I think you could say all life (even the simplest bacteria) wants something: survival, for starters, and perpetuation. social animals have more complex volitions, of course.
evolution isn't progress. it isnt directed towards increasing complexity. some lineages just happen to become more complex, while others become simpler and most remain at the lower limit of complexity (bacteri). we are not more evolved than horses or mushrooms. but I get what you're saying about transcending physical limitations, I do. we could use our own natural intellects to perpetuate or modify ourselves artificially - though I would point out even this drive comes from the world of organic mud you're so eager to leave behind. it is an extension of our will-to-live
possibly sure. har to tell right now.
yeah or maybe there is no grand design and that is just an exercise in narcisism and megalomania.
On a fundamental level, I don't think any human being would refuse to possess the the abilities Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen displays - however these powers are mystified and justified as God's and God's alone. Therefore we're told that if we want these things for ourselves, we're evil. It's what we're told, not what we truly desire. It's oppression of fantasy. And imagination and creativity stem from our ability to fantasize. We oppress our intelligence, change is oppressed, especially change in human nature.
However, your belief I suppose is that it is very much human nature preserve our own limited nature. However I would argue as soon as we developed consciousness, developed reasoning through the "I" viewpoint, we should have been willing to diverge from our nature in order to be these manifestations such as Superman, and the Hulk.
However, you have answered the OP, by saying it's not natural for humans to desire something that is not natural. No transcendence can come from that. Therefore omnipotence in the form of unlimited and conscious driven increasing in self-referentiation and intelligence as the primary evolving tool to achieving desired outcomes as opposed to what we begin as in this genetic template, does not exist and cannot exist because it is not natural.
I differ. I am very much a technoprogressive. We created the powerful religious deities, we've created the Superheroes, all in our works. How could these Gods not be in our conscious nature, when we've created them?
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 21st, 2013 at 04:35 AM
I think even our conscious transcends our genetic dispositions without technological alteration.
Take gray matter for instance, in the brain. People with gray matter tend to have more at their disposal, correct? However, one with less gray matter can rework their brain can be organized in such a way, that the things they can do more automatically, can be done more automatically. One doesn't have to use as much brain tissue to get to that ultimate solution. They are processing things more efficiently. It's like a Maserati vs some big Hummer that uses up a lot of energy.
My point is, these types of things are driven by consciousness, as opposed to biology. That is already an example of consciousness extending beyond it's own natural capability.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
I would say I couldn't want Dr. Manhatten's abilities at all.
I mean yes when I was younger I was all about being the most powerful and wanting to be able to do whatever I want.
The more I contemplate it now though it just seems like such a boring, unfilling life to me.
No risk no real rewards type deal.
You live forever or until the universe and all it's dimensions collapse. You know everything supposedly so what's the point of existing at all by that point other than to exist.
You're basically an emotionless automaton if you become DM.
The abilities of a quantum observer, not the set backs.
God forbid you'd have them, though.
You have such a narrow view of what that would be like though. No human has any idea what that would be like. You have already accepted being average, being stuck, you've accepted it being over. That's depressing, and as people age their multiple IQ theory g increases. Why? Because we've trained our brains, we've improved. No human has gone through life without seeking out work, to gain knowledge, to gain power. Contentiousness is when that stops. Potency in and of itself is elevating, but when it can be put to use to overcome the obstacles to all human "megalomania" (because every goal we have is more than what we need, or do we need more?) is the ultimate experience in life. It's the temporal world, there's always work to be done so long as there is always a new goal.
Blissful as it is to accept the moment without any drive, one can drive the creativity machine and be content doing so by using reason to do so from a scientific viewpoint, detached from the emotional stress of it all, choosing instead blissfulness.
You cannot argue with my point of view. This is not in the general forums for a reason. Every time I make a thread like this, no one accepts conforming to just explaining their own philosophies. So why don't you lock this? By request of the OP.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 21st, 2013 at 06:30 PM
So in other words become a machine that creates "blissfully" without caring about the consequences those actions wreck on the population around you?
Just some entity that that creates wonders and expels them whilst creating more wonders?
You sound like the God atheists resent.
A being who creates miraculous events, decides they are wrong then moves on. Maybe creates a flood to extinguish the past mistakes but hopes the favored do something more whilst they move on.
Such a being like Doc Manhattan couldn't live among his past peoples but tried to be a hero amongst them. An interesting tale.
If life according to you is nothing more than the perception and manipulation of Ones and Zeros. Then it is a pretty harsh one.
Stating I do not want God-Like powers similar to DM does not mean I have a narrow view nor does it mean I've accepted mediocrity for myself or the human race.
I believe there are multiple ways for the human race to move forward into the future, some good some bad. In particular I think your end goal is not a way I would personally like humanity to continue on. It seems very self serving, in some ways it may not even be possible, and honestly boring.
It's amazing that almost all philosophies that revolve around human happiness talk more about the acceptance of one's own place and abilities, and sees stress and suffering in the constant desire that comes from wanting more. It is also the corner-stone of the currently best known forms of therapy for depression and anxiety, and one of the most astonishingly powerful behavioural modification paradigms (Cognitive behavioural therapy and attributional retraining, respectively). Strange how these all fly in the face of the idea of attaining and desiring all-power as a way to be happy or fulfilled with one's own life...
Miguel de Unamuno said that Don Quixote was the model for the pinnacle of human greatness. Dreaming the impossible dream and all that. But his belief was more about the beauty of failure and the even greater beauty of defying failure than Dolos's fantasies of power and transcendence. At least so far as I understand Unamuno's vision of humanity.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Mar 21st, 2013 at 08:06 PM
Certainly I'm not trying to say a lack of ambition leads to fulfillment. The opposite actually, but that one must accept the things that limit them and set meaningful goals for themselves. Quixote is a wonderful character and there is certainly some beautiful tragedy in his ambition to do the impossible, but I think it would be hard to argue that he lived a fulfilled life. His entire character, as I understand it, embodies this longing to be fulfilled in some classical sense that was becoming less applicable to the Spanish society (I read the book in like grade 11, so forgive me if my understanding isn't quite accurate [and I use the term "read" very loosely]). The beauty and empathy we or Sancho feel for Quixote sort of come at the expense of his personal well being, but then, well adjusted adults who have fulfilled lives with little turmoil do not make for the best protagonists.
But even then, Dolos is no Quixote. In his version of the tale, the windmills would turn into giants and he would one shot them and go home to bang the blonde damsel in distress. Dolos' ideas about power and such are the opposite of ambition; he essentially believe technology+time=magic, and is waiting for someone else to discover the thing that will make his life worthwhile. He's some guy watching Quixote charge the windmill going, "when he kills those giants, I'm going to get so laid".
The amount of insecurity required to pass such baseless judgement is stupendous.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Mar 21st, 2013 at 09:01 PM
Thanks for not even acknowledging my request good sir.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
what are you doing to bring about the singularity, and more meaningfully, what are you doing to ensure that the benefits from such technological advancement are distributed in an equitable way among the population of the world?
I don't really mean that like a dick either. Sure, it is cool if you believe that technology will one day make all of your personal issues disappear, but unless you are actively pursuing some type of contribution to that, you are essentially waiting for someone else to do it. If you have appraised your life and are attempting to find meaning outside of the technological singularity, you are actually supporting the point I made above, about rational expectations and such.
It'd be easier if you just explained your aspirations, but I'm sure that is a wall of text I will ignore. Have you read Don Quixote?
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
KMC Community Forums
depending on the definition of intelligence, even plants can be described as having intelligence.
Mar 20th, 2013 07:49 PM
