell everyone that it's venison, or chicken, or something.

I also think that it would need to be studied scientifically, in case it might result in something many humans didn't expect, like eating BSE-infected meat led to CJD. But those studies should also be done on the quiet. We don't want a repeat of the opposition to stem-cell research.

Other than that, if you wanted to eat it, I would not be opposed. People eat dog, monkeys, frogs, horses, all sorts of things. Also, it's definitely better than paedophilia.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
If you'll permit me to engage in some armchair psychology (and by no means do I intend the following to belittle you): Your plan is anything but nihilism. A true nihilist would simply enjoy himself while the fun lasted and go to his grave with a forlorn sigh. You, on the other hand, have taken great pains to intellectualize and rationalize your emotions into a wholly unnecessary worldview: You don't like pain, so you create a cyborg body that can't feel it (admittedly, this isn't a huge deal, but read the rest and you'll see how it fits in). You want power and dignity, so you make yourself a god. You can't stand your life, so you create a near-permanent sleep state (a.k.a., suicide). Learn to enjoy the small things. The smile on your friend's face, the softness of your bedcovers, the smell of flowers on a hill. For without these even the coldest thinker's heart will soon grow hungry and drive him to seek oblivion. That's what happened to me, at least.
I know and I don't care, is that nihilistic enough for you? :D

I'm enjoying this conversation.

A-ah-ah. Laying dormant for centuries and arising when the universe needs you is far cry from your original argument that you'd like to permanently rid yourself of your feelings:
I never said I wanted to actually die, and as long as I still have a self aware mind I'll still have an ego, and I'm not talking about the ability to feel emotion so much as the mechanisms that prompt it, so I'd be capable of responding to reason, still capable of accepting a deal offered to me if I judge it to be worthwhile by purely rational criteria.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
I know and I don't care, is that nihilistic enough for you? :D
You have an implied axiom of pleasure, so not caring would be self-contradictory, and your logic appears to be intended to be internally consistent.

I'm enjoying this conversation.
As am I. However, I'm frustrated by your having not replied to the entirety of my previous previous post.

I never said I wanted to actually die,
By your own words, you want to put yourself to sleep inside a tomb to be woken when either your non-existent emotions are stimulated or you are under threat.

and as long as I still have a self aware mind I'll still have an ego, and I'm not talking about the ability to feel emotion so much as the mechanisms that prompt it,
Unprompted emotion violates causality; ergo, unless causality is false, unprompted emotion cannot exist, and removing the 'prompting mechanism' for a particular emotion would therefore be to effectively remove that emotion.

so I'd be capable of responding to reason, still capable of accepting a deal offered to me if I judge it to be worthwhile by my own subjective preferences.
Fixed. No 'purely rational' criteria for decision making exist; indeed, the Is-Ought rule dictates that no such criteria exist. Like I've said earlier, you're trying to rationalize your emotions. There's no point. Just accept them and skip a whole bunch of unnecessary and invalid logic.

-Duxwing
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:39
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
*sigh* Okay let's make a checklist.

Hunger
Thirst
Sleep
Love
Libido

There, the distractions, if I just removed those impulses and I sat down in a chair would I ever have to get back up again for any internal reason? You could say boredom but I've meditated (daydreamed?) for six hours before and I only got up because I had to pee, if I didn't have to pee (implied by the lack of thirst) what would have stopped me from meditating longer?

C'mon lets not argue semantics, that annoys the shit out of me, you know what I'm getting at, and yes I explained it poorly, I'm still human after all and I didn't expect that my words would be put to such scrutiny.

What's interesting here is why you have a problem, I just want to sit contentedly and watch the word go by, or enjoy the serenity of tomb, so why do have to disturb me? I'm not going to force you to join me, I think if I wait long enough you will eventually but y'know that's your choice to make, and if you miss me there's no reason why you couldn't interrupt my peace, I'm not dead, and with potentially eons to kill a few days here and there wouldn't be so bothersome, indeed I'd probably appreciate the experience for its novelty.

So why do I have to suffer the distractions of living?
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
*sigh* Okay let's make a checklist.

Hunger
Thirst
Sleep
Love
Libido

There, the distractions, if I just removed those impulses and I sat down in a chair would I ever have to get back up again for any internal reason?
Why are you so intent on not getting back up? :confused: It's nice outside.

You could say boredom but I've meditated (daydreamed?) for six hours before and I only got up because I had to pee, if I didn't have to pee (implied by the lack of thirst) what would have stopped me from meditating longer?
And what did you daydream about? As for getting up, consider that your daydream would be lucid, and that you would eventually want to do something 'real'.

C'mon lets not argue semantics, that annoys the shit out of me, you know what I'm getting at, and yes I explained it poorly, I'm still human after all and I didn't expect that my words would be put to such scrutiny.
Semantics are very important to the understanding of an idea. "Dog bites man," though only slightly different from "Man bites dog" conveys a very different meaning.

What's interesting here is why you have a problem, I just want to sit contentedly and watch the word go by, or enjoy the serenity of tomb, so why do have to disturb me?
Because your conclusions do not follow from your premises, and I didn't want to see you end up somewhere that you didn't want to be. Moreover, why do post on here if you'd rather 'daydream'? You make interesting posts, entirely new ideas for games-- you do things! And that's why watching the world go by for eternity doesn't seem like a good idea for you. You'll get restless.

I'm not going to force you to join me, I think if I wait long enough you will eventually but y'know that's your choice to make, and if you miss me there's no reason why you couldn't interrupt my peace, I'm not dead, and with potentially eons to kill a few days here and there wouldn't be so bothersome, indeed I'd probably appreciate the experience for its novelty.
Why do you want to 'kill' the eons when you can enjoy them?

So why do I have to suffer the distractions of living?
And enjoy the distractions of undeath? Also, why is living so bad? You need therapy (sorry if I'm ad-homming) not cybernetics.

-Duxwing
 

Animekitty

I am all of my perception (666)
Local time
Today, 11:39
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,411
Location
subjective
 

Attachments

nil

drifting
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,032
Location
within the vast universe
This brings up several questions, which I will not bother to ask.

I'm fine with the concept of immortality (although I'd still prefer to be a petty mortal, thanks), but get back to me if a way to completely counteract entropy is discovered, because that would be something I would find quite disheartening.

Duxwing said:
...the Is-Ought rule dictates that no such criteria exist.
Tell me, is the Is-Ought rule something which was derived from purely rational criteria, or is it merely a concept you resonate with? If the latter, I hardly see how you could laud it as being end-all truth.
 

Animekitty

I am all of my perception (666)
Local time
Today, 11:39
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,411
Location
subjective

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
Tell me, is the Is-Ought rule something which was derived from purely rational criteria, or is it merely a concept you resonate with? If the latter, I hardly see how you could laud it as being end-all truth.
The Is-Ought Rule is the idea that from any statement about What Is one cannot make a statement about What Ought To Be without taking an axiom. And please don't try to twist words around like that: rules are not derived from criteria.

-Duxwing
 

nil

drifting
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,032
Location
within the vast universe
The Is-Ought Rule is the idea that from any statement about What Is one cannot make a statement about What Ought To Be without taking an axiom.
I am aware; in fact, it is a concept which I absolutely adore.
And please don't try to twist words around like that: rules are not derived from criteria.
Then from where is a rule derived, and how would anything anyone derives a rule from be anything more than personal preference, or an axiom. particularly in the context of logic?
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
I am aware; in fact, it is a concept which I absolutely adore.
:)

Then from where is a rule derived, and how would anything anyone derives a rule from be anything more than personal preference, or an axiom. particularly in the context of logic?
Rules are derived from axioms: in this case, any statement about what is and any statement about what ought to be. A criteria is a very specific kind of axiom that defines value-- in fact, it is exactly what the Is-Ought rule demonstrates to be necessary to make normative or prescriptive statements about reality.

-Duxwing
 
Top Bottom