Thinking Discouraged

The belief in a divine or natural plan for Darwinian design

vapahtaja — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:38:52 +0000

Humans quickly learn to focus on the things in their lives that they can change and to rationalize the things that they can’t change in order to feel ok.Yet the rationalizations created by the mind attempting to refocus attention on fresh opportunities – create lasting ideological barriers. These ideological barriers keep us from learning how to change the things we previously believed were out of our hands.

the bible makes no mention of DNA
the Buddha knew nothing of direct electrical stimulation…Humans have long believed in the indomitability of involuntary suffering, death, and life experience Darwinian design.

We have the power, using biotechnology, to potentially eliminate the involuntary suffering and death associated with our genetic design.

Yet some Darwinians are so addicted to their rationalizations that they fear others having the ability to change their lives – as this would cause them to face the realities of life.

Darwinian minds addicted to specific memetic rationalizations like religion feel real pain when their ideologies are threatened – as the false veil of subdued acceptance is lifted.

How can we alleviate the pain caused by the truth while empowering Darwinians to shed their rationalizations?

We can promote effective means at resolving the human condition. When people have the options in front of them – they will choose pleasure over pain (all things being equal).

The truth is seemingly self-evident in retrospect.

http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=841

“But I don’t want to live forever…”

vapahtaja — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:45 +0000

To the person who states this in defense of bioluddism;

In my thinking, if a person wants to die rather than heal their body and mind to more youthful levels then so be it.

Most people opt for therapy when they begin to loose their minds with age-related cognitive decline or take action to combat life-threatening illness, or even a disorder that lowers quality of life.

So while taking action to treat impending alzheimer’s, would you want to maintain only your mind and let your body perish if you had the option to heal your body ethically?

What would life be like with a healthy mind in a decaying body?

Likewise would you neglect your mental capacities and only treat disorders that affected your body?
http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1063

50% genes, 50% environment?

vapahtaja — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:33:36 +0000

Are we the result of equal parts genetics and environmental factors?

It seems the more that we learn about our genes, the more we understand how our biological processes and subjective experiences are determined by our DNA.

A cat experiences a completely different reality than a human does, so does a squid or arachnoid.

Does environment make them 50% different? Of course not – they experience life and behave in completely different ways regardless of environment.

Our genes determine both how we will adapt in response to changing environments and the fundamental design of our subjective experience.

to say it’s half genes and half environment is an attempt to put a positive spin on the human condition in line with the human tendency to attribute willfulness of a given object – the doctrine of free-will that helps us to rationalize our condition.

[we are also designed to think of ourselves as rational, willful entities - which has been disproven]

(in the old days before science, humans would see spirits in everything…)

Our minds are genetically designed to attribute distinct patterns to given objects – though in reality there is only ‘atoms and void’;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atoms_and_the_void

or universe without distinctions born of Darwinian design

http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1027

“But we don’t know enough of the brain yet…”

vapahtaja — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:30:02 +0000

It’s true that our collection of useful distinctions (scientific knowledge) is too limited to accomplish the Abolitionist project right now – but does this mean that we shouldn’t work towards eliminating involuntary suffering?

Humans are fond of rationalizations for deeply ingrained behavior, just like many still dispute the effect of our pollution on global warming – especially in the Bush administration.

Humans have vested interests in the suffering of others – just like we are addicted to Darwinian propagation to continue our retirement plans, and the need to maintain a youthful armed force to protect us from our selves. Many bio-luddites would like to keep us dumbed down so that they can continue to dominate, for example : Christian preachers.

Point of fact, many Darwinians simply enjoy the suffering of others as it helps them to feel better about themselves.

—————–

It’s time to start making better human beings – those not motivated by the drive for domination within an abstract social context or pain/pleasure axis.

Important first steps – mass genetic data logging to learn the language of DNA programming, unprecedented affective neuroscience research, working towards a global government above tribal conflicts, longevity research to give humans a vested interest in the results of their activities, the elimination of religious doctrine from political power.

http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1026

Religion correlated with bioluddism

vapahtaja — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:24:22 +0000

Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.

In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.

that’s right, they say that the technology itself is “immoral”. This is nonsense, and goes to show how damaging a belief system can be to a person’s intellect.

http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1273

Science or faith : memetic cancers

vapahtaja — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:16:54 +0000

One can have an optimistic state of mind – a kind of faith in the future – without believing in something without proof. But how is it possible to reinforce the belief in something you don’t know while keeping an open mind? How can you accept something without evidence – making other truths inaccessible to verification by turning a blind eye without being unscientific?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl25ZFNXQYY&feature=related

Some consider religious theories as an example of memes with a high level of fitness. It’s true that religious doctrines are long-lived memes, but diseases like AIDS or cancer can spread prolificly.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=224049

If only religion were simply a benign way to subjectively lessen cognitive dissonance – but the ideological barriers hurt us all in terms of lifelong individual happiness.

http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1109

What’s wrong with abolishing misery?

vapahtaja — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:11:00 +0000

How would you react if a trustworthy person offered to engineer genetically a future child or grandchild of yours so he would live a life of happiness—with the only cost being a permanent relinquishing of the option of being sad?

What if sadness sometimes leads to breakthroughs? What if some emptiness comes from God to make us realize that we need Him to fill the holes in our souls?

While sadness can lead to breakthroughs, I am reasonably sure that being happy would not diminish the amount of breakthroughs. The joy of a breakthrough would still exist.

If one could be made so happy as to not have a need for God anymore, one would have to question just how durable that relationship was in the first place. Was the relationship with God just a patch on the psychological wound?

http://abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=279

Faith in doctrine or the belief that we have the truth

vapahtaja — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:02:07 +0000

Faith is the process of suspending critical inquiry – it impedes discovery and progress.

As a human being we can learn to have to faith in the future – or simply generate a positive affect – and then the mind will not require faith in order to feel safe.

Faith in doctrine or the belief that we have the truth… – this is dangerous.

Truth requires an ever open process of re-evaluation.

http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=436

Modern psychology – the propagation of social norms

vapahtaja — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:48:32 +0000

What is the purpose of psychology (understanding the mind) if not to measurably increase happiness for all citizens of a given society?

Currently, modern psychology is the result of cultural theories guiding scientific pursuits.

As opposed to a discipline intended to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

———–

A psychologist is charged with attempting to influence a patient to behave in ways that are more acceptable by society, to feel okay about the ways things are, and to learn to accept cultural theories.

It’s simple – psychologists do not measure affective status before and after treatment – even though we currently have the ability.

Psychological treatments vary greatly by culture.

http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=596