Okay. The thing is, all of that stuff would be allowed under the restriction you were objecting to. Everything you are proposing is working within the system of human biology, optimizing it. You’re not replacing it with something else altogether like computer chips or genetically re-engineering one’s myelin or whatever.
As a reminder, the exchange began:
How much can we raise the sanity waterline without transhumanism (i.e. assuming current human biology is a constant)?
The question presupposes mind body dualism. Biology get’s changed through mental interventions and it’s not at all clear how many interventions are possible.
The thing is, all of that stuff would be allowed under the restriction you were objecting to.
I don’t care that much about what’s allowed but about what people actually do. Even if a nerd intellectually understands that mind-body dualism is wrong, then he can still ignore his body and avoid exercising because he doesn’t get the idea at a deep level.
Why do you consider something that changes hormone levels keeping biology constant but something that changes genes not keeping biology constant?
More importantly, once you understand that there a lot of unexplored space the question of how far we could improve becomes a question that obviously nobody is going to be able to answer.
Couldn’t you have said the interesting parts of that without the aggressive ‘You’re being a mind-body dualist!’ part?
Why would I? One of the core points of the argument is fighting mind-body dualism. It’s the connection to the original sentence I’m challenging. A connection that otherwise didn’t seem obvious to you.
As far as the word “aggressive” goes, challenging ideas at a deep level can raise emotions. I don’t think that’s a reason to avoid deep intellectual debate and only debate superficial issues that don’t raise emotions.
How much can we raise the sanity waterline without transhumanism (i.e. assuming current human biology is a constant)?
The only way I can see this as mind-body dualistic is by taking a very strong, restrictive sense of the phrase ‘human biology’ - one which does not already include those things that humans are biologically capable of without high-technological transhumanist aid. You assumed that the definition in use was one you would strongly disagree with, despite contextual clues that this was not the case: if the poster thinks that transhumanistic modifications CAN impact the sanity waterline, this person is clearly not a mind-body dualist!
Basically, you picked a fight with someone who agreed with you over something you agreed with them about and insisted that they disagreed with you. It’s obnoxious.
I don’t think that’s a reason to avoid deep intellectual debate and only debate superficial issues that don’t raise emotions.
When you’re dealing with emotionally charged issues, you need to be very careful. It’s not the time to run in throwing words into peoples’ mouths.
Okay. The thing is, all of that stuff would be allowed under the restriction you were objecting to. Everything you are proposing is working within the system of human biology, optimizing it. You’re not replacing it with something else altogether like computer chips or genetically re-engineering one’s myelin or whatever.
As a reminder, the exchange began:
I don’t care that much about what’s allowed but about what people actually do. Even if a nerd intellectually understands that mind-body dualism is wrong, then he can still ignore his body and avoid exercising because he doesn’t get the idea at a deep level.
Why do you consider something that changes hormone levels keeping biology constant but something that changes genes not keeping biology constant?
More importantly, once you understand that there a lot of unexplored space the question of how far we could improve becomes a question that obviously nobody is going to be able to answer.
Couldn’t you have said the interesting parts of that without the aggressive ‘You’re being a mind-body dualist!’ part?
Why would I? One of the core points of the argument is fighting mind-body dualism. It’s the connection to the original sentence I’m challenging. A connection that otherwise didn’t seem obvious to you.
As far as the word “aggressive” goes, challenging ideas at a deep level can raise emotions. I don’t think that’s a reason to avoid deep intellectual debate and only debate superficial issues that don’t raise emotions.
The only way I can see this as mind-body dualistic is by taking a very strong, restrictive sense of the phrase ‘human biology’ - one which does not already include those things that humans are biologically capable of without high-technological transhumanist aid. You assumed that the definition in use was one you would strongly disagree with, despite contextual clues that this was not the case: if the poster thinks that transhumanistic modifications CAN impact the sanity waterline, this person is clearly not a mind-body dualist!
Basically, you picked a fight with someone who agreed with you over something you agreed with them about and insisted that they disagreed with you. It’s obnoxious.
When you’re dealing with emotionally charged issues, you need to be very careful. It’s not the time to run in throwing words into peoples’ mouths.