Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The phrase "Pipe Dream" comes to mind. Humans will always be human, unless we are no longer human, but then we are not talking about humans any longer.
Sure, if you're referring to a human from a black and white perspective. Transhuman infers a gray area. Instead of thinking of a transhuman in terms of species, think of one in terms of individuality. This individual was born as an infant (me), went through early childhood, mid childhood, early adolescence, etc but stopped at early adulthood - and refitting its organs and cells according to desire.
Here is the problem. How do you KNOW I am afraid? You don't! Why would I want someone like you (human) deciding what future humans will be like. You don't even know what are like now.
No, I meant that I hoped every human would decide what they'd be like - hoping that individuals will alter their nature for the better. I never defined "better" except free of the natural life-cycle of homo-sapiens, removing the human conditions, hormones and organs that cause us to steal, cheat and lie. It's a very vague definition/concept, but one whose necessity should be blatantly obvious to you.
I have no idea what you are talking about. It could be because you don't know what you are talking about.
Isn't it obvious? I'm talking about polytheistic concepts inherent in religions like Buddhism.
What is the "law of karma"? This is something I have never heard of before.
You've never heard of Action and Consequences? Isn't that the theme behind Buddhist practices, this action-reaction?
Also, I have no idea what you mean by " and God and karma aren't as spooky."
Whereas early man was afraid to build into the heavens, we now build skyscrapers literally hundreds of times taller that the purported Babylon. Scientists are even considering space elevators in order to circumvent the over-cumbersome engines now required for spacecrafts to be lifted out of orbit.
Humans have changed the environment. I'm sure you've of global warming?So far, humans have excelled at screwing up the planet. I'm sure we will do the same to ourselves.
So you're afraid that the effects of reversing the aging process will be negative because the effects of engineering cars and other technologies that utilize fossil-fuel have been negative??
THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!
How can you know that it will have "negative consequences"?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea. I don't even understand the question.
Do you think an Intelligent Creator intended for humans to suffer? Or do you think that it is a random product of nature?
I don't believe in a creation.
Good.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you think an Intelligent Creator intended for humans to suffer? Or do you think that it is a random product of nature?
Skipping some quotes to avoid redundancy.
Maybe you should try, because even when you don't write it out for me, I'm not getting it. It could be because you are smarter then me, but that is not apparent.
Well I explain the transhuman a bit more here:
Originally posted by Oneness
TL;DRWhat happens is this self-sustaining nano-robotic machine, which is far smaller than a neuron (cells of the brain), gets into the brain and takes up an infinitesimal amount of space whilst replacing the functions of many neurons at once - the brain lets those neurons go and forms more and you get smarter. Eventually, since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, a huge mass of these nanites leave no room for neurons.
You don't notice anything changed, but will notice all the things you can do that a human simply can't do.
The implications of changing substrates are innumerable. But my main point was that it's not like anything sci fi has brought us, it's its own little thing. It's difficult to understand how a transhuman thinks, how it functions is society is a little more perplex -- refer to the OP, you might have to look up some definitions #face.
We never stay the same. We always change. And you don't know my philosophy, so how can you disagree with something you don't know?
Your philosophy is that it is necessarily bad to "meddle" with evolution, regardless of technological sophistication. Isn't it?
So, you think that Karma somehow balances good and evil? You must be a Christian.
Originally posted by Kostabot
To me life is a journey of experience, and experience without emotion (again, good OR bad), is a dull... and in a seance would make me/you/us nothing more than a drone. Operating in a pre-programmed/designed/build fashion... making me nothing more than an artificial intelligence.
I don't agree that you remove positive emotions by removing negative emotions, quite the contrary.
People can be in love others without feeling sorry for them - transhumans specifically could be made above the act of sex; or they could design sensual act between two separate identities by engineering organs with new forms of neurotransmitters and different pleasure centers - that can be more powerful than anything on earth. It wouldn't really be neurotransmitters, it wouldn't be hormonal, as the substrate is no longer carbon-based, it's silicon-based. That's why the hedonic capitol produced is larger and more powerful - electricity travels faster in dry silicon circuitry than in wet carbon-based nerve spindles.
Having said that...I'm not at all opposed to, nor skeptical of the idea that augmentation (in any form) can, and should eventually be used to improve the quality of human life. Augmented limbs and organs, whatever. I'm all for it. But don't meddle in the essence of the human experience, which is one that is essentially emotional in nature.
I agree.
Feel fear, so that you know what it takes to be fearless.
You mean courageous? The only way to know how to be fearless is to not have fear.
Feel hate, so that you know how incredible it is to love.
Hate is nothing like love.
Feel apathy, so what you know what it is to be inspired.
Again, inspiration has many different levels of severity or intensity (bought by hedonic capital) further and further removed from apathetic states.
They are independent systems.
To be inspired to build, create, and better our inner self, through a deeper understanding, and mastering of our emotions.I love the idea that that we may discover a way to become "limitless", but I don't want to be limitless if I can not enjoy all that comes with it... including possible negative emotions (whatever they may be). 🙂
What is there to enjoy in negativity?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, all you have done is convince me that you know nothing about Buddhism. You are making clams that are asinine.Please stop talking about Buddhism. You don't know anything about it, and it's not really relevant.
I'm sorry. 🙁
I have no idea why you are even posting here.
A lot of members aren't American.
For a human, hedonic capitol can only be gained through stimuli (sex drive, hunger, fight or flight, etc); for a transhuman, it's free and limitless - this fact culminated with the abundance of autonomous infrastructure effectively eliminates the need for all the evil man creates in response to the negativity that humans cannot escape otherwise, due to our evolutionary predisposition.
Originally posted by Oneness
Sure, if you're referring to a human from a black and white perspective. Transhuman infers a gray area. Instead of thinking of a transhuman in terms of species, think of one in terms of individuality. This individual was born as an infant (me), went through early childhood, mid childhood, early adolescence, etc but stopped at early adulthood - and refitting its organs and cells according to desire.
Wow, I take it that you don't want to be human. The body you have now took at least 3.5 billion years to evolve. If there is nothing wrong with your organs, then there is no reason to replace them. Just to be clear, we are not talking about replacing damaged organs.
Originally posted by Oneness
No, I meant that I hoped every human would decide what they'd be like - hoping that individuals will alter their nature for the better. I never defined "better" except free of the natural life-cycle of homo-sapiens, removing the human conditions, hormones and organs that cause us to steal, cheat and lie. It's a very vague definition/concept, but one whose necessity should be blatantly obvious to you.
The only organ that has anything to do with stealing, cheating or lying is the brain. If you replace the brain, then you are not you anymore. This is a choice I would not make. So, if you really wanted everyone to make their own choice, not choosing must be included.
Originally posted by Oneness
Isn't it obvious? I'm talking about polytheistic concepts inherent in religions like Buddhism.
There are no polytheistic concepts inherent in Buddhism. You are being confused by Buddhist mythology, which is never to be taken literally.
Originally posted by Oneness
You've never heard of Action and Consequences? Isn't that the theme behind Buddhist practices, this action-reaction?
No. This is a Christian misconception.
Originally posted by Oneness
Whereas early man was afraid to build into the heavens, we now build skyscrapers literally hundreds of times taller that the purported Babylon. Scientists are even considering space elevators in order to circumvent the over-cumbersome engines now required for spacecrafts to be lifted out of orbit.
We are not talking about this.
Originally posted by Oneness
So you're afraid that the effects of reversing the aging process will be negative because the effects of engineering cars and other technologies that utilize fossil-fuel have been negative??
No. Life and death is the point.
Originally posted by Oneness
How can you know that it will have "negative consequences"?
There are always negative consequences.
Originally posted by Oneness
Do you think an Intelligent Creator intended for humans to suffer? Or do you think that it is a random product of nature?
I don't believe in a creator, intelligent or not.
Originally posted by Oneness
Do you think an Intelligent Creator intended for humans to suffer? Or do you think that it is a random product of nature?
Nothing is random, even chaos has an order.
Originally posted by Oneness
Well I explain the transhuman a bit more here:The implications of changing substrates are innumerable. But my main point was that it's not like anything sci fi has brought us, it's its own little thing. It's difficult to understand how a transhuman thinks, how it functions is society is a little more perplex -- refer to the OP, you might have to look up some definitions #face.
I'm not the problem here.
Originally posted by Oneness
Your philosophy is that it is necessarily bad to "meddle" with evolution, regardless of technological sophistication. Isn't it?
That's not a philosophy: that's my opinion.
Originally posted by Oneness
I'm not a theist.
That is irrelevant. Your thinking is theist like.
Originally posted by Oneness
electricity travels faster in dry silicon circuitry than in wet carbon-based nerve spindles.
Where did you get this information?
You mean courageous? The only way to know how to be fearless is to not have fear.
No I mean fearless, but courageous is synonymous with it in this instant as it implies overcoming fear. The only way to be aware of what fearlessness feels like, you have to have felt what it is to be afraid. Otherwise there is no comparrison, no contrast, and no "courage".
Hate is nothing like love.
Where does my statement imply that hate is like love? Hate is the opposite extreme of the linear spectrum. And my point was that the spectrum, or the understanding of it, can not exist without its two extremes.
Again, inspiration has many different levels of severity or intensity (bought by hedonic capital) further and further removed from apathetic states.They are independent systems.
Once gain you miss my point. I'm not implying the systems are the same... but they are in a way inherently dependent on one another. Apathy (In this context I mean the lack of interest or the lack of inspirations to do anything) is there so that we know the importance of BEING interested, and BEING inspired (whether by external or internal sources). If there was no apathy, we would not appreciate being inspired.
The most basic way I can put is there is no UP without DOWN. IF there is no DOWN, there is no reference to know which way is UP. The same applies to emotion, to math, to language to pretty much absolutely everything at its core. To be/feel/realize something, that something has to have an opposite.
This law is fundamentally entwined in to existence, starting with basic laws of physics, to mathematical equations, and to emotion.
What is there to enjoy in negativity?
Nothing, but it is there so that you now to enjoy positivity. It exists for a reason. So that you know, embrace and strive to cultivate a state of positivity.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow, I take it that you don't want to be human. The body you have now took at least 3.5 billion years to evolve.
So did a person born with a tail, or a person born with extra-chromosomes. There is no "perfect model of homo-sapien" either. We're all victims of evolution in more ways than not.
If there is nothing wrong with your organs,
There's a lot wrong with my organs, they are aging and will shut down, aging damages them.
The only organ that has anything to do with stealing, cheating or lying is the brain.
Not really, the brain may be the conduit of all the hormones and signals generated by the rest of the body's organs, but it is not the only one responsible for distress.
Let's look at it this way, in order to survive, we have to kill an animal. In some situations, like isolation from society and an eco-friendly environment like a dry desert or Antarctica, the only way to survive longer is to kill and eat other humans.
It's an acceptable evil because right now it's necessary, but it wouldn't have to be if you modified the underlying cause, the limitations of the human body.
If you replace the brain, then you are not you anymore.
This is a little more complicated than that. You've altered the structure of your brain down to the molecule, I've explained the process repeatedly in this thread.
This is a choice I would not make. So, if you really wanted everyone to make their own choice, not choosing must be included.
Well, you're still making the decision not to short of "enlightenment". That's the problem.
Would knowing more about the subject change your stance?
Let me tell you something, honest, more knowledge might change my stance.
No. Life and death is the point.
Wh-what?
There are always negative consequences.
How so? Do you know this for a fact?
Look up Relativity.
It applies to everything.
Remove an emotion, or a magnetic charge, or a mathematical sum, and you remove the relativity by which we judge its opposite.
Remove fear, and we have no relative understanding of courage.
Remove hot, and you remove the relative understanding of cold.
We, in order to exists, need to have relative experiences. If you induce perpetual "goodness" through artificial means, and remove the necessary path one must take through its relative positive, then you have removed the depth of understanding that is acquired through that journey.
You might argue that the relative can be taught/explained so that we don't have to experience it to know, but I do not believe an emotion can be explained sufficiently enough. A mathematical sum can be explained. The laws of physics can be explained. They are quantitative in nature. Emotion is Qualitative and to be fully understood it has to be experiences. Can you explain to someone that has never tasted sugar, what sweet tastes like, or to someone who has not felt sadness, what sadness is? To which I add, if that person has not felt sadness... how are they to know that their state of being is one of happiness... they have nothing to relate it to.
Originally posted by Kostabot
Where did you get this information?
Putting together facts from biology, psychology, computer science, picked up in school.
No I mean fearless, but courageous is synonymous with it in this instant as it implies overcoming fear.
Fearless means you don't have fear, courageousness means you can deal well with fear. It's like pain tolerance, except fear tolerance. You can tolerate the stress and anxiety that fear imposes very well. Fearlessness is just a lack of fear.
The only way to be aware of what fearlessness feels like, you have to have felt what it is to be afraid. Otherwise there is no comparrison, no contrast, and no "courage".
There might not be courage, but there's nothing to have when you're fearless, because there's no fear there. You can understand the concept of fear, just like you can understand the concept of zero-gravity, without personally experiencing either.
Hate is the opposite extreme of the linear spectrum.
You can love and hate someone at the same time. Hatred is not the reverse of love, hatred toward an individual is, but not hatred in and of itself. You can hate fear, and love the person who's creating it in you.
The problem with human biochemistry, is that we're designed to eventually associate one emotion with an individual. If an individual makes you afraid, and you hate fear, you will end up hating the person who put the fear in you.
Love does not depend on hate, but a lack of it.
And my point was that the spectrum, or the understanding of it, can not exist without its two extremes.
The other concept of negativity still exists, whether one has experienced it or not.
they are in a way inherently dependent on one another.
Not necessarily.
Apathy (In this context I mean the lack of interest or the lack of inspirations to do anything) is there so that we know the importance of BEING interested,
Just because you know that being interested in a subject is important, doesn't mean you're going to be interested. And you don't need to feel uninterested in order to feel interested, quite the contrary.
and BEING inspired (whether by external or internal sources). If there was no apathy, we would not appreciate being inspired.
You don't have appreciate it to experience it. Regardless, if inspiration is taken for granted, it means that your inattentive of the concept, not the feeling. One can learn it's importance without experiencing a lack of it merely by being mindful of it.
The most basic way I can put is there is no UP without DOWN. IF there is no DOWN, there is no reference to know which way is UP. The same applies to emotion, to math, to language to pretty much absolutely everything at its core. To be/feel/realize something, that something has to have an opposite.
I agree, this is all academic. It can be understood as concept alone.
This law is fundamentally entwined in...emotion.
Not perceptually, just academically.
Nothing, but it is there so that you now to enjoy positivity. It exists for a reason. So that you know, embrace and strive to cultivate a state of positivity.
I agree, we should be mindful of a lot of things. But we're getting to a point in which we no longer need to be beat in order to learn a lesson.
Originally posted by Oneness
So did a person born with a tail, or a person born with extra-chromosomes. There is no "perfect model of homo-sapien" either. We're all victims of evolution in more ways than not.There's a lot wrong with my organs, they are aging and will shut down, aging damages them.
This is the Saha world. In other words, We must suffer to advance.
Originally posted by Oneness
Not really, the brain may be the conduit of all the hormones and signals generated by the rest of the body's organs, but it is not the only one responsible for distress.
True, the mind and body cannot be seperated.
Originally posted by Oneness
Let's look at it this way, in order to survive, we have to kill an animal. In some situations, like isolation from society and an eco-friendly environment like a dry desert or Antarctica, the only way to survive longer is to kill and eat other humans.
Again this is the Saha world.
Originally posted by Oneness
It's an acceptable evil because right now it's necessary, but it wouldn't have to be if you modified the underlying cause, the limitations of the human body.
To be honest, that sounds much like what the Nazis were doing in WW2.
Originally posted by Oneness
Well, you're still making the decision not to short of "enlightenment". That's the problem.
I don't understand.
Originally posted by Oneness
Would knowing more about the subject change your stance?
Maybe.
Originally posted by Oneness
Wh-what?
The point of being alive is birth and death.
Originally posted by Oneness
How so? Do you know this for a fact?
Good and evil are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We must suffer to advance.
Not necessarily, a safety manual can prevent you from getting hurt. You don't need to have already experienced buckling your seat belt to buckle your seat belt for the first time. I would rather be mindful of the dangers and avoid them than to suffer them because I was unaware of them.
Again this is the Saha world.
I don't profess to have knowledge of the afterlife, either.
To be honest, that sounds much like what the Nazis were doing in WW2.
That's not a fair comparison.
The point of being alive is birth and death.
The purpose of your existence is whatever you chose to say it is, really.
Good and evil are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
But you can experience one without the other.
Originally posted by Oneness
We're all victims of evolution in more ways than not.
We are the product of evolution, not its victim. Genetic disorders are not an evolutionary process, they are a breakdown in the chemical reaction which evolution has designed to be otherwise perfect. The breakdown is the result of something that evolution cannot control, and that is a powerful external influence.
E.g. evolution didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, a big rock did. Animals go extinct because their habitat changes faster than evolution can keep up, and although this can be viewed in a way that implies that evolution is less than perfect, than explain your own perfect inquisitiveness to better yourself (albeit in your own unique way, the desire is at its core, one of positive intent, despite how much it may not align with my view of what is the best path). Your mind is evolution showing off. You are not its victim, you are its perfect result. Your job is to understand that and work with it. How you work with it is for you to discover. What we are debating here is simply our points of view on the road to that discovery.
I'm straying off the point here though, and going off on tangents.
There's a lot wrong with my organs, they are aging and will shut down, aging damages them.
A fact of life.
To stray in to spiritual 'woo woo" territory, which I find hard not to do due to my core beliefs, you have the ability in your incredibly powerful mind (yet to be fully tapped in to) to slow down (if not stop) the aging process.
You don't realize how much your mind shapes your reality. Your brain is responsible for the functions in your body. These functions are largely carried out by the subconscious mind. Your hypothalamus releases peptides that bind to receptors in your cells, signalling them what to do. Certain patterns of behavior (addiction, thought processed etc) cause your hypothalamus to release the peptides appropriate to that pattern/behavior/process. The more you carry out those patterns, the more your body becomes accustomed to those peptides, to the point where it can become desensitized to other signals. Eg.g Gluttony causes the resale of chemicals which make you addicted to the sensation you get after indulging, thus distracting you from other important patterns and causing an imbalance in your body/being... these processes are what I believe lead to the aging process.
With this in mind, I think that we are also the product of our ancestors. Their patterns become ours. their imbalances are passed down to us. And it is my belief that it is our purpose to correct those patterns... and that were given everything we need to do so the moment we are born on to this earth... and that everything is our mind, and our awareness.
Not really, the brain may be the conduit of all the hormones and signals generated by the rest of the body's organs, but it is not the only one responsible for distress.
Actually, it is. Your nervous system houses the autonomic, sympathetic and parasympathetic subsystems. Distress is the result of the sympathetic response, and although the brain may not b the "cause" of your distress, it is responsible for making you feel it. You see a gun, your brain reacts, you feel anxious. You sustain an injury, your brain reacts, you feel distress.
Let's look at it this way, in order to survive, we have to kill an animal. In some situations, like isolation from society and an eco-friendly environment like a dry desert or Antarctica, the only way to survive longer is to kill and eat other humans.
Its a way to survive, but it isn't the only way. We don't HAVE to kill animals or humans to live.
It's an acceptable evil because right now it's necessary, but it wouldn't have to be if you modified the underlying cause, the limitations of the human body.
It is only acceptable because we have made it acceptable. Other means to survive are there. Energy for the body in the form of plant based foods. Sharing the planet by not killing one another and realizing that there is enough for what everybody needs, but there will never be enough for what everybody WANTS (and our wants are the product of our own experience, and can be changed with the same). Modify your way of thinking, and you wont have to modify your body so that it doesn't need food. That way you have tackled the real issue, and not just covered it with a technological bandaid... which can malfunction... and cease to work.
This is a little more complicated than that. You've altered the structure of your brain down to the molecule, I've explained the process repeatedly in this thread.
How have you explained the process. You've explained a very loose hypothesis. If you could explain how to alter the brain down to a molecule you wouldn't be on KMC having a philosophical debate with someone on the other side of the world. You've explained your idea, not the process.
Originally posted by Oneness
Putting together facts from biology, psychology, computer science, picked up in school.
So you believe that the facts you have put together imply it is possible to super-seed the evolutionalry process and elevate our state of being to another level are possible through exclusively physical changes? That you can change the mind for the best permanently? How can this be done if we do not fully understand the mind? No one on this earth fully undestands the mind. We cannot change something with full confidence that the change will be positive, without understanding it. This would mean experimentation, and inevitable failures along the way with potentially catastrophic consequences, which may be compltetely detrimental to what you are trying to achieve.
How do you then measure what is an acceptable sacrifice. Does the end truly justify the means of an idea that you claim is positive with in its self? Is potentially destroying mankind an acceptable risk for a hypothesis of this magnitude?
Mapping the mind is damn near impossible, no matter how advanced we get, because the more advanced we get the more complex our mind gets. The more complex our mind gets, the more, and at the same time less we understand it. A philosophical paradox. Self limiting, but also self perpetuating.
Fearless means you don't have fear, courageousness means you can deal well with fear. It's like pain tolerance, except fear tolerance. You can tolerate the stress and anxiety that fear imposes very well. Fearlessness is just a lack of fear.
You're picking holes in my semantics to make a point, and missing my point in the process. The can be no such thing as FEARLESS if there was no fear to start with. To be WITHOUT something, you must first know what it is to be WITH it.
Darkness is the absence of light... and yet we would not be able to conceive darkness if we did not know light.
There might not be courage, but there's nothing to have when you're fearless, because there's no fear there. You can understand the concept of fear, just like you can understand the concept of zero-gravity, without personally experiencing either.
A conceptual understanding of emotion is not the same as the conceptual understanding of, say, a mathematical equation. Once again, QUANTITATIVE things can be conceptualized without the need for experience, QUALITATIVE things, cannot. Explain to a 5 year old that 2+2=4 and they will grasp the concept. Explain an emotion they have not felt... and they will not be able to understand it without having felt it.
You can love and hate someone at the same time. Hatred is not the reverse of love, hatred toward an individual is, but not hatred in and of itself. You can hate fear, and love the person who's creating it in you.
I don't know about you, but I have never Hated anyone I loved, nor Loved anyone I hated. What you may percieve as hate towards a person you love, is likely you being angry at them. We mistakke anger for hate. I love my woman, and even though she may enfuriate me at times, I will never hate her. The same gos for anyone you truly love. Love in essence surpasses hate.
The problem with human biochemistry, is that we're designed to eventually associate one emotion with an individual. If an individual makes you afraid, and you hate fear, you will end up hating the person who put the fear in you.
Love does not depend on hate, but a lack of it.
It does not depend on it, It is the relative opposite which makes it what it is.
The other concept of negativity still exists, whether one has experienced it or not
Just because you know that being interested in a subject is important, doesn't mean you're going to be interested. And you don't need to feel uninterested in order to feel interested, quite the contrary.
No, but you need to understand what uninterested is, in order to have a concept of what it IS to be interested. Once again, look up relativity. It applies to everything, including the human paradigm
You don't have appreciate it to experience it. Regardless, if inspiration is taken for granted, it means that your inattentive of the concept, not the feeling. One can learn it's importance without experiencing a lack of it merely by being mindful of it.
Mindfulness is achieved through true understanding, which is achieved through feeling and experiencing something. Whether it is through direct contact, or observation. the latter however, I do not believe is effective for everything. Observation is adequate for a quantitative concept, not a qualitative one
I agree, we should be mindful of a lot of things. But we're getting to a point in which we no longer need to be beat in order to learn a lesson.
I agree, we don't need to beat in order to learn, but we do have to feel and experience in order to learn. Experience is not exclusively the result of a beating, in any sense of the word, applied to any concept. you don't have to Beat yourself up, nor others. But if you feel beaten (either by someone or by an experience) you will appreciate what it feels to rise above it all the more deeply.
Originally posted by Kostabot
We cannot change something with full confidence that the change will be positive, without understanding it. This would mean experimentation,
Not necessarily.
and inevitable failures along the way
Not necessarily.
How do you then measure what is an acceptable sacrifice. Does the end truly justify the means of an idea that you claim is positive with in its self?
Welcome to the dick known as evolution and the ***** known as nature. Think about all the human's who've died miserably, and all the sudden this technology allows select few to be different. That's the real sacrifice, and I believe it is justified.
Mapping the mind is damn near impossible,
No one ever said that the brain initiative was near impossible.
no matter how advanced we get, because the more advanced we get the more complex our mind gets.
No, because this information is outsourced into language, notebooks, computers, etc. Computers, mind you, that are already far more powerful per computation than every human mind put together. It's a collaborative task, the Brain Initiative. No one mind is doing it, and the human brain isn't the only tool involved, we've outsourced ourselves into our technology and science.
The more complex our mind gets, the more, and at the same time less we understand it. A philosophical paradox. Self limiting, but also self perpetuating.
Not even close.
You're picking holes in my semantics
No, fearless and courageousness literally have two different definitions.
A conceptual understanding of emotion is not the same as the conceptual understanding of, say, a mathematical equation. Once again, QUANTITATIVE things can be conceptualized without the need for experience, QUALITATIVE things, cannot. Explain to a 5 year old that 2+2=4 and they will grasp the concept. Explain an emotion they have not felt... and they will not be able to understand it without having felt it.
What's wrong with not be able to understand violence and hatred?