From: brad.lemire@lennoxind.com
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 12:02:48 MDT
After lurking for a few weeks I have seemed to notice a common thread in the "intellectual" discussions on this list. I do have some initial questions during my brief time on this list. My use of certain terms it to generalize and not pigeon hole this philosophy into mediocrity. I am just curious the way other Extropians view the following:
1. The need for understanding based solely on the Objective universe.
I, however, view the greatest advances in science based on the need for Subjective expansion. The ancient Egyptians held the philosophy, "A thing that exists in the mind thereby exists". Science gives a fantastic tool to explain the Objective but little is understood about Subjective states of mind. For example, hypnotism is still an abstract science. Rather than trying to understand the brain under a microscope, should we not try to understand based on experience? Gravity has no Objective form but we know it exists based on its effects.
2. The dismissal of consciousness and the psyche.
Making copies of "The Self" into a computer are we creating people or zombies? A great movie that I immediately think of is, "Dark City". They explore the idea, "Are we the sum of our memories". Science seems to think so. Amnesia victims don't seem to fall into this category. Maybe this is something beyond the Memory? I'm not saying the "Soul" or any religious terms there of, but some element that is beyond the tangible, the source of emotion and creativity. P.D. Ouspensky wrote in, "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution", that mankind is in a state of sleep. Until we realize this we cannot awake and become Individuals, thinking on our own. How many of us go through our life asleep and how many are truly awake and be Conscious?
I guess this all comes down to, what good is intelligence if it is just used for information regurgitation. I feel that evolution can only take us so far. Arthur C. Clarke explored this abstract concept in 2001, A Space Odyssey. I thrive on my ability to put knowledge into action as I am sure most people here do. We do this to expand in a non-physical evolution. Why do this if we are not strengthening anything but our gene pool? All we need to do is go into the local library to see how separate we are from the rest of nature. Nature does not over compensate in evolution. A giraffe grew a long neck to reach the tops of trees for food. Nature did not give legs for jumping and wings to fly at the same time. It took the easiest way out. We could survive with half our intellectual capacity but nature seems to have blatantly not taken the easy way out in our case. This brings a state of wonder into my existence.
If I have offended anyone by my words I apologize. I hoped to gear an intellectual discussion. Obviously when confronting someone else's belief system, emotions come into play. Please do not flame me. I consider my life journey to be Extropian but I perceive myself to differ in the areas previously mentioned. How do others view these concepts??
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:21 MST