Originally Posted by Alric
It totally matters if you can't keep up with technology. Evolution builds on itself, and currently humans are moving past biological evolution and all our evolution is going to be based on technology. We will probably be able to alter our bodies and even our genes faster through technology than biological breeding. How does biological evolution effect anything if people can alter their bodies at will with technology?
Again though, this approach is irrelevant, and speaks to your black and white views of evolution. Technology and evolution are mutually compatible. This is because technology is often a product of ethos. See my argument on ethos.
The RPG's are a good example, because new programmers often recreate old video games when they are learning new things. They think they are being original and creating something new but its just repeating of old stuff. There are ton of new things that are just copies of old. New programmers generally suck, and don't create very original stuff. If you look at the people who are on the cutting edge, who are creating the original content, its the people with experience. People with a lot of experience. And even if you got a young team, there is always a very experienced person leading the group, and giving instructions on what to do.
But to counter that example, look at the biggest companies in the world, who produce the same game every year, tweak it a little bit, and make money. They become too concentrated to put out original content, and we rely on the indie game companies to transform the game industry.
Lets put it this way. Someone spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. They spend 5 years research in some area and then they die. A new person spends 26 years going through the same school and then picks off where the other guy left off. He spends 5 years researching then dies. This happens to 3 more people, for a total of 5 people. They have now spent a total of 25 years of doing original research.
Now another person spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. He spends 129 years doing research in an area. Who is going to know more? Not only does this second person have 5 times the amount of time doing the research, but he can draw on all the data he learned to make his researching far more efficient. Even if you thought having a fresh perspective was important, he would simply take a five year vacation at several points during the process and come back with that new view and still be far ahead of the others.
It's more like 26 years of schooling, 15 of which is spent researching and helping researchers, with another 30 to 40 spent leading research. And something fundamental happens during this schooling which is why I think you bring up a good example. People get concentrated. All you need to understand about my argument that people become more rigid as they develop can be seen in the school system. The more school you take, the more specific your focus becomes, the more you see the world through a specific set of lenses. Mathematicians that spend 20 years studying math see the world entirely differently than people that spend 20 years studying art, for example. And there's nothing wrong with specialization, just like there's nothing wrong with enjoying a juicy steak and mash potatoes separately rather than trying to put them in a blender and ingest them that way. Some things simply cannot be analyzed by the same set of criteria as other things. This is why it's good to have people who specialize and people who are more broad. This is why it's good to analyze both waves and particles rather than pretend one of the two holds no merit.
So we're all a unique little snowflake, right? Why encase like a million snowflakes in glass and then turn off the clouds? Why suppress the constantly moving flow of life?
To address your procrastination issue, that isn't an issue at all. Most people are really not motivated to seize the day because they think they will die. If you are motivated that way you are probably having a midlife crisis, and those don't last that long and are often not very productive. Most people simply do not think about death on a day to day biases. For the sake of argument however, lets say it does motivate people. Well it still doesn't matter because people would be motivated out of boredom any way. No one wants to sit around doing nothing at all day long, it is boring. Even if there was no death you would still feel compelled to do stuff.
A midlife crisis is the opposite. People feel like they've been wasting time and attempt to figure out what they wish to do in order to feel fulfilled. Some cling to youth, thinking life is meant to be full of youthful experiences. Some attempt to work in their community, thinking life is meant to be an opportunity to serve others. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities.
Your last point seems silly. There are people over a 100 and they are still having fun. People don't stop having fun when they age. Life is fun which is why I want it to keep going on. It is extremely unlikely you will ever run out of fun and interesting things to do. That point is basically saying that I should sacrifice my fun for the sake of others fun. Why should I give up my happiness for others? There isn't even any guarantee that my dying will even make it more fun. In fact if I die a lot of people will be very sad. So why would I sacrifice my fun in order to hurt others? It makes no logical sense.
Would a rollercoaster still be fun if it went on forever? Wouldn't it be more fun if it stopped and you got to experience a different rollercoaster each time?
Let me put it this way. If someone gives you the perfect gift, something you always wanted, something you love. Do you enjoy that gift because you one day think it will be taken away? Or do you enjoy the gift because it was a really great gift? Me, I would enjoy it because its a really great gift. Life is a gift, and so we should hold onto it forever. I don't throw out important items in my life, I don't discard gifts because it makes me like them more. Why would I throw away the most important gift I have ever received.
I enjoy it at first until I take it for granted and the novelty wears off. In fact, it is because I have lost very important things that I know to take care of other things I hold important.
If you got a huge diamond and gold watch that George Washington wore when he was sworn in as the first president of the US, you would hold on to that with everything. You would do everything in your power to keep that. And it's value doesn't come because you expect someone will one day steal it, it comes from the value of the gift itself.
I would consider such a watch valuable because other people would want it so I could make a fortune by selling it. To me this metaphor works better considering a body of work. I consider my mind valuable because I can share it with others and positively influence the world.
To me it sounds like you are taking your life for granted. You think if you die you can just replace your life with several others, and so dying is no big deal. That is the definition of taking things for granted. The view I hold is taking life extremely seriously.
I find life to be best lived as a temporary experience. This doesn't mean I take it for granted. It simply means I don't live in fear of the fact that life is temporary, I don't think it's superior to live forever, and I don't think it would make me happier to live forever. I think life would be the most enjoyable gift it could possibly be because it's temporary. By your logic, people suffering on their death beds shouldn't have the option to commit suicide even if they've lived long, fulfilling lives and are currently feeling intense, chronic pain with no end in sight. Because they're alive. And if they chose to end it, they'd be taking life for granted. That simply isn't true.
Originally Posted by Abra
I'd be alright if reincarnation were true. It'd be awesome if everyone got to be everyone, or something.
But basing a lifestyle on wishful thinking isn't always exactly useful. If it were ever somehow proven (say, by comparing the firing signals of newly developing brains, and seeing if the brain's 'initial conditions,' I'm talking signals and not atoms, were the same), then think of how different we'd behave towards, well, everything else!
For one, your criteria to judge whether or not reincarnation is true is flawed already. These conditions would be removed, so there'd be no way to judge based on that criteria. The only way to judge would be to consider what the mind really is, as a separate concept than the brain. I am speculating on the continuation of consciousness and my argument was that it's irrelevant because you would lose your identity, so I already made your argument for you. But I have no problem losing my identity. It's a superficial sort of thing anyways, and it will survive in my body of work, so my identity will survive in the usefulness I provide for society. But time is infinite so inevitably even that usefulness is useless. Therefore the highest good I can see is the play.
But for now, it's just wishful thinking. And the risk is greater than the reward. By believing in reincarnation, you detract attention from improving any one current life, since suicide is an easy and effective escape. If it were proven, you could expect a lot more suicides... But there's no proof. So believing in this is merely your comfort. Like believing you'll win the lottery eventually, that it's in the stars for you. To each his own, except you're opinion contributes to a culture that keeps me from ever getting my robotic immortal superbrain.
You automatically pin me down as being an advocate that reincarnation exists for suggesting it... great job. I stated clearly that I don't believe nor disbelieve it, I simply think it is no less likely than the idea that consciousness ends when the body dies. And there is proof of this, if you like I'll even point you to the lecture on youtube but be warned, you may find it boring.
|
|
Bookmarks