... the notion of a perfected preservation of the *self* and, hence, immortality of the self. — javra

It's not "the self" that is "immortal" – ageless or unaging – just the substrate upon which mind is instantiated. That substrate would be either organic or synthetic; mind (i.e. "the self") is a dynamic and continuous process, not a perdurant thing, that would supervene and output thoughts, feelings & experiences as long as its substrate (body) operated and did not age or dysfunction. "Perfect preservation of the substrate", I think, is what "immortality" consists in and thereby enables the continuity of self-awareness (mind).

what a layperson might term a heightened, or raised, consciousness. Which encompasses far more than mere happiness and longevity of lifespan — javra

I agree that it's a heightened or raised consciousness. But the value of that is that it's a more pleasant, more enjoyable, state of mind; and besides that intrinsic value it's also instrumentally valuable to higher functioning and so the pursuit of further value (like, say, continuing to live to experience such a heightened consciousness).

Basically, it's a kind of happiness, and a happier kind of happiness than a lobotomy, which was my point.

rather than, say, producing something akin to drug-induced altered states that deviate from such heightened consciousness — javra

From what I've read, some drug-induced states are basically the same, and there's even a current exploration into using low doses of psychadelics to treat depression because they cause exactly that opposite feeling of everything being hopeless and meaningless. The brain is a physical thing, and I would expect that whatever transhumanist intervention would improve our mental states would be a physical intervention, including a chemical once since our brains are electrochemical. (Post-organic mental substrates, if they become a thing, would of course need to have that implemented differently).

if an individual's happiness alone is the goal — javra

Who ever said it was any one individual's happiness? It's everybody's happiness. Hedonists aren't (all) egotists.

This raised consciousness thereby leads to empathy. But empathy can lead to one's suffering when others suffer. The greater one's general empathy, the greater the number of people whose suffering will impact one. — javra

In my experience that's not the case, and though I've heard often that it is the case for many others, apparently it doesn't have to be since it seems not to be in my case.

One of the things that has somewhat consistently pushed me into peak experiences in my life is when emergencies happen to other people that I care about and I am able to do something to help. That's not to say that "it makes me happy" when people I care about suffer, but rather that the act of helping turns on that kind of "raised consciousness", which in turn feels good.

Case in point, my girlfriend's parents are both suffering some severe medical issues at the moment, girlfriend is having to take care of them both way more than she usually would be, and she's really stressed out and sad about all of that. I'm not happy that any of that is the case and if I could wave a wand and make it not the case I would in an instant. But because I'm currently unemployed I've had plenty of time to help their whole family out and take at least some of the stress off of them, and doing so pushes me into that state of peace and joy and overflowing positivity: I'm literally happy to help. I don't see them suffering and feel like suffering is thereby thrust upon me too, darkening my day, but rather I see them suffering and well up with love and caring, which feels good to me, not bad.

What do you think about the Hedonic treadmill? — Shawn

I think that that's a good insight, connecting the hedonic treadmill to my notion of the "emotional drain pipe". The converse possibility of an "emotional fill pipe" is consequently a rebuttal to the use of the hedonic treadmill concept as an argument against hedonism more broadly.

Without tangible specifics on the how of doing things it's not realistically applicable. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Sure, which is why people are out there researching the specifics of how. What we're talking about is whether or not they should be doing that. Your position seems to be "it's not clear that you can succeed, so maybe you should stop trying". That's exactly the kind of defeatism I was talking about earlier. My argument isn't "success is inevitable", just "it's worth a try".

So what do we do with all these extra people? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Either figure out a way to sustain them, on Earth or elsewhere, or else (if we fail at that) a lot of people will die. But the status quo is already "everyone will die". So what's the downside in trying?

The way I first stumbled into my manta/motto of "it may be hopeless but I'm trying anyway" was the last time I was employed, a little over a decade ago, where I was always hesitant to apply for many jobs because of fear of rejection, until it occurred to me: the worst that can happen is I won't get the job. But the status quo is already that I don't have the job. So, it can't hurt to try...

:up:

Sorry, I just don't believe in the Malthusian Trap. — Shawn

Oh! If that's how you're going to come at the issue, no problemo! Whatever floats your boat.

G'day!

... the notion of a perfected preservation of the *self* and, hence, immortality of the self. — javra

It's not "the self" that is "immortal" – ageless or unaging – just the substrate upon which mind is instantiated. [...] "Perfect preservation of the substrate", I think, is what "immortality" consists in and thereby enables the continuity of self-awareness (mind). — 180 Proof

How does stipulating the self to be contingent on material substrata deny the self's intent to preserve the substrata for the sake of the particular emergent self’s immortality (or perfected self-preservation)?

You’ve overlooked this part (and the preceding argument for it), which I found pivotal to my last post:

Maybe more succinctly, immortality of self requires a stagnation of selfhood; whereas, I'm thinking, mortality of self is required for the evolution of selfhood in general. Here, one grants other selves their moment in the sun just as past selves have granted you this opportunity. With each generation learning from the last. — javra

--------

Who ever said it was any one individual's happiness? It's everybody's happiness. Hedonists aren't (all) egotists. — Pfhorrest

Everybody? Including the optimal happiness of all murderers? I'm not one to subscribe to this, maybe for obvious reasons. I have a hunch you don't subscribe to it either.

"The self's intent" is no more relevant or determinative than it is right now to the continuance of our respective hearts beating or guts digesting.

... or our current communications. But if I understand you properly, how does that deny that the self is that which intends a perfected self-preservation via the preservation of the substrata from which it emerges? This at least for selves that so intend.

Maybe more succinctly, immortality of self requires a stagnation of selfhood; whereas, I'm thinking, mortality of self is required for the evolution of selfhood in general. Here, one grants other selves their moment in the sun just as past selves have granted you this opportunity. With each generation learning from the last. — javra

I thought @180 Proof had already addressed that adequately.

Everybody? Including the optimal happiness of all murderers? I'm not one to subscribe to this, maybe for obvious reasons. I have a hunch you don't subscribe to it either. — javra

People who are currently murderers should both be stopped from murdering and also be enabled to be optimally happy. Causing the murderers to suffer doesn't improve anything intrinsically, only instrumentally (and then still only arguably) as a means of getting them to stop murdering.

Punitive "justice" is just injustice. People suffering isn't good, even if those people cause other people to suffer.

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying I don't find it relevant (determinative with respect) to the topic.

I thought 180 Proof had already addressed that adequately. — Pfhorrest

In his post about the self being contingent on material substrata? How?

Punitive "justice" is just injustice. People suffering isn't good, even if those people cause other people to suffer. — Pfhorrest

Here's one concrete example: Some humans have been known to lunge with knives at bystanders, such as in dark alleys, so as to gain cash that wasn't theirs. Lack of immediate punitive justice in such situations leads to bystanders being killed. In at least cases such as these, how would the punitive justice be injustice when it saves the lives of bystanders?

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying I don't find it relevant (determinative with respect) to the topic. — 180 Proof

By "it" I assume you are referring to the notion of a self. Hence, the self which is specified in a situation is irrelevant to the notion of what becomes immortal?

Or is a self's desire for immortality illusory and only the material substrata which emanates this illusion is determinative with respect to the topic? If this is what you intend, I'll pass for now.

I'm saying I don't find "the self's intent" relevant (determinative with respect) to the topic.

I confess to curiosity. Do you then find the material substrata's intent relevant to the topic. Or is intent itself not relevant?

A substrate has "intent"?

Right. Just asking. So I take it that for you intent is nonexistent, else stated illusory, then. Hence making intent itself not relevant.

Most existing entities are irrelevant to any specific context. I've been clear, but not enough for you apparently, and this conversation is going nowhere. I'll reply when it won't be tedious and repetitive to do so.

Most existing entities are irrelevant to any specific context. I've been clear,[...] — 180 Proof

:ok: I'll cease my questions. ... back to others discussing the importance of immortality, then.

"it's worth a try"

Fair. I'm all for trying too. Trying with one or both eyes open is better than trying blind though. What could go right for humanity would be revolutionary, what could go wrong however, would be catastrophic. I'd argue for the trying to be done with some solid foundations - or trying responsibly / with appropriate due diligence.

Either figure out a way to sustain them, on Earth or elsewhere.

Elsewhere would probably be the way to go. If we assume that everything that transhumanism is trying to do could be possible some day, then we can also assume that extraplanetary colonization could also be possible to sustain us.

In his post about the self being contingent on material substrata? How? — javra

Oh, it looks like I somehow mixed up those two threads of conversation... I'm not sure what happened, but sorry about that. But to respond to your actual point that I mixed up with the different point: I don't see why one generation necessarily has to go away completely in order for another to "have their day in the sun" (modulo the question of how to sustain that many people at all), or how that relates to issues of selfhood. If I could quietly retire to a little cabin in the woods (or a virtual version thereof) and spend eternity learning everything there is to learn and helping to teach and guide anyone in need of it, I don't see how that would stop any new kids from having more or less the same individual childhoods, growing up, becoming their own people, having their own adventures, friendships, families, and eventually retiring to their own virtual cabins in woods or whatever suits them, just like they could if I was just dead and buried.

Here's one concrete example: Some humans have been known to lunge with knives at bystanders, such as in dark alleys, so as to gain cash that wasn't theirs. Lack of immediate punitive justice in such situations leads to bystanders being killed. In at least cases such as these, how would the punitive justice be injustice when it saves the lives of bystanders? — javra

You're talking about deterrence, which I did already admit was an (arguable) instrumental good that could come of it. I'm talking about whether it's intrinsically, not just instrumentally, good for such attackers to suffer. Say for instance it was shown that punishment did not have a significant deterrent effect, or just that other methods were more effective than deterrent punishment at preventing muggings. What if it was more effective to prevent muggings by helping the muggers solve whatever problems led them to need money so bad they'd kill for it? Wouldn't that be the better thing to do? Or would that be bad because then a "bad person" got rewarded instead of punished? I foresee that someone might say that that would encourage more muggings to get that help, but we could of course just make that help available on request, no mugging required, and easily solve that problem.

(I'm reminded of an incident several weeks ago where a homeless-looking man at a laundromat was throwing a fit and hitting one of the dryers, scaring several other customers. My girlfriend was with me and was really irritated by him, and complaining to me about him like how dare he ruin our laundromat experience like that. Meanwhile I figured he was angry that the machine ate his money and he probably didn't have any more and now had to deal with wet laundry with nowhere to take it. I wanted to just give him some change to make the situation better for everyone -- fix the guy's problem and calm him down for the sake of all the bystanders -- but the girlfriend and I split the cost of our laundry change, and she didn't didn't want to spend money on an "asshole" like him, even though we each independently have enough money to dry the poor dude's laundry tens of thousands of times over.)

I'd argue for the trying to be done with some solid foundations - or trying responsibly / with appropriate due diligence. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I agree completely.

Elsewhere would probably be the way to go. If we assume that everything that transhumanism is trying to do could be possible some day, then we can also assume that extraplanetary colonization could also be possible to sustain us. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I have no objections to offworld living, but I do question the practicality and necessity of it. The middle of the Sahara, the South Pole, and the bottom of the ocean are all far more hospitable places for human life than anywhere that isn't on Earth. The technology that would be necessary for sustained human habitation anywhere besides Earth would also be sufficient to open up many, many currently uninhabitable parts of Earth to human habitation. Basically take your space station or Mars habitat or whatever you're thinking of, and just build it in the desert... and don't bother to launch it. Then people can just drive there instead of taking rockets. Much more convenient.

What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented with technology or longevity extension type ideas? — Shawn

Circumvented? As in prevented entirely or otherwise postponed for hundreds of years? Peace and civility. Purpose and prosperity. The more you look around the world and at raw human nature and conflict you get kind of a "gazing into the abyss" effect imo. All the corruption, greed, strife, envy, rage, indifference, and violence, compounded by the fact many people will simply scoff at any such scrutiny and say "that's life pal" or "that's just human nature", really makes you hope for something greater.

The idea of an afterlife is exciting and encouraging. Not too encouraging one would hope.. but satisfactory enough to be content with the time nature gives us.

People have a inclination for this already. We want to stay fit, healthy, and avoid things that are hazardous to our existence.. usually. Most people will opt for surgery if it has a reasonable chance of success to prevent death or prolong life. So the seed is and has always been there.

I'm sure there's a clear divide between people who would "want to forfeit their natural body to live forever in a computer simulation (albeit one indistinguishable from reality)" and those who simply wouldn't mind taking a life-extending pill or maybe a small implant that slows aging and gives you a few extra decades to play around with. People do that already with vitamins and pacemakers.

More, better, longer; the desire that has fueled the cycle of human suffering since man lived in caves. A dog chasing its own tail.

This is hyperhumanism.

In contrast to Darwinian life, transhuman life will seem self-evidently wonderful by its very nature.[/quote]

Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death?
— Foghorn
But the problem, to quote Wittgenstein, is that "Death is not an event in life". Even if we share a Benatarian pessimism about the human predicament, we should have compassion for aging humans tormented by increasing decrepitude and their own mortality – and the loss of loved ones. Defeating the biology of aging is morally imperative.
In contrast to Darwinian life, transhuman life will seem self-evidently wonderful by its very nature. — David Pearce

"6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits."

Wittgenstein's quote indicates the logical inexpressibility of death as 'eternal oblivion' from the perspective of Tractatarian phenomenalism, which as a maximally empiricist theory of meaning is unavoidably both solipsistic and presentist. For such doctrines, all propositions about change, including so-called 'temporal passage', reduce to observational change relative to a present that only exists in the sense of a logical construct. The quote therefore doesn't appear relevant to arguments for defeating biological ageing, and if anything appears to undermine it.

As the quote indicates, presentists have no motivation to biologically preserve their own life for the purpose of avoiding eternal oblivion, given that they understand eternal oblivion to be nonsense. For the presentist, the present already is their immortality, implying that there isn't a moral imperative to prevent ageing. At most transhumanism offers the presentist a potential happiness-gradient following strategy for seeking a 'local optima' of happiness relative to their current circumstances. A presentist with an appetite for risk however, could rationally decide to abandon happiness gradient following and instead resort to nature's evolutionary search strategy, by committing suicide and hoping for a favourable rebirth, depending on his beliefs in karma.

I take it that part of the transhumanist vision is to enable everybody to feel the latter way all the time, and make it so that nobody ever has to feel the former way. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Mastery of our reward circuitry will ensure the darkest depths of transhuman life are richer than today's "peak experiences".

With that in mind, there's a nuance to note about who benefits from this situation the most, meaning the rich and powerful. It seems to me that money can indeed provide for happiness if not realize it in the extension of one's life-span.

May I ask for your opinion, David Pearce? — Shawn

Other things being equal, it's better to be rich than poor.
But compare e.g.
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-happiness-report
The hedonic rank of Indonesia, India and Mexico is unintuitive, to say the least.
If we are morally serious about ending suffering, we'll need to tackle its biological-genetic roots.

As the quote indicates, presentists have no motivation to biologically preserve their own life for the purpose of avoiding eternal oblivion, given that they understand eternal oblivion to be nonsense. — sime

In practice, almost all intellectual and moral progress depends on false belief, namely the existence of enduring metaphysical egos.
If pressed, one may disavow any such a belief:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#parfit
Such insights are fleeting.

Mastery of our reward circuitry will ensure... — David Pearce

... that committing atrocities or acts of kindness are identically psychologically motivated, no?

I am extremely unclear how long the transhumanists would try to extend life, and I am not really sure it would work completely, short of having a complete body replacement. My mother used to wonder how bodies would look in heaven, and I wonder the same about transhuman bodies. Would they look artificial, rather like steampunk robots?

Mastery of our reward circuitry will ensure...
— David Pearce
... that committing atrocities or acts of kindness are identically psychologically motivated, no? — 180 Proof

A qualified version of psychological hedonism may be true. But the commission of atrocities is a function of ignorance. Full-spectrum superintelligences could impartially weigh all possible first-person perspectives and act accordingly.

Circumvented? As in prevented entirely or otherwise postponed for hundreds of years? Peace and civility. Purpose and prosperity. The more you look around the world and at raw human nature and conflict you get kind of a "gazing into the abyss" effect imo. All the corruption, greed, strife, envy, rage, indifference, and violence, compounded by the fact many people will simply scoff at any such scrutiny and say "that's life pal" or "that's just human nature", really makes you hope for something greater. — Outlander

It seems to me that things aren't as bloody and hellish as say perhaps 1500 years ago in the world.

I think times are at an all time low of violence and bloodshed.

Circumvented in the manner that to stave off death for as long as possible.