Well, yes. In future visitations of this concept I hope to be capable of achieving both of those goals. I did say I’m early in the rough-draft stages of the thought.
I do agree that if there is such a thing as the best I can be, it would be nice to be it, especially if we’re defining “best” in terms of how nice it is.
I would advise being very careful of any definition of optimal states which is vulnerable to wire-heading. I personally am not an adherent in general to hedonism. That being said:
My specific reason for avoiding defining ‘best’ was a moral one: I do not believe myself fit to decide what the maximally optimal state is for anyone other than myself. I did attempt to provide substance towards what that state would be for me. There is very little in the way of literature that describes what, precisely, it means to be possessed of “humanity”; what specific qualities that state is describing.
The notion of the human condition is a very nebulous one; and the idea of intentionally altering it in any way is one that seems to my observations very insular to the transhumanist movement (of which I am, admittedly, a member). This informs my notions pretty heavily. The whole concept I’m espousing here is essentially an answer to a dilemma pretty much all contemporary transhumanists face: we desire to be ‘improved’, but lack the means to improvement. For example; I currently dose modafinil, knowing full well that there are no measurable cognitive improvements associated with it, because it’s the closest to a genuine nootropic that’s available to me. Being able to remain alert and clear-of-mind at any hour is of benefit to me (especially as I work overnight shifts; modafinil is actually an on-label medication for me.)
I do not believe that I was making any great ground-shaking claims when I stated that people should want to ‘be better’. That’s trivial. Instead, it is my hope that by introducing this term I might begin a dialogue towards a few ends.
The establishment of a ‘movement’ or ‘agenda’ of individual maximal-optimization.
The establishment of a dialogue or body of lore facilitating the implementation of that goal.
The establishment of a label for both the idyllic end-state (useful as a symbolic analogue more than anything else), a label for the agenda/movement, and the practice of implementing said goal.
In other words; if somewhere along down the line there were a group or groups of people who spoke of “acrohumanism” (or whatever term comes to supplant that), or described themselves as “acrohumanists”, and had a body of techniques which were in place to that end, I would consider myself to have succeeded well beyond my current expectations of maximal probability. If I can, from this dialogue, pick up a few new ways of reaching that end myself, or at least establish a means of communicating my notions more clearly, I will have achieved my specific agenda in making this post.
Well, yes. In future visitations of this concept I hope to be capable of achieving both of those goals. I did say I’m early in the rough-draft stages of the thought.
I would advise being very careful of any definition of optimal states which is vulnerable to wire-heading. I personally am not an adherent in general to hedonism. That being said:
My specific reason for avoiding defining ‘best’ was a moral one: I do not believe myself fit to decide what the maximally optimal state is for anyone other than myself. I did attempt to provide substance towards what that state would be for me. There is very little in the way of literature that describes what, precisely, it means to be possessed of “humanity”; what specific qualities that state is describing.
The notion of the human condition is a very nebulous one; and the idea of intentionally altering it in any way is one that seems to my observations very insular to the transhumanist movement (of which I am, admittedly, a member). This informs my notions pretty heavily. The whole concept I’m espousing here is essentially an answer to a dilemma pretty much all contemporary transhumanists face: we desire to be ‘improved’, but lack the means to improvement. For example; I currently dose modafinil, knowing full well that there are no measurable cognitive improvements associated with it, because it’s the closest to a genuine nootropic that’s available to me. Being able to remain alert and clear-of-mind at any hour is of benefit to me (especially as I work overnight shifts; modafinil is actually an on-label medication for me.)
I do not believe that I was making any great ground-shaking claims when I stated that people should want to ‘be better’. That’s trivial. Instead, it is my hope that by introducing this term I might begin a dialogue towards a few ends.
The establishment of a ‘movement’ or ‘agenda’ of individual maximal-optimization.
The establishment of a dialogue or body of lore facilitating the implementation of that goal.
The establishment of a label for both the idyllic end-state (useful as a symbolic analogue more than anything else), a label for the agenda/movement, and the practice of implementing said goal.
In other words; if somewhere along down the line there were a group or groups of people who spoke of “acrohumanism” (or whatever term comes to supplant that), or described themselves as “acrohumanists”, and had a body of techniques which were in place to that end, I would consider myself to have succeeded well beyond my current expectations of maximal probability. If I can, from this dialogue, pick up a few new ways of reaching that end myself, or at least establish a means of communicating my notions more clearly, I will have achieved my specific agenda in making this post.