On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> I knew pretty soon Spike and Damien would deteriorate this thread into a
> pretty actress comparison, [snip]
Damn trogladites, we can only hope that they will grow up someday...
> The place this thread SHOULD have gone --
Lord, where *are* the thread control police when you need them?!?
> when Anders began to take it
> there-is not what plain featured actresses we need pant over, but is it
> transhumanist to make changes in our memes -- forming better ones ? Once we
> have the kind of technology that makes the mating ritual less of a knee-jerk
> reaction, our lust can be more in our control. Can be enhanced so to speak.
As I think Anders pointed out in another post, the problem is in selecting
value systems. Why would you *want* a system that (a) propagates mating
structures in an era when people live indefinately and they become
unnecessary; or (b) promote "social" behaviors? Why would a self-directed,
self-creating individual want to define themselves in terms of their
social acceptance by others?
[The questions are somewhat rhetorical to highlight the degree to which
humanity as we know it is an inherited yoke that may be highly undesirable
from a transhumanist perspective.]
How do you create a blank slate (without pre-transhuman biases) on
which to build a foundation for transhumans?
> One thing that is a turn on for both sexes (at least on this list) is a good
> mind. Sure it has to be attached to a sexy (whatever that is to you) body,
> but brain power is a turn on.
Ah, but the ultimate "mind" is a singular mind that uses all of the
local resources, creating subminds, allowing evolution, competition
and ruthless natural selection (killing the subminds) when they fall
short. [Remember the Highlander -- "There can be only one".]
Or do you want "good" minds as in kind, courteous, friendly, etc. having
those qualities that are clearly leftovers from the era of "social" humans.
After all, some species have no problems eating other members of their
species, even their offspring.
> When shared mind experiences become fashionable, we can tune in to someone's
> brain in ways that could be highly erotic, but not necessarily physical. A
> brain-trip or mind-f**Ck or whatever you want to call it. No genetic mingling
> at all. Pure chemical and visual stimuli.
Mapping mental experience maps between individuals will probably be one
of the most difficult problems to solve. Long before that it will be
easy to self-stimulate those areas associated with pleasure, satisfaction,
happiness, etc. Once I can "do" myself, why would I want the fumbling,
error prone, experience of an amateur other involved?
The only reason that now "others" are "interesting", is that they create the
sensation of the unexpected or unanticipated (which is why you cannot tickle
yourself). If you have sufficient self-mind intervention capacity, you can
simply "forget" that you conceived of tickling/stimulating yourself in a
specific way (thereby creating the satisfying illusion that someone
else is doing it).
> We are already heading in that direction, but in such a pathetic way (with so
> called cybersex). I am fascinated by the chat rooms in that the FIRST thing
> people ask is how old? what do you look like? Why the need to keep the body
> at your sidew when you are floating in mind-space? I think fear. Fear of
> flying... ; - )
Perhaps. The chat rooms I've tried have been so mundane, even when billed
otherwise that I've given up on them. The memeset for interpersonal
operations in the average chat room seems highly limited. I wonder
if the same is true in avatar based environments?
> With sex becoming less and less of a reproductive act and more of a conscious
> decision for pleasure, love itself may flourish as a mental exercise. There
> is nothing unromantic about the brain being the seat of love, it is actually
> MORE of a turn on that way.
>
Ah, but both "pleasure" and "love" are nothing more than soft/hard-wired
neuronal interconnects. Do you really want evolutionary leftovers
controlling the way you feel?
If you could rewrite the program from the foundation on up, what
would you place as important? For example -- take Maslow's (sp?)
hierarchy of needs -- now restructure them from a transhumanist
perspective. Are any of them even *relevant* from a transhumanist
perspective?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:19 MDT