/liberty/ - Liberty

>>96660

Taking smart drugs is not transhumanism.

>>96660

>>96668

What even are smart drugs?

>>96672

Nootropics.

Normal persons IQ varies by 10-20 points during the course of an average day. For example you might be 105 after breakfast, but in the evening when you're tired or if you skip lunch, it might drop to 85. Never caught yourself doing really stupid shit repeatedly, unable to focus on reading simple books, re-reading sentences, etc….?

Nootropics just stabilizes it, or sometimes improves it, but its not a long term effect.

>>96660

transhumanism will take away freedom and liberty as technology usually does. thats one reason why its so cancerous.

>>96677

Would it be recommended to take these and if so what would be the proper dosage?

>>96668

so how to become a transhuman?

>>96688

You cut you arm off and install hydraulic prosthesis that allows you to crush your enemies with your new-found power.

>>96689

THIS

We already have the tools for spiritual transhumanism. The human soul is immortal. Quintessence is in everyone's grasp.

>>96689

So basically turn yourself into Anakin Skywalker. I always liked his robotic arm.

>>96689

i fear cops :(

>>96692

you cant prove soul exists

I believe the next step in human evolution is either creating conscious AI or the ability to transfer consciousness. Once we shed our organic bodies we will truly be free to conquer the universe and harness the energy of stars. It’s ultimately the only way to ensure survival past our Earth’s lifespan.

>>96844

Psyche is greek for soul. We know the psyche exists because we are able to experience things and be conscious. Materialism cannot explain the psyche, it can only draw correlations between psychic actions and material occurrences. We have no reason to believe that the psyche arises from matter.

>>96873

>We have no reason to believe that the psyche arises from matter.

But we don't have reason to believe it isn't matter, either. To play devil's advocate I'm not a fedora-tipper, that's not a very strong argument for the existence of a psyche. Since everything else in the world arises from matter or energy, the burden of proof is on you to show that the psyche must arise from something other than matter.

>>96874

And why should the default position be that the psyche is matter? As it stands physics cannot account for consciousness, it cannot explain how matter could possibly be able to gain self-determination.

We know for a fact that consciousness exists because we all are conscious. The physical sciences have tried to explain consciousness over and over again and have failed every time. The best they can do is map a correlation between psychic actions and brain activity, but it is extremely fallacious to assume that these two phenomena are the same thing just because there is a correlation between the two. Because our understanding of the physical world cannot contain within it understanding of the will itself, it is impossible for us to presently conclude that the will is a function of matter.

>>96884

>it cannot explain how matter could possibly be able to gain self-determination

Are you completely retarded? Why would you think physics will explain your cowardly evasions of reality? Physics, when it touches the subject, is very often views things from position of determinism, and no matter how much you cry and bitch about it, you have nothing besides your hurt fee-fees about it. Ergo, it doesn't explain self-determination because it's a stupid concept that goes against all logic, it explains evolutionary mechanisms that reward certain behavior that grows more complex and deep over time. It doesn't help that most neuroscientists don't believe in free will, and they have infinitely more say in this question than some rabid cultist.

>We know for a fact that consciousness exists because we all are conscious.

No, that's not how it works. Just because you feel like it and telling you that that doesn't exist makes you feel uneasy doesn't mean it's true. It's up to you to prove that everyone hereincluding this post wasn't generated by a random script, because you won't tell tell difference.

>The physical sciences have tried to explain consciousness over and over again and have failed every time

That's the denial in the mind of a christcuck.

https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

>it is extremely fallacious to assume that these two phenomena are the same thing just because there is a correlation between the two

More like direct connection, read above. Really, don't sperg about what you know nothing of. You sound like even greater retard than other believers do.

>Because our understanding of the physical world cannot contain within it understanding of the will itself

Absolutely empty statement.

>it is impossible for us to presently conclude that the will is a function of matter

Aside from, you know, matter being the only thing in the world we observe.

Educate yourself, learn to listen those who know better at least within your perverse party, lurk for 3 years and kill yourself.

>>96887

Are you really trying to deny the fact that you are conscious and experiencing the universe right now? Charting the electric impulses in the brain doesn't come close to explaining how supposed matter can do that.

>>96891

>Are you really trying to deny the fact that you are conscious and experiencing the universe right now?

Are you really trying to shift a scientific debate towards the topic of one's feelings about it?

>Charting the electric impulses in the brain doesn't come close to explaining how supposed matter can do that.

>t. doesn't understand shit

You know, you could at lest try to pretend to know what you're talking about instead of going full "HURR DURR ALL THOSE GODLESS SCIENTISTS LOOK AT THE SCREENS AND MAKE NOTES AND SHEEIT, HOW DARE THEY".

>>96892

>Are you really trying to shift a scientific debate towards the topic of one's feelings about it?

No. And it's boggling that you got that out of what I said.

>You know, you could at lest try to pretend to know what you're talking about instead of going full "HURR DURR ALL THOSE GODLESS SCIENTISTS LOOK AT THE SCREENS AND MAKE NOTES AND SHEEIT, HOW DARE THEY".

Calm down, you're not thinking rationally.

>>96896

>No

Yep, it was a plain "no u" coming from someone whose cowardly nature was called out.

>Calm down, you're not thinking rationally.

Nor you ever did throughout your entire posting history.

>>96891

robots can experience the universe too

read włodzisław duch

>>96873

animals other than humans are able to experience things and be conscious too

so they have souls too?

>>96873

Bitch, we can map brain activity directly to physical actions, and we're even starting to image people's thoughts. We KNOW that specific damage to the physical brain results in predictable impacts on cognition and behavior. Do we have it ALL figured out? No. Are we 100% DAMN sure that mental activity is purely the result of physical processes? Absolutely yes.

Miss me with that retarded shit.

>>97813

>>97813

>we can map brain activity directly to physical actions

the brain map varies for all individuals, we are only certain of activity areas, not exact locations, the "psyche" is more weird than it's believed since organs like the digestive system and the heart laso has neurons that can store info.

>>97838

That just makes it unique to the individual, not fukkin' magic.

>>97830

A huge part of this video is "but peoples wills can change their brains" as if that somehow denies that it originates in the brain. It doesn't deny that. A machine can be so sophisticated as to build itself, code can be so sophisticated as to write itself. Sufficiently complex entities must be able to change themselves, otherwise they'd die off the moment there was a change of any significance. Another pillar of this video is the inverse. That because some people failed to physically alter the brain in order to alter the mind, this implies it's impossible. That does not logically follow. Some people failed to alter the mind through altering the brain, but there is historical evidence of peoples minds being altered when they suffered brain damage. If happenstance can do it, willful men can certainly do it.

>Platonic Christcuckery

Oh well, it all makes sense now, doesn't it. I'd curse Plato but with no Plato we may not have an Aristotle.

>>97838

There is no evidence of a puppeteer. There is a lack of full understanding of the Brain, but there is no evidence of some other mystical component which puppets the brain. It's a confusing mass of computational tissue all mashed together. There is, however, evidence that there is no puppeteer. Brain damage causes you to become stupid. Brain deformations cause people to be born stupid. If your intelligence, your selections, your will is not you in this way (as in, these are not representative of your "soul" or "psyche") then the "soul" is so poorly defined as to be as ephemeral as any other spook and just as ineffectual.

In other words, there's no reason to believe a soul is real and there'd be no point to one if it were real (because its actions have to be filtered through a brain who makes all the actual actions and decisions).

But hey, whatever, if souls are real then it doesn't matter that we disagree because we're all magical ghosts that live elsewhere and are confused into puppeting meat because ???. I'm sure we'll have a lengthy discussion about this in the next hundred years or so. Or, as you Christcucks believe, I'll be languishing in a trash fire in the middle east while you endlessly prostrate before your benevolent astral dictator. Somehow that seems even less likely.

Anarchy may or may not be transhumanist.

>we can map brain activity directly to physical actions

Correlation does not prove causation.

>We KNOW that specific damage to the physical brain results in predictable impacts on cognition and behavior

This does not prove that the psyche [i]originates[/i] in the brain, it only proves that the brain has some sort of function in the manifestation of psychic phenomena. A far cry from materialists' claim.

There is no conclusive proof that psychic activity is purely result of physical activity. All we know for sure is that physical activity is able to affect psychic activity in certain limited ways.

>>97883

But as arguments go, that's not a very strong one. "I haven't been proven wrong yet" isn't a very definitive position, it's honestly not much better than an assertion.

>>97885

The burden of proof is on the materialists. I make no claim about the nature of the psyche other than it is foolish to believe that it originates from matter when such an assertion has not remotely been proven or even suggested by modern science. It is not impossible for psyche to come from matter but nothing about what we currently know of physics can explain how matter could possibly come to consciously experience the universe – we don't even have a physical explanation for consciousness itself – and therefore it's folly to pretend that "we are 100% DAMN sure that mental activity is purely the result of physical processes". All this is is a byproduct of the philosophy that the universe consists only of physical processes and nothing else.

>>97891

>in this case is like the equivalent of saying (all things being equal) someone who loses about 3 liters of blood doesn't die from blood loss

Actually, you would need to do an autopsy on the body to determine the cause of death. If a medical examiner simply noticed that a body was missing 3 liters of blood that would not be sufficient for him to declare that the cause of death was blood loss. Point being that we know how biology works not by stupidly mapping correlations but by actually understanding the functions of the body, how and why they work.

>Please tell me next how nerve gas (which prevents nerves from communicating with organs) is not proof that the nervous system controls various organs essential for life but rather that they're only just correlated.

Again simply dousing someone is nerve gas wouldn't prove the fact that the nervous system controls organs. We understand how and why the nervous system affects organs. Why do not understand how and why the nervous system affects the psyche, aside from certain correlations such as electrical activity in certain parts of the brain when psychic activity happens. Again, does not prove materialism.

Let's say you're on your computer and are using a network interface card with an antenna to connect to the internet. You notice that when you cover up the antenna or move it in certain configurations your internet signal reduces in quality. You decide to break the network interface card to see what happens. After doing so, you cannot use the internet. Now, would it be logically sound to say that you have soundly proven that the world wide web originates from your computer's network interface card due to the correlations you have observed?

>>97896

>If you didn't have a basic understanding of how the nervous system worked beforehand, a study of nerve gas would give you a rude awakening as to the importance of the nervous system to the human body.

No it would not. If you didn't have a basic understanding of the nervous system there would be no way to know that the particular property of stopping the flow of acetylcholinesterase is meaningful at all. All the experiment would tell you is that nerve gas causes death. It would render nothing about the workings of the actual nervous system.

>With the internet, you're essentially doing is getting a number of devices that can communicate with each other (ie: your computer, your iphone, etc) and connecting them to other devices that are far away, and they can be servers, other computers, etc, etc. If you destroy your router for example, your connection to the internet is severed, no one would say that the internet is gone, rather that your connection to the internet has been interrupted by a layer 1 physical problem (that being that you've destroyed your router). This becomes obvious by observing the fact that other people's internet is still in-tact, people are able to connect to other networks, it's just you who can't.

Since we are using this as an analogy for the psyche, werein the internet itself is the psyche and the NIC is the brain, assume that you have no way of testing whether other computers, other brains, can connect to the internet. It would not be logically sound to say that the internet originates from the NIC just because you have no way of disproving it by finding some other computer.

>that the frontal lobe has nothing to do with controlling these functions

I never once said that the brain has nothing to do with controlling psychic functions. My position is that we cannot conclude that psychic functions originate from the brain. Going back to the analogy, the NIC of course has a role in interacting with the internet itself. If it didn't, we wouldn't need it. Same with the brain. But it's fallacious to conclude that it is the prime originator of the psyche just because it demonstratively plays a role in psychic phenomena.

>>96684

They have a point. Technology can have the opposite effect of being liberative.

>>97890

You just took the same claim and rephrased it a little. "It's foolish to assume the psyche is physical" is just another way of saying "the psyche is physical"

>but nothing about what we currently know of physics can explain how matter could possibly come to consciously experience the universe – we don't even have a physical explanation for consciousness itself

I'm not openly a materialist, but I do know the materialist view, and it doesn't seem to me that you fully understand the materialist view. The materialist need not believe that consciousness is a "thing" in and of itself, but just an emergent property of the physical things present within the body. Without going into the gritty details, it's just a series of actions and reactions within the bodily chemicals in response to a stimulus outside of the body.

>All this is is a byproduct of the philosophy that the universe consists only of physical processes and nothing else.

That's not a philosophy, that's a tautology–the universe is definitionally the sum of all physical things, ergo everything in the universe is a physical thing.

>therefore it's folly to pretend that "we are 100% DAMN sure that mental activity is purely the result of physical processes".

Even if we're not "100% damn sure," it's a natural assumption. Everything else in the body is physical. Everything else in the body is a physical reaction to an outside physical stimulus (for the pedants, I'm including energy in the term "physical" here). There is no medical reason to believe that neurons are an exception to this rule. There are non-medical, non-scientific reasons you can suggest this, and it's more than suitable to construct an argument from those reasons.

>>97902

No, primitivists do not have a point. Technology is knowledge is power. It's the distribution of power that is harmful or helpful to an individual or to a group. Simply saying "we need to go back!" is insane and troglodytic. You don't spurn power, you crave it and you acquire it. That is the path to success. You cannot destroy power and trying to do so just guarantees your opponents will secure it and you will be at their mercy.

Furthermore the idea that "sometimes technology is bad" is just silly. Historically technology has empowered the weak and allowed the singular to act as if they were many. Technological progress allows a small number of people to enable the lives of many others and a small number of specialists to enrich those lives through various means. If sometimes technology is bad, it must be ten steps forward and one step back, because it doesn't show easily. This "bad technology" meme smacks of Malthus to me, and I don't like it.

>>97910

>Technology is knowledge is power.

This is cringe in that you're forming your sentence improperly not giving a clear idea of what you want to push. So technology is both knowledge and power? I don't need the slightest bit of knowledge behind how a light switch works to turn on something or how a gun works to pull the trigger.

>It's the distribution of power that is harmful or helpful to an individual or to a group.

More cringe basically agreeing with me that technology can both have a non-liberative and liberative aspect to it.

>You don't spurn power, you crave it and you acquire it.

Doesn't sound very anarchistic. I don't crave power so badly over others and I don't think you know what the word means.

>You cannot destroy power

You can and this shows again you don't understand what power is.

>Furthermore the idea that "sometimes technology is bad" is just silly. Historically technology has empowered the weak

Historically there have been all sorts of technologies only put into place and affordable to states with the ability to sustain them by massive taxation thus empowering the strong not the weak. Under more competitive market conditions that'd level the playing field such technologies wouldn't be economically sustainable or affordable to private actors.

>Technological progress allows a small number of people to enable the lives of many others and a small number of specialists to enrich those lives through various means.

It can also allow a small number of malicious actors to worsen the lives of others. It works both ways.

>If sometimes technology is bad, it must be ten steps forward and one step back, because it doesn't show easily.

Perhaps if you lack foresight.

>>97903

>it's just a series of actions and reactions within the bodily chemicals in response to a stimulus outside of the body.

And such a hypothesis is thus far not substantiated.

>the universe is definitionally the sum of all physical things

No, it is the sum of every thing. Concepts such as numbers or geometry are not physical objects but still exist in the universe.

>There is no medical reason to believe that neurons are an exception to this rule.

You're begging the question. You can't equate consciousness to neurons until it's proven. We have proven that other biological processes such as digestion or respiration originate in the body's organs. We know how and why they work on a physical level and can adequately explain the physical processes to give rise to them. The same cannot be said of consciousness. All we know is that the brain plays some role in psychic functions, because there is a correlation between psychic functions and brain activity. This, however, is not sufficient to conclude that prime progenitor of psychic function is the brain.

>>97930

>And such a hypothesis is thus far not substantiated.

Now you're just being stubborn. The idea of action-reaction isn't substantiated?

> Concepts such as numbers or geometry are not physical objects but still exist in the universe.

That's drifting away from the main discussion so I won't press the point; I'm not about to start arguing Plato on top of everything else.

>You're begging the question. You can't equate consciousness to neurons until it's proven.

At risk of turning this into a contest of throwing fallacies at one another, I must point you to Occam's Razor. Neurons are all that is necessary to explain human activity (and to press the issue once again since you seem to have missed it, the materialist need not assume "consciousness" of any sort–you don't need a will to react to stimuli), it's fallacious to presume that consciousness is required when there is nothing that requires it as a prerequisite. Once again, it sounds like we're going in circles–you've just restated "you can't prove me wrong" in a third way.

>You can't equate consciousness to neurons until it's proven

Even discounting what I said above, you realize "God of the gaps" isn't a very convincing argument, right? Answer me this: if tomorrow, it was announced that scientists had completely mapped every neural pathway in the brain, and conclusively connected every possible human action to a neuron firing and vice versa, would you throw up your hands in defeat and declare yourself a materialist? I don't think so, and neither would anyone else who believes in a soul or non-material psyche. Since the inverse of this argument presumably wouldn't convince you, why use it on others? I'd suggest finding whatever it is that convinces you that the materialist explanation is insufficient, and argue from that.

>>97931

>The idea of action-reaction isn't substantiated?

The idea that the neurons are the originator of the psychic action is not substantiated.

>it's fallacious to presume that consciousness is required when there is nothing that requires it as a prerequisite

Required for what? The topic of the discussion is consciousness. Certainly we know for a fact that consciousness – at least our consciousness – exists.

>if tomorrow, it was announced that scientists had completely mapped every neural pathway in the brain, and conclusively connected every possible human action to a neuron firing and vice versa, would you throw up your hands in defeat and declare yourself a materialist?

If the mapping was able to explain why and how consciousness arises then yes.

>whatever it is that convinces you that the materialist explanation is insufficient

The materialist explanation attempts to prematurely equate consciousness with neuron activity without proper evidence or explanation. When a materialist says that we know about consciousness he really means that we know about the brain and neurons.

>>97944

>The idea that the neurons are the originator of the psychic action is not substantiated.

That's not the idea being proposed. The idea is that neurons react to things. Specifically, that one of the things neurons react to is external stimuli.

> Certainly we know for a fact that consciousness – at least our consciousness – exists.

Do we really? Consciousness as in will is not something that materialists take as a given. Many materialists will proclaim that we have no will, but that "will" is nothing more than an abstraction used to describe a reaction whose final outcome is too complex to predict–that men are just exceedingly complex machines and chemical reactions that act in predictable ways. Under this paradigm, there's no need for an actual consciousness to exist.

>When a materialist says that we know about consciousness he really means that we know about the brain and neurons.

A materialist sees no reason to make a distinction between the two, and as of yet you haven't provided a reason he should besides "you can't prove me wrong yet."

>>97952

>neurons react to things. Specifically, that one of the things neurons react to is external stimuli.

That is a true statement, but it doesn't prove materialism correct.

>Many materialists will proclaim that we have no will, but that "will" is nothing more than an abstraction used to describe a reaction whose final outcome is too complex to predict

>Under this paradigm, there's no need for an actual consciousness to exist.

So how do they explain the fact that they themselves are able to experience phenomena? One can easily become a solipsist and claim that you can't know for sure if others are conscious, but the thinker himself actually undergoing the phenomenon of "experiencing" is an event that undeniably happens.

>and as of yet you haven't provided a reason he should besides "you can't prove me wrong yet."

I am not the one making the claim. I have not attempted to define the nature of the psyche. I am questioning the materialist claim that the psyche originates solely from matter. I am not asking to be "proved wrong", I am asking for the materialists to prove themselves right. Something that they seem to be unable to do.

>>97956

I'm surprised the flagfag keeps acknowledging your posts. Your constant insisting that you need to "prove materialism" is faulty and clearly demonstrates you're not arguing in good faith. That the brain is a real, physical organ is proven. That the brain controls the body is proven. That the brain houses memory and personality is proven. Your claim that there is some extra property is what remains to be seen. It's a claim you cannot prove or even provide any degree of evidence for. The idea that things are how they seem to be is unassailable from your position.

You are the one making claims. You can deny it all day but you're still the one claiming there is an extra element to the brain, an element of mysticism and magic. An undetected (and so far as anyone is concerned undetectable) overmind which accompanies the brain but that is not the brain. To argue as if your claim has already been proven true and to shunt the responsibility of disproving it onto other people is an annoying tactic, but what can one expect from a distant disciple of Plato? I wonder if you believe in the world of forms, too.

>>97978

How do you equate memory and personality to the phenomenon of experience? The two former things are factual data, clearly distinct from consciousness itself. If you were to somehow lose every bit of memory and personality you would still be able to experience.

>one claiming there is an extra element to the brain, an element of mysticism and magic

I never once claimed that.

>To argue as if your claim has already been proven true

The claim that individuals are able to experience phenomena? I know empirically that that is true; I am experiencing phenomena right now. If you could explain to me how it is that the inert data of memory, personality, etc, are able to produce the phenomenon of experience, it would be greatly appreciated.

>>97744

Dogs do, maybe marine mammals.

>>98078

xDDDD

>>98003

solipsism? :o

very interesting video, thank you for posting it

>>98003

>There is not objective reality beyond what we observe

But the wave function objectively exists

>>98442

Once again, people not versed in quantum mechanics should not try to use quantum mechanics to justify their point.