"I studied it with the sort of zeal Sumerian priests reserved for the divinatory entrails of butchered goats."
I study consciousness. It's what I do. There's no shortage of data; it's glorious. Like the man said, "Every person's mind is a laboratory." Lately I've been focused on the idea of 'self' and it's relationship to others. Heaven help me, I think I may have even had a minor epiphany on that topic within the past few weeks. (I'm still working to hammer out the details.)
I bring this up now because certain areas of the blogosphere have been ripe with talk about preserving the 'self' in the face of illness or death via artificial/technological means. (It's nice to see that a single site can embrace both the practical aspects of consciousness based in an artificial substrate, and the philosophical curiosity and questioning that might lead one to reject such a transfer.) Since the driving purpose of this blog is to figure out what I believe, I had to ask myself - What do I believe about the urge to preserve life/consciousness via technological means?
When the question is phrased like that, you can't help but answer - "But we do that all the time! That is what modern medicine does!" And when viewed that way, cryonics and mind-uploading are simply a logical progression of the belief system that embraces the artificial heart. (Whether those technologies represent a viable way to preserve the 'self', or that complex web of things that defines a life or person, remains to be seen.)
When pressed to answer the question above, I find myself saying - I have no wish to die, but I believe that what is 'me' is a manifestation of this time and place, and every other 'me' that knows 'me'. I believe that my biological substrate is not sufficient to reproduce 'me', therefore cryonics alone doesn't hold the promise of any meaningful 'salvation' from death. I believe that a sense of self might emerge from cryogenic suspension, but that it would not be 'me' in the same sense that I am 'me' now, though it might think it is.
With such a belief about what is 'me', I can also say that I put no more concern into making my 'self' immortal than I do in ensuring the welfare of my immortal 'soul'. While answering the questions about 'self' and consciousness that might eventually enable artificial consciousness intrigues me, I am not driven to do so by an overwhelming desire or belief that I can preserve 'me' or make 'me' immortal in any meaningful way.
Believe it or not, it feels oddly empowering to say that. When freed from a preoccupation with surviving death, we are free to focus on life. This life. Making a difference now. There is a kind of immortality in that for which I believe we can and should strive... "What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Nice To Win
"[Being nice] signals the hell out of your maturity, humility, and general awesome."
Several days ago I dropped a comment in blogosphere that said, in part...
"It’s fine to attack a particular idea or action, but attacking a *person* or a group of people accomplishes nothing of lasting value, and most likely simply fuels an antagonistic response. Stressing in group/out group dichotomies and us/them identities simply encourages each side to further entrench themselves in their respective positions and engage in group-branding behaviors. Anybody (regardless of belief or group identity) who engages in these types of behaviors is probably bringing the collective social consensus about his/her group (and whatever they stand for) down."
That statement could be condensed to - Being an asshole is a losing tactic. This got me thinking... Do I care that you are not being nice because I believe in 'nice', or do I care that you are not being nice because you're exhibiting poor tactical judgment and I play to win?
There are plenty of pragmatic reasons to be nice. (Nice post!) Evolutionary psychology would have us believe that niceness is really selfishness in disguise. "[W]hat appears to be altruistic cooperation is only costly in the short term." If we suppose that inherently-selfish motivations drive all behavior, then I have to ask - Is it humanism if you're betting on 'nice' to win?
Perhaps I have my religious upbringing to thank for the nagging ideas that sacrifice is a virtue worth embracing, and that worthwhile belief-systems are supposed to encourage you to be something other than selfish. I have previously stated in this blog... "While HM2 extols empathy, compassion, and "the cultivation of feeling and love" as desirable virtues, it fails to provide a reason why these things should be cultivated, especially if their cultivation would threaten one's survival... What reason have you given me for behaving thusly, save that you recognize that these traits are something you want others to express? Why are these held up as ideals, rather than strength and power?"
Are humanists willing to declare that our collective survival and progress as a species depends on our ability to be 'nice' in the face of overwhelming individual temptation to behave otherwise? And as individuals, how do we make the choice to be nice? What can we reasonably be expected to sacrifice in order to uphold/display an ideal of 'niceness'? When does our obligation to the collective outweigh personal desire? Is it enough to be nice for selfish reasons?
Several days ago I dropped a comment in blogosphere that said, in part...
"It’s fine to attack a particular idea or action, but attacking a *person* or a group of people accomplishes nothing of lasting value, and most likely simply fuels an antagonistic response. Stressing in group/out group dichotomies and us/them identities simply encourages each side to further entrench themselves in their respective positions and engage in group-branding behaviors. Anybody (regardless of belief or group identity) who engages in these types of behaviors is probably bringing the collective social consensus about his/her group (and whatever they stand for) down."
That statement could be condensed to - Being an asshole is a losing tactic. This got me thinking... Do I care that you are not being nice because I believe in 'nice', or do I care that you are not being nice because you're exhibiting poor tactical judgment and I play to win?
There are plenty of pragmatic reasons to be nice. (Nice post!) Evolutionary psychology would have us believe that niceness is really selfishness in disguise. "[W]hat appears to be altruistic cooperation is only costly in the short term." If we suppose that inherently-selfish motivations drive all behavior, then I have to ask - Is it humanism if you're betting on 'nice' to win?
Perhaps I have my religious upbringing to thank for the nagging ideas that sacrifice is a virtue worth embracing, and that worthwhile belief-systems are supposed to encourage you to be something other than selfish. I have previously stated in this blog... "While HM2 extols empathy, compassion, and "the cultivation of feeling and love" as desirable virtues, it fails to provide a reason why these things should be cultivated, especially if their cultivation would threaten one's survival... What reason have you given me for behaving thusly, save that you recognize that these traits are something you want others to express? Why are these held up as ideals, rather than strength and power?"
Are humanists willing to declare that our collective survival and progress as a species depends on our ability to be 'nice' in the face of overwhelming individual temptation to behave otherwise? And as individuals, how do we make the choice to be nice? What can we reasonably be expected to sacrifice in order to uphold/display an ideal of 'niceness'? When does our obligation to the collective outweigh personal desire? Is it enough to be nice for selfish reasons?
Monday, January 4, 2010
Human Light
"No matter how powerful a single individual may be, it is impossible for that person to be successful all alone."
“But HumanLight is NOT about what we DON’T believe in. We’re not here today just to negate theism, and we don’t want to criticize anyone’s religious holidays. Instead, this is an occasion to celebrate the values and ideals of humanism – the things we DO believe in." (Can I get another chorus of that, please?)
I had intended to end 2009 by breaking out and meeting fellow humanists at the local HumanLight celebration, but a rather nasty winter storm kept me home. The HumanLight celebration was (unofficially) going to be the tipping point that determined how and if I advanced my interest in the humanist philosophy.
I have had some disappointing reactions to certain aspects of humanism during this past year, but I still believe that humanity is worth understanding, celebrating, and helping. I still believe that there is a need for fellowship among like-minded people, and a need to remind each other of our higher ideals. I believe that there are huge problems in this world that require us to overcome our differences and work together to solve. To the extent that humanism represents that, I want to represent humanism.
I have no idea what went down at the HumanLight celebration. (Heck, I didn't even know that December 23rd was a quasi-official Humanist holiday.) But my imagination loves metaphor, so it fused an old-school Christian holiday tradition - the dipping of one's unlit candle into the lit candle of one's neighbor, and then passing the light on - with a newer Christian song (minus just a line or two that mentions Jesus), to form the symbolic message that we all possess the ability to behave virtuously and compassionately, and that these behaviors represent light in this world. A better world is one where light has increased and darkness has decreased.
Christians and Humanists agree on the need for 'light' in this world: the need for hope, reason, and compassion towards one's fellow man. They simply disagreed about the source of that light. If there is a need to 'be right' about the source of the light, then let us first make sure that there is no shortage of it to be studied.
“But HumanLight is NOT about what we DON’T believe in. We’re not here today just to negate theism, and we don’t want to criticize anyone’s religious holidays. Instead, this is an occasion to celebrate the values and ideals of humanism – the things we DO believe in." (Can I get another chorus of that, please?)
I had intended to end 2009 by breaking out and meeting fellow humanists at the local HumanLight celebration, but a rather nasty winter storm kept me home. The HumanLight celebration was (unofficially) going to be the tipping point that determined how and if I advanced my interest in the humanist philosophy.
I have had some disappointing reactions to certain aspects of humanism during this past year, but I still believe that humanity is worth understanding, celebrating, and helping. I still believe that there is a need for fellowship among like-minded people, and a need to remind each other of our higher ideals. I believe that there are huge problems in this world that require us to overcome our differences and work together to solve. To the extent that humanism represents that, I want to represent humanism.
I have no idea what went down at the HumanLight celebration. (Heck, I didn't even know that December 23rd was a quasi-official Humanist holiday.) But my imagination loves metaphor, so it fused an old-school Christian holiday tradition - the dipping of one's unlit candle into the lit candle of one's neighbor, and then passing the light on - with a newer Christian song (minus just a line or two that mentions Jesus), to form the symbolic message that we all possess the ability to behave virtuously and compassionately, and that these behaviors represent light in this world. A better world is one where light has increased and darkness has decreased.
Christians and Humanists agree on the need for 'light' in this world: the need for hope, reason, and compassion towards one's fellow man. They simply disagreed about the source of that light. If there is a need to 'be right' about the source of the light, then let us first make sure that there is no shortage of it to be studied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
