First J. John Bloch <jbloch@neosapiens.org> wrote:
> > I would say that tampering with the physical aspects of the human form
would
> > definitely be Transhumanist. I am not so sure about psychological
aspects.
> > What is it that defines us as individuals; our physical forms or our
mental
> > attributes? I can replace a hand with a robotic prosthesis and still not
> > change my sense of self. But I don't believe that I could wipe out an
aspect
> > of my personality (in the case in question, your apparently-overactive
> > libido) and still retain that awareness of "self".
And Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> replied:
> This is yet another area where people differ. Would you like to become
> (say) a bit more assertive or more calm? Many people would likely say
> yes, despite that this changes your personality. Would you like to get
> immensely enhanced memory and perception? Again, many would say yes
> even if this really has implications for our whole way of
> living. Would you change your values? Some people actually would like
> some alterations here even if they are not as common.
>
> I think changing personality is a quite valid transhumanist activity.
> Much of the philosophy really involves developing a positive,
> efficient and adaptable personality. How far you want to change, that
> is an individual matter.
Hmmm... Putting it in these terms, I would tend to agree with you.
Then J. John Bloch <jbloch@neosapiens.org> wrote:
> > Note too that the process of changing patterns of thought and behavior
> > through conscious means (counseling, meditation, whatever) is, in my
point
> > of view, the preferred way to modify behavior. That's because the
process
> > itself becomes a part of the individual's self-identity, and so the
> > progression from Behavior 1 ("Thoughts of sex occur too frequently") to
> > Behavior 2 ("Thoughts of sex occur when I choose for them to occur") is
a
> > natural progression in the personal growth of the individual.
And Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> replied:
> So what is the different from getting a limbic implant which you
> gradually tune from "Libido = 584" to "Libido = 36"? It is still a
> conscious mean of change.
While the decision may be a conscious one, the process itself would be autonomic. Such a behavior-modification implant would not really involve any true shift in personality, since (presumably) if it was removed one would revert back to one's previous state. I would still favor a slow and gradual process of change that actually addresses the root causes of the undesirable behavior, rather than something that merely attacked the symptoms. (Just as I would favor giving people a third eye through genetic engineering rather than physically implanting mechanical eyes in every newborn's forehead, to take an extreme example.)
Then Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> What I worry about is that the tendency to suggest that the "solution"
Here we agree completely. But I would add a third possibility; some things
that some people see as "problems" others see as positive attributes. To
> to many personal problems today is to not see the problem as a problem
> needing a real solution but something to be accepted. It is even more
> obvious when you discuss death. A lot of psychology seems based on the
> idea of making people worry less by accepting various bad things
> rather than changing them ("I'm fat and crave sugar - but I feel good
> about it!").
http://home.skyweb.net/bloch/index.html
NeoSapiens awake! Technocracy now!