well you can sit there and be cynical but some of us are hacking drones and sending them to kill copyright lawyers

you're also confirming my suspicion that post modern cynicism is not world weary wisdom based on any kind of realism at all, but conservatism that wants to preserve magical thinking and shut down any possibility of change whatsoever by always positing that it's not worth knowing about.

i'd rather face the inevitable movement of progress and make whatever moves are available, the fact that i can't magically defeat possibilities of misuse and like, reality, makes me more realistic than anyone who can't think/keep up with change because they're secretly preserving a ridiculous optimism through disavowing it in cynicism.

i mean, of COURSE lawyers and power structures will seek to capitalise on this stuff as much as they possibly can.

i'm not cynical in the least-- you're the one setting yourself up for cynicism.

cynics are disappointed romantics. when the techno/digital/energy utopia-ushering revolution doesn't come you're going to be left heartbroken and thinking that everything is shit. you're asking for absolutes.

life is a bitch, there is no end to suffering, nor to the tasks we must perform, and we won't ever live in an earthly paradise, but that doesn't mean we throw the towel.

no im not, that's what you've projected onto what i've said for reasons i've already given. if you look again you'll see that i actually don't, but you just want me to.

I miss the real internet, you know, really the real internet was like our eras Summer of Love or Woodstock, that high water mark. The thing about high water marks is they're unstable by nature and definition, hence why all the more you have to enjoy your moment surfing the crest, and savor the memory of having been there. Today? The internet sucks, as you've said, throttled to death. Its actually almost WORSE than cable.

the movement to stop net neutrality can win.

being that post-modernism isn't an era but an attitude, i'm not really a post-modern-- i'm a late modern. i support progress, science, knowledge, the project of the enlightement, etc. however, seeing the history of progress and modernity i am not naive enough to think that progress is a cure-all-- that is just pig ignorance at this point.

progress always brings its own new set of problems. people who actually work in science see and know this. the union of concerned scientists wasn't born in a vacuum. scientists also know that their work gets pimped by politicians and corporatocrats-- all the fucking time. many scientists today in fact embrace that and have no problem collecting the big paychecks.

go forward, but remain vigilant.

well, no. i went somewhere this morning and they had cable and no, it's not worse. especially during the daytime.

but yes, now that everything is trackable to everybody with a real identity, the internet is not a separate space but just an extension of the same old shit. instead of allowing the creation of new identities and new communities as people theorized in the early eras, the internet just came to reflect/transmit/perpetuate the existing social order. and here comes another linkedin contact request. just like hippies became yuppies.

is that the unabomber?

you cant say that it just perpetuated the existing order. its one of the biggest changes in human history and its only begun.

anyway.

non utopian scenarios -

when fusion energy is cracked, within this century, its not utopian or out of the realms of human ability for us to organize and aggressively demand that fusion is implemented and gives practically free energy to everyone. and it would be practically free since the cost of one plant (which is all you'd need) wouldn't be much.

people are definitely capable of organizing that.

i think we're definitely capable of putting out the idea that free energy is a right, that the rich deserve to pay for it for the rest of us through the tax system, based on my ignorant estimates it would hardly be that expensive.

likewise we're capable of solving the malnutrition problems

the key is to start in the 1st world FIRST and reject all the tricks of universalism which say "cos the africans are starving u just be a good slave and dont dare expect anything other than subsistence".

we're capable of upholding a social expectation that copyright law only applies to certain things. you should be able to 3d print out anything you want if it doesn't harm anyone.

we can pressurize and organize and keep the internet as free as possible.

there are things we can do, and basic scientific literacy and technical skills are the most important way to be able to achieve them.

The simple answer? no

i get what you're saying, but the blind spot there is that the cure to the problem of human misery isn't really technical-- it's mostly political. and we haven't really figured out that one.

the problem of freedom vs. power is also a political one. free from what? free for what? and who gets to the power, and to what ends? this is a massive question that science can't solve.

and social inequality seems not so much about scarcity of resources or mere survival needs, but with how our brains are hardwired-- as hierarchical, tribal, status/power seeking apes. maybe neuroscience will address that in the future, but if neuroscience can be used to program for social harmony it will be first used to produce compliant workers a la thx 1138 or brave new world.

not being cynical here, just trying to map out the shape of future struggles-- future because they are constant.

the powerful want to accrue greater power because they are engaged in their own arms race at the top. and that is what consumes the resources and freedom who would otherwise feed and free those at the bottom-- guns vs. butter. not that those at the bottom don't have their own arms/status races as well-- it's just that they are less noticeable/make less impact.

i really have no idea of how this could be solved. tomorrow's gangsters will replace today's gangsters but they will still be gangsters.

that's the real problem, right there-- that one. and to reiterate--i don't know if we have a solution for that yet because human brains seem to love being part of a gang with a big boss on top, even if the weak have to pay for it.




but i'm a fucking mutant experimenting with something else.

im not interested in human misery.

existence is itself misery. the cure is non existence. thats it.

you have to separate technical and scientific progress from some bs ideal of happiness which usually doesn't mean anything but "lets keep things the way they are and conform totally".

its definitely possible for us to have practically unlimited energy for almost everyone. definitely possible to solve the malnutrition problem. definitely possible to protect ourselves from the neurohacking that drug dealers, be they street thugs or mcdonalds, are already performing. this is why there's a need for the p2p distribution of knowledge and technics and a new experimental culture involving drugs, the brain and communication technology.
we should be working towards individual self sufficiency in energy, food etc.

the rest of what you are saying has been worked through by scott bakker with his blind brain theory.

i think what ive said in this thread takes all your points into account. the only thing i dont agree with is making statements like "we have a pre-wired tendency for servitude/dominance hierarchies". i don't think this is quite right, because it wants to explain the existing state of affairs based on a shared cognitive bias. it wants things to be inherently stable and explain away power through animalistic biases. i dont disagree with this completely, i just think that the base level is absolute chaos/death/blindness and not fairness. i also think our ideals of what WOULD be fair and just are also cognitive biases. even our pretensions for what is good are when it comes down to it just a load of babble that's totally blind to the neuromechanics that really run the show.

even our conceptions of freedom/power are so folk psychological as to be almost useless.

nevertheless, we can still manage to keep some basic civility going. property rights, some sort of legal protection, some sort of slapped together band aid that just about works. social expectations still have real effects. you CAN generate the demand for say, running tap water for everyone, and then use this social expectation to threaten power into not fucking with you. there's always a possibility space for politics of some sort.

i have to go help with the housework so i can't give you a thorough response now but just quickly to say kant was right and the behaviorists were wrong--- about 90% of behavior is genetically hardwired and maybe 10% can be programmed. we're not a tabula rasa. i know it's disheartening at first but at least it's a start to comprehend what we can actually do.

you dont have to respond to every post you know.

read bakkers bbt theory.

read this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-h...b_1463429.html

yeah. you have to give me a break sometimes, especially if you're not even reading what i'm saying.

yes yes-- i found scott bakker site. just a quickie post between chores

read this

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/conte...20/scan.nsu057

this is really getting good now.

trolling with neuroscience.

feel like we're taking it to the next level here.

i love you, brother.

ps better yet

http://culturalneuro.psych.northwest...o_CON_2010.pdf

okay.

bbt = an update on the Unconscious.

great and all, but nothing new really. columbus discovering the indians.

please note, if hunger is caused by inequality (not lack of resources) and inequality is caused by social hierarchy, and social hierarchy is caused by the brain, and the brain is ruled by the genome…

but no, i'm not naturalizing hunger. i'm NOT saying "this is the way it is and so let it be."

explaining our behavior as animal behavior does not mean this is the way it always has to go (although it will probably go this way for a very long time).

it only needs to mean: this is the real point of departure to try to change anything, because everything else is an illusion (e.g., "the sanctity of life").

of course, medically prescribing more empathy might lead to the extinction of the species.

sociobiologically, we need a balance between selfishness and altruism. it's applied game theory. tricky shit. especially with changing evolutionary pressures.

but i don't really know.

ps- im curious about his fantasy novels though

its not what you think
http://www.academia.edu/1502945/The_Last_Magic_Show_A_Blind_Brain_Theory_of_the_Ap pearance_of_Consciousness

-

he explains why the search for the unconscious failed in one of the more recent posts.

-

the fantasy novels are probably the best of the genre. also did the novel "neuropath" which is worth reading. it goes for pennies on amazon, well worth the money.

-

the brain does not exist in a vacuum from the environment. its absurd to think that with the tech we're developing, we won't eventually solve the food crisis. brains can be hacked, likewise we've "hacked" nature and our hacking of it can be made to produce over abundances.

here is an easy-listening version of bakkers paper

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/op...ooks.html?_r=0

of course this dumbshit, who is a journalist, is cautioning against it.

if you think about it for a moment, you'll see dawkins (the biologist not the activist, same body different eras) is saying the same thing in the selfish gene (did you read that?)

it's old news. bakker just rephrases it in a more stoner kind of way.

no, he doesn't. you need to read it first.

i did. you haven't read the others.

i read that brooks pieces years ago!

and the tom wolfe piece he's referring to!

i linked you to the essay. either read it or dont. this isnt a dick swinging match.

i know what you think he is but he's not that, his theory is aware of and demolishes the ones you think it is.

THERE IS NO SELF. CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION. THERE IS NO MIND.

we know that.

i get that he hypothesizes (not proves) how the theatre of consciousness, the now, etc, arises. i get that.

but in the end he's saying the same thing that buddhists have been saying for millennia.

this doesn't mean his theory isn't worth reading (it's a fun read).

but it's not new, and it's not a discovery.

you realize how hard, how really fucking hard is it to come up with a truly new idea? most of the stuff we do is update and repackage or at bess toss together like some salad bar.

the renaissance returns over and over.

the baroque returns over and over.

i bet you the buddhism we know about wasn't even the first one.

alright dude.

you need a symbol man thread, because this is absolutely tiresome and for some reason i can never resist the bait.

you're just not interested. im not interested in explaining it to you either, because this is not productive. its all there if you want to read.

i recommend that essay to EVERYONE on here.

goodnight and lets not do this over and over again.

where do you get the notion that processing the same text we are going to reach the same implications if we are different organisms?

what you demand negates that you actually understood the paper.

e.g. the notion that i'm baiting.

you demand complete agreement or else act narcissistically wounded.

as if this was about you! i get the thread title but i'm not talking about you. i'm only working with the material you present-- which is highly stimulating. but your demands for compliance are lolworthy.

the frame you are using to interpret it is not even relevant to it. it's not saying what you think it does, which is the same thing you've been saying for absolutely no good reason (as if i don't know about this possibility?) over and over again.

and its maybe just that im not that interested in hearing your responses.

not demanding agreement, just not interested in this "discussion" which is about you putting a rejoinder to everything declaring that you have the last word because i don't know about x.

because it just strings it all out for no good reason other than ego. and i'm not interested what you're saying most of the time tbh. this is the db thread, you're welcome to your own. im not interested in defending myself against things that don't have any content over and over again because you've got nothing better to do. and you don't seem to be saying anything other than "all of this is pointless because the big other knows everything already" which is never going to be something i will respond to, because there is no response possible to that. i get accused of utopian concepts that aren't there, or i get accused of saying things that you already know because you are so wise and helpfully enlightening me. please. the end.

im not interested in "my own" thread-- or in having the last word-- or in preaching--or in my ego. here is where you project your own limits onto somebody else.

i just like playing ping-pong because it's a vaccine against various traps of autodidacticism---things like confirmation bias or bad sources or the perpetual reinvention of the wheel.

but if you enjoy your confirmation bias and unchallenged beliefs in this desolate corner of the internet then by all means have at them.

It may just be my bias as a spiritualist but I've always found the neurochemical theories explaining consciousness as being, well, boring. If there is no "self" in the existential sense, than what is there? I dont mean in the egoistic sense of self-importance either. Also, human biology requires mutual cooperation between individuals, competition does not benefit individuals. Our young and old, biologically speaking, require the help of other humans for DECADES of time,indeed for many the first and last ten years of life require almost total cooperative support. So its not an ethical or moral construct or ideal, rather for the survival of both individuals and the species as a whole cooperation is both a biological imperative and a key evolutionary adaption. As to consciousness, it has been argued that consciousness itself is an adaption, but my personal belief is that the opposite is true, consciousness is root of existence for all life.a

art is dead. By now, no artist lives here anymore. Everything is too expensive. The people of this city don’t know how to live. They are content to spend time to buy stuff and to work to pay for it in installments. By now I’m old. I’m dying. If I were twenty years younger, I think it would leave. I never go out. . This city, America, loves the successful sociopath and thinks it’s normal to dream of becoming like him. New York has become a city of repressed emotions. And this is a real tragedy. In general, what has today’s culture become? Naked women that sway their hips on TV and in the newspapers. All the theaters have disappeared, the places where artists and intellectuals could meet. Today everything has disappeared. When I first came here, this apartment cost only about one hundred dollars a month, which was very easy to make. You only had to go to the park down here and give someone a blowjob. Now nothing is happening and nothing will ever happen again. Money has taken away everything. Internet is sweeping everything away. The television is horrible. I think it should not exist. The technology leads to pathological addictions very quickly. Especially the screens. Almost worse than the desire to become rich and famous. I was writing articles because they paid me. he used his own body and his own intelligence to climb up to the highest social classes, so something is broken inside. As Gore Vidal once said, to see the face of a killer, just look in any mirror. In this city, either you’re rich, or it’s a trap.