GENIUS FORUMS

http://www.hedweb.com/

"Saving Vehicles With Bad Drivers.
Blind selective pressures have acted on living organisms over hundreds of millions of years. Darwinian evolution has powerfully favoured the growth of ever more diverse, excruciating, but also more adaptive varieties of psychophysical pain. Its sheer nastiness effectively spurs and punishes the living vehicles of genetic replicators. Sadness, anxiety and discontent are frequently good for our genes; they're just psychologically bad for us. In absolute terms, global suffering is probably still increasing as the population explosion continues. Human ingenuity has struggled, often vainly, to rationalise and somehow derive value from the most frightful anguish. But over the aeons, the very anguish which intermittently corrodes the well-being of the individual organism has differentially promoted the inclusive fitness of its DNA. Hence it has tended to get inexorably worse."

"The Hedonistic Imperative
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice."

(I thought I'd add this as an initial counter to the expected arguments of needing emotional contrast or tolerance developing. It is quoted from another place):

"While most of the crude narcotics available on the market today are marginally to highly tolerance-inducing, experiments done by James Olds in the 1950s, and repeated by others since then, reveal that triggering the system endogenously is different. By stimulating the nucleus accumbens, the reward center of the brain, in rats with intracranially inserted electrodes, he found that the rats would repeatedly push the lever to get the euphoric experience up to 2000 times
per hour, giving up food, water -- even sex -- until they died. They appeared to exhibit no tolerance formation to the rodent version of heaven. "

.

Jason wrote:http://www.hedweb.com/

"Saving Vehicles With Bad Drivers.
Blind selective pressures have acted on living organisms over hundreds of millions of years. Darwinian evolution has powerfully favoured the growth of ever more diverse, excruciating, but also more adaptive varieties of psychophysical pain. Its sheer nastiness effectively spurs and punishes the living vehicles of genetic replicators. Sadness, anxiety and discontent are frequently good for our genes; they're just psychologically bad for us. In absolute terms, global suffering is probably still increasing as the population explosion continues. Human ingenuity has struggled, often vainly, to rationalise and somehow derive value from the most frightful anguish. But over the aeons, the very anguish which intermittently corrodes the well-being of the individual organism has differentially promoted the inclusive fitness of its DNA. Hence it has tended to get inexorably worse."

They've ommitted the final step to genius.

.

.

Jason wrote:http://www.hedweb.com/

"The Hedonistic Imperative
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice."

Whoa. A lesson in how to breed psychopaths. Oh how much effort people will go to in preference to pursuing wisdom.

.

.

Jason wrote:(I thought I'd add this as an initial counter to the expected arguments of needing emotional contrast or tolerance developing. It is quoted from another place):

"While most of the crude narcotics available on the market today are marginally to highly tolerance-inducing, experiments done by James Olds in the 1950s, and repeated by others since then, reveal that triggering the system endogenously is different. By stimulating the nucleus accumbens, the reward center of the brain, in rats with intracranially inserted electrodes, he found that the rats would repeatedly push the lever to get the euphoric experience up to 2000 times per hour, giving up food, water -- even sex -- until they died. They appeared to exhibit no tolerance formation to the rodent version of heaven."

So either way they still haven't got an answer. They might admit to that, but will they accept that others do?

.

Rhett your comments are too crytpic for me to properly understand or respond to.

.

Jason wrote:Rhett your comments are too crytpic for me to properly understand or respond to.

Okay. I'll see if i have the time in the next few days to expand on them.

Please don't hold off in the meantime if anything comes up for you, and this also applies to anyone else.

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

Jason wrote:Rhett your comments are too crytpic for me to properly understand or respond to.

Okay. I'll see if i have the time in the next few days to expand on them.

Please don't hold off in the meantime if anything comes up for you, and this also applies to anyone else.

.

I meant "cryptic" of course.

.

http://www.hedweb.com/

"Saving Vehicles With Bad Drivers.
Blind selective pressures have acted on living organisms over hundreds of millions of years. Darwinian evolution has powerfully favoured the growth of ever more diverse, excruciating, but also more adaptive varieties of psychophysical pain. Its sheer nastiness effectively spurs and punishes the living vehicles of genetic replicators. Sadness, anxiety and discontent are frequently good for our genes; they're just psychologically bad for us. In absolute terms, global suffering is probably still increasing as the population explosion continues. Human ingenuity has struggled, often vainly, to rationalise and somehow derive value from the most frightful anguish. But over the aeons, the very anguish which intermittently corrodes the well-being of the individual organism has differentially promoted the inclusive fitness of its DNA. Hence it has tended to get inexorably worse."


Rhett: They've ommitted the final step to genius.

The author of the article makes a very brief and shallow exploration of suffering in respect to evolution theory, they kind of tack a few ideas upon a basic understanding of evolutionary forces, and (by default) put forth the notion that suffering is evolutionarily favourable. I say 'by default' because the evidence suggests it is not merely a present momentary occurrence, they therefore must conclude that it is a form of genetic 'fitness'.

From a spiritual perspective they are eons from understanding and writing about the final step, being unaware of the delusional basis of suffering and the potentiality and occurrence of its conquer.

.

.

http://www.hedweb.com/

"The Hedonistic Imperative
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice."


Rhett: Whoa. A lesson in how to breed psychopaths. Oh how much effort people will go to in preference to pursuing wisdom.

The author moves to a new point, stating that these evolutionary adaptations (forms of suffering) are no longer a form of fitness and that modern technology can abolish them. They mistakenly conclude that this would be an improvement on the current malaise. Their mistake is large. It centres on their ignorance of the delusional basis of suffering and the means by which people attempt to divest themselves of it, which is highly conditioned into the human experience. If what they propose was to be enacted we would see that whilst suffering would be banished, stupidity and the entire samsaric psychological malaise would have no reason to not continue. Put simply, a most potent form of psychopathy would be bred, and the whole of humanity would be in for a lot of strife. Life for these people would be far worse than it is now.

.

.

Jason: (I thought I'd add this as an initial counter to the expected arguments of needing emotional contrast or tolerance developing. It is quoted from another place):

"While most of the crude narcotics available on the market today are marginally to highly tolerance-inducing, experiments done by James Olds in the 1950s, and repeated by others since then, reveal that triggering the system endogenously is different. By stimulating the nucleus accumbens, the reward center of the brain, in rats with intracranially inserted electrodes, he found that the rats would repeatedly push the lever to get the euphoric experience up to 2000 times per hour, giving up food, water -- even sex -- until they died. They appeared to exhibit no tolerance formation to the rodent version of heaven."


Rhett: So either way they still haven't got an answer. They might admit to that, but will they accept that others do?

This next article is very loopy. The author acknowledges one of the deleterious psychological outcomes of reducing or eliminating suffering (i.e. tolerance of wrong), but concludes that this is merely due to the crudity of the drugs which enable it. Their perspective is in some measure commendable given this age of tolerance worship, but overall is a gross misrepresentation and understatement of the psychological effects of the cessation of suffering. They then go on to say that an alternative method of stimulating 'euphoric states' does away with suffering yet does not cause tolerance. Regardless of what they purport to achieve and the naivety of their views, they clearly have not found an answer as the experimental subjects essentially committed suicide!

.

Rhett: They've ommitted the final step to genius.

The theory is concerned with ending suffering, not creating genius.

Rhett: The author of the article makes a very brief and shallow exploration of suffering in respect to evolution theory, they kind of tack a few ideas upon a basic understanding of evolutionary forces, and (by default) put forth the notion that suffering is evolutionarily favourable. I say 'by default' because the evidence suggests it is not merely a present momentary occurrence, they therefore must conclude that it is a form of genetic 'fitness'.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you disagree with the premise that evolution has "engineered" suffering into humans as a survival mechanism?

Rhett: If what they propose was to be enacted we would see that whilst suffering would be banished, stupidity and the entire samsaric psychological malaise would have no reason to not continue. Put simply, a most potent form of psychopathy would be bred, and the whole of humanity would be in for a lot of strife. Life for these people would be far worse than it is now.

That depends on how you define worse. "Worse" is usually defined as being a certain state of affairs that leads to more negative emotions and suffering as compared to some other potential state. Removing suffering means there would be no such thing as "worse" as it is currently understood.

Rhett: This next article is very loopy. The author acknowledges one of the deleterious psychological outcomes of reducing or eliminating suffering (i.e. tolerance of wrong), but concludes that this is merely due to the crudity of the drugs which enable it. Their perspective is in some measure commendable given this age of tolerance worship, but overall is a gross misrepresentation and understatement of the psychological effects of the cessation of suffering.

You have misunderstood what is meant by "tolerance" in this article. It means the effect of electrically stimualting the brain is not over time compensated against by the body. So the amount of pleasure derived from electro-stimulation of certain brain areas, does not gradually wane as happens with most drugs as the body develops a tolerance.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

http://www.hedweb.com/

"The Hedonistic Imperative
The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice."


Rhett: Whoa. A lesson in how to breed psychopaths. Oh how much effort people will go to in preference to pursuing wisdom.

The author moves to a new point, stating that these evolutionary adaptations (forms of suffering) are no longer a form of fitness and that modern technology can abolish them. They mistakenly conclude that this would be an improvement on the current malaise. Their mistake is large. It centres on their ignorance of the delusional basis of suffering and the means by which people attempt to divest themselves of it, which is highly conditioned into the human experience. If what they propose was to be enacted we would see that whilst suffering would be banished, stupidity and the entire samsaric psychological malaise would have no reason to not continue. Put simply, a most potent form of psychopathy would be bred, and the whole of humanity would be in for a lot of strife. Life for these people would be far worse than it is now.

.

Yes, but they would not be suffering :) It is realy interesting concept. mental anguish favoured by evolution just as physical pain is also favoured by evolution. The chemists of human condition alredy have drugs that aliviate the "mental anguish" they are called antidepresants , just as they have drugs called inhibitants that circumvent the mechanisms for nerves to send the pain signal to the brain.
Evolutionary drive is stronger than Biological, hence you dont see lots of people "zoned" out on extra streangth Panadoll and Zoloft. To live in such a state perpetualy would be a waste of the glorious (if cruel) win that we call life. As without darkness there is no light and so is the signal of discomfort (pain) that drives us and helps to make the best of this life. To seek the perfect state. It is just another control mechanism that genes have evolved to ensure survival. Hence i can't imagine state of perfect bliss as the answer to anything.

.

Rhett: They've ommitted the final step to genius.

Jason: The theory is concerned with ending suffering, not creating genius.

That first section to which i was responding only concerned itself with observation and theory. There was no talk of aim or solution.

Rhett: The author of the article makes a very brief and shallow exploration of suffering in respect to evolution theory, they kind of tack a few ideas upon a basic understanding of evolutionary forces, and (by default) put forth the notion that suffering is evolutionarily favourable. I say 'by default' because the evidence suggests it is not merely a present momentary occurrence, they therefore must conclude that it is a form of genetic 'fitness'.

Jason: I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you disagree with the premise that evolution has "engineered" suffering into humans as a survival mechanism?

No, i agree with the basic point of the analysis, but am critical of their enunciation of it.

Rhett: If what they propose was to be enacted we would see that whilst suffering would be banished, stupidity and the entire samsaric psychological malaise would have no reason to not continue. Put simply, a most potent form of psychopathy would be bred, and the whole of humanity would be in for a lot of strife. Life for these people would be far worse than it is now.

Jason: That depends on how you define worse. "Worse" is usually defined as being a certain state of affairs that leads to more negative emotions and suffering as compared to some other potential state. Removing suffering means there would be no such thing as "worse" as it is currently understood.

I see merit in what you say, however people do make judgments beyond the emotional. For example, would you prefer to spend the rest of your life a quadraplegic in solitary confinement that is free of suffering, or in the bahamas with an occasional irritating skin rash on your left ankle? Probably the latter.

Before i go any further, it needs to be stated just how radical this proposition is, how deep would be the effect of the elimination of suffering. It would rock humanity to the core. Most psychological phenomena would become baseless. People would be floored by the change. However, in the (likely) absence of thinking, they would then resume their ordinary life, maybe making a few changes here or there.

The reason i cite psychopathy is i see the predominant motive in people's minds being the feeding of the ego. For many any degree of conscience is a curse, an obstacle to be overcome. Remove their feelings, and the obstacle is gone, leaving only the ravenous. Sure, if someone expressed 50% altruism and 50% selfishness they may swing either way or fluctuate around this point, but for most we're talking pure selfishness, so if their suffering were to be removed and they were to change, they'd likely get worse. People head towards their values.

To look at it more closely, consider that people experience an unrealistic notion of need along with a certain feeling. This notion would have no reason to not continue in the absence of feeling. We know that whatever consciousness people do have is commonly directed towards their survival, material gain and stimulation, so even in the absence of suffering people would have no reason to not, for example, keep hoarding resources to the detriment of others, or being spiteful towards others for social gain, etc. There would be no impetus for wars to cease. It would be like a computer simulation, with people dying all over the place.

Given my observations of society i wouldn't be surprised if within the next 5 years celebrities start hanging-out with psychopaths, and are known to be hanging out with them, splashed all over the women's magazines.

Rhett: This next article is very loopy. The author acknowledges one of the deleterious psychological outcomes of reducing or eliminating suffering (i.e. tolerance of wrong), but concludes that this is merely due to the crudity of the drugs which enable it. Their perspective is in some measure commendable given this age of tolerance worship, but overall is a gross misrepresentation and understatement of the psychological effects of the cessation of suffering.

Jason: You have misunderstood what is meant by "tolerance" in this article. It means the effect of electrically stimualting the brain is not over time compensated against by the body. So the amount of pleasure derived from electro-stimulation of certain brain areas, does not gradually wane as happens with most drugs as the body develops a tolerance.

Okay. It seems one must pick between fading effectiveness or suicide. Maybe they'll cotton on to wisdom one day!

.