Semantic Apocalypse

[jetfx]

“For Professor Skeat, psychopaths were nothing less than the horsemen of the apocalypse. Contemporary culture had digested the meaninglessness of natural events, the fact that they were indifferent to all things human. A few stubborn fools still shook their fists at God, but most simply shrugged their shoulders. Most knew better, no matter how

Comments

[postrodent]

A well done book review. Props to you.
It strikes me that this guy has identified both the draw and the great problems with the posthuman project; firstly, that "the vale of human suffering is basically a dump" and that taking control of more of the human condition could at least buffer that some, and secondly, that there's no guarantee whatsoever that posthumanity will actually _be_ better. He puts his finger on the greatest danger, too -- I'm less worry about us becoming a monocultural hive mind than about us becoming hyperintelligent slaves of whoever has root access to our brains.
Brain modification as an "enhanced interrogation technique" is a particularly grisly and plausible idea. Who can doubt that, as things are right now, if we had those technologies, security forces all over the world would be clamoring for them?

[jetfx]

Thanks!

The book and the essay did give me a lot of fodder to chew on about our post human future, something even Bakker agrees is an inevitability.

[postrodent]

I really really hope it's an inevitability. :>

[jetfx]

I think it's a little past hope at this point.

[jetfx]

The Argument doesn't posit that we are literally without choice, but rather the classical conception of free will is incorrect. As we are unaware of our own behavioral processes, thoughts just seem to pop into our conscious minds as if from no where - that you have made a free choice. The Argument posits that our thoughts and actions are primarily the result of environmental stimuli and hardwired behavior rather than any classical conception of free will. That people do things that are clearly not in their own interests tends to support a more behaviorist theory of mind, because we do things without any conscious explanation or choice. Animals do it all the time. We're animals.

Descartes is a poor choice to bolster your argument, as mind-body dualism is hopelessly incorrect. Not only is there no wall of separation between the two (ever get drunk?), Descartes' conception of affairs would violate the law of conservation of energy.

[jetfx]

A big part of the Argument is that we do not make conscious decisions because consciousness is an illusion, born of the fact we are not fully aware of our mental processes. I'd recommend reading the lecture by Bakker I linked, as it far more clearly explains something I badly explaining.

[robertlyon]

Sounds interesting.

[jetfx]

Most definitely. ;)