The Basic Existential Challenge...
is denying the substance of existence!
 Striving for Transhumanism still under Option_i, leads to its ultimate fulfillment; ultimate self-destruction of humanity!
You gain a personal understanding of
the context
The
question is how to avoid the contagious
The Basic Category Error In the prevailing intellectual climate, humans and humanity are evolutionary products in their behavioral and motivational repertoire. Culture at all times has attempted to transcend that repertoire in a mass-attractive, that is OPTION I way, with artful convictions, personally-neutral social and content-free physical rewards and punishments, to go beyond what comes naturally based on the innate substance of its participants. In this sense human culture under OPTION I is trans-innate-humanism now peaking towards artificial intelligence aiming for super-intelligence with the potential, after art and with its psycho-politics, to finally and irreversibly overcome innate-humanism, before it is even really understood in its meaning! It is meant to be on a seemingly more controllable and more economically reproducible substrate (mechanical, computer controlled robots), than that of the God created biology that for humans, allows Option II, the personally relevant conscience for life- through task-fulfillment, e.g. a meaning in a higher order beyond mere behavior and motivation possible for man-made systems. They allow organizations up to and with robots as already manifested in the internet. And that with the substance less CT-policy of promoting C-being against any other approach and controlling once T-comfort zone by setting it up as a pre-trans-trap like the USA with its "home land" policy, uncaring to support (health insurance issue) needy people, and to analyze the possible consequences (mental and physical pollution) other than with agencies such as the NSA... Based on my TCpt-temperament as my innate way to shield myself off from the prevailing thinking catastrophes of OPTION I, which would otherwise condition my mind in the prevailing intellectual fashion, 1) I promote the following in its T=trap for crucial considerations:
Prof. Nick Bostrom: "A crucial
consideration is an idea or argument
that might plausibly reveal the need for
not just some minor course adjustment in
our practical endeavors, but a major
change of direction or priority.
If
we have overlooked even just one such
consideration, then all our best
efforts might be for naught---or less.
When headed
the
wrong way, the last thing needed is
progress. It is therefore important to
pursue such lines of inquiry as might
disclose an unnoticed crucial
consideration."
2) I control the above in terms of what is desirable by C=provoking a clash with what is its undesirable weakness: How about solving the problem of O=understanding and considering the orientation knowledge about the consequences of M=applying know-how firstly on a personal level where it all begins and ends, rather than on the level of organized science, above all with philosophy, which shrinks all considerations so they fall under OPTION I? Since M / O = STRESS < DEATH (up to annihilation of existence on Earth) the personal relevance of a critical number of those concerned, has to be at the core of any kind of desirable transhumanism for anything else is simply more of the same of OPTION I in its inherent dynamic of permanent self-destruction! Whatever is constructed under OPTION I, due to its personally-neutral philosophy based, wordy expression, is not susceptible to stress and thereby seems potentially capable of over-coming the need for O! And this is what all the mighty dream of as sorcerer's (OPTION I) apprentice (of philosophy). The unavoidable consequences are then projected to scapegoats up to doomsday. That non-understanding approach is the mother of all evil of knowing better and doing worse... In short, simply philosophizing about the risks of existence is and can be deliberately be misused to side-track from the nature and meaning of existence, in order to demean it in evolutionary ways in favor of OPTION I. This is the greatest risk with guaranteed failure! Historically speaking, philosophy has shed the twilight of OPTION I on each new trans-human subject emerging in the spirit of the time until its substance could be pre-trans-traped by the zeitgeist. This is done to keep the mass traped even in the next trend, suppressing what could transcend it for a proper solution in the same way as what precedes it so that the OPTION I show of idolatry and materialism can go on as mass-attractive streamlined by philosophers: Nietzsche's super-human had its manifestation in Adolf Hitler, and Bostrom's super-intelligence is now in labor in the computers of the NSA; the US National Security Agency is trying to become humanity's or the zeitgeist's brain! Another philosopher, Prof. Markus Gabriel, has already deconstructed philosophy, the seeming top achievement of humanity, so that the NSA meta-data super brain can succeed it. It is all geared to "transcending" those entities who are sentient to stress, so nobody can give meaning anymore to the above O, in M/O=STRESS and thus Option II, for the show must go on under OPTION I and the price for it are the thus insolvable 3 biggest problems of all human systems (individuals, relationships, teams, organization, culture, up to mankind): However, 'Humanity' to which Bostrom attributes these 3 problems is an abstract, therefore it cannot have any problems; only individual human sentient to stress can have them. And you know what, this category error breads thinking catastrophe promoted by philosophy! This way in traditional Japan, it is culturally impossible to express any personal problem and zeitgeist philosophy is getting in the mass in that direction everywhere, globally with its demeaning nature outlined. Here are the sufficient solutions to these 3 problems beyond the necessary behavioral and motivational aspect; they are personally relevant in terms of, for the P=problem P1-3: 3) I support the conclusion of the above, from the point of view of the real nature of real human beings, where their substance p=precedes all the non-sequiturs, illogical conclusions based on the category errors of the words sciences which shrink all substance and organize prejudices under OPTION I: P1) DEATH: Our biological life form is mortal whether we like it or not. To cope with this factual problem and the pain associated with it, we need a substantial B1-belief with the innate potential to lead to a B2-breakthrough (to not just "heaven", "nirvana", better technologies to displace symptoms, up to uploading our soul to another substrata) towards one's B3-path, that in B4-truth leads to B5-lifefulfillment. Without it, people provoke Bostrom's problem 2: P2) EXISTENTIAL RISKS: According to OPTION I, pretending humans have the last word about this matter - their assessments show a significant (Richard Posner), higher than 20% (Nick Bostrom) even 50% (John Leslie, Martin Rees) risk, that humanity will extinguish life on this planet in this century. On a personal level that entails the risk of dying before one's personal lifefulfillment can be achieved. To cope with this risk and the associated problem of fear, we need the H1-hope for an H2-order superior to what OPTION I allows so we can H3-relate to reality in such a way, that allows H4-understanding, relating and then implementing the relevant laws, such as those of nature and the personal substance of one's life. Only then are we best equipped to prevent the otherwise unavoidable thinking catastrophes under OPTION I! Under it, without this Option II, misunderstandings lead to what we fear and so far, because of ignorance, to all the distorted and suppressed history of human catastrophes out of which nobody can learn anything personally relevant; we all have experienced enough of it, to have learnt from this relationship truth! But instead, people suffer from Bostrom's problem 3: P3) HUMAN LIFE IS NOT WHAT IT PERSONALLY COULD BE: Where and whenever the relevant H4-understanding is lacking, the outcome will not be as fulfilling as it could be with timely understanding as we might often realize in retrospective - when it is to late. Thus we cannot undo the past, but YOU can learn from it, provided YOU did not get seriously deprived of your substance to do so! In other words, there is a point of no return. In order to be able to cope with this relationship truth and the associated M/O=STRESS, we need to sufficiently L1-love the/be loved in our relevant substance, in order to be prepared in a pro-active way for L2-timely exchange of project-oriented competence up to the point of L3-reframing the context in terms of paradigm, design, management and order of the lives of those involved; ultimately doing this time and again in the face of, cemented OPTION I setups, with Option II before OPTION I systems self-destruct, suck those traped in, and clinging to them, into the abyss of its collapse such as on the Titanic.... Meanwhile if you cannot bear these 3 problems anymore, and without Option II, you will inevitably become part of the problem at the wit's end with philosophy shrinking every substance to a denotational word. Then to sublimate the M/O=STRESS unresolved with one's conscience, there are, in Russia, vodka, in Europe wine and beer, cocaine for banksters, and nicotine everywhere for everybody, and in Australia, Aborigines with tens of thousand of years sustainable culture, who cannot bear the dominance of OPTION I "mutants" anymore, and sniff gasoline in a collective suicide all at enormous suffering and cost - consider in their consequences:
And so we are now all challenged to go on defaulting in taking "the red pill" of OPTION I, or finally to take "the blue pill" of Option II, just as in the film MATRIX. In the latter case, you opt for life-through task-fulfillment: Face the challenge with Lesson 1.0! And that brings us to the bottom-line of all human problems, typically ignored by mainstream philosophy pretending to be the solution, while it is its own ignored problem. 4) I analyze what allows for t=transcending the pre-trans-trap in which under OPTION I, the crucial considerations are limited beyond the point of no return from self-destruction instead of life- through taksfulfillment: P0) What humans express is hardly ever sustainable: This is unavoidable under OPTION I; it is already highlighted in the Old Testament in the story of the Tower of Babel, then in that of Daniel about the decay of the four kingdoms. It shows up in present times in the shorting of the lifetime of organizations, products and services, which are turning our society, and more and more heads, and the internet, into a physical and a mental waste dump. To cope with what is in essence the 2nd law of thermodynamics, stating that closed systems assume the state of greatest disorder, ultimately chaos and in societies, anarchy, you need the inner resource to §1-express what is, in terms of one's personally relevant lifefulfillment, essential, then you need to §2-follow up that as our purpose with your inner resource, then with that for §3-integrity to one's being, according to what the inner resource for a §0-sustainable way allows you to express and thus experience your X=innate self and thus life at its best in order to cope with P1-3. If crucial consideration are not, right at their onset, based on Option II addressing P0, they inevitably end up shrunk to alibi-philosophy side-tracking from P0. Merely opinionating with denotations, personally neutral generalization, about P1-3 based on and cementing category errors about the true nature of human systems as open-ended generative principles, is the mother of all human problems! And so the remaining question is: When will the critical number of real human beings begin to tune in to Option II; hopefully before the point of NO return! And more specifically, when will YOU consider Option II seriously?
|
