[extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists

[Jacob]

The duality exists in science as well, or more precisely the application
of it.  Science consists of learning about the universe, and the laws
inherent in it.  It's application consists mainly of using those laws to
benefit mankind.  Flight goes against gravity, so do rocket boosters. 
You can't control the world unless you are, to some extent, apart from
it (which our minds separate us from it).  The duality exists where you
recognize that the human mind is itself natural.  It exists within the
natural world, where human beings do.  I, for one, fail to see how this
is a damaging concept.  It on one hand teaches us responsibility, and on
the other allows progress to take place.  There's a contradiction here
that if you analyze more closely points to one conclusion.  Human beings
exist, humans have brains, brains help the human understand how the
universe works, this allows the human to control the universe, this also
comes with responsibility that if we accept we also becomes the
caretakers of this universe.  Transhumanism can't exist in a world which
insists that we are no more than the sum of our parts, with no potential
to advance passed that.  I am, therefore I think.

--jb

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- c c <beb_cc at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Does it derive from subject-object dualism, e.g. "we
>>are in this world but not of this world"?
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>Yes, precisely. It stems from basic instincts of
>survival and primitive notions of self and is
>reinforced in large part by a western religion that
>teaches two very damaging notions. One being that this
>world and life are a necessarily temporary. The other
>being that we are above, better than, and separate
>from everything that flies, swims, or crawls this
>world with us. A biologist can see the primordial worm
>in our genes and there are saints and villians amongst
>the dolphins too. If we differ in any fundamental way
>from the other creatures it is in that we have minds.
>And then, only to the extent of quantity as opposed to
>some difference of qualia. Thus a simple bacterium, by
>possesing a system of restriction enzymes that can
>recognize foreign gene sequences from invading DNA
>such as viruses and transposons and destroy them, can
>be said to hold a rudimentary biochemical notion of
>"self". And by swimming away from a drop of vinegar
>can be said to exhibit an "instinct" for survival or a
>"fear" of death. Truly Dawkins needed no disclaimer by
>way of excuse for ascribing anthropomorphic motives to
>genes . Genes do not just seem to be selfish, they
>really ARE selfish. Just like a cockroach does not
>just seem to fear death, a cockroach DOES fear death. 
>
>The Avantguardian 
>is 
>Stuart LaForge
>alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu
>
>"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
>-Bill Watterson
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Yahoo! Mail 
>Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
>http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>