http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/...php?p=1557#1557

Shawn Mikula, I encourage you to come and debate

Don't try to make him sign up for your board. Paste the text here. Watch out. I donate and will have moderator access. Know your role and place.

When you do I will resign.

Are you a relative of the guy who wrote this:

Mein Kampf

Don't assume I want his membership - just for him to engage in open debate rather than seek to create distinctions beyond reproach that exist in the mind.

I look forward to your challenge Cybert.

A few questions Shawn (regarding your page here - http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=ethics) ;

Why do you think that the ethical directive (to maximize happiness and minimize suffering) implies that humans should behave in ways that would not lead to their overall happiness for the long term?

I think this directive necessarily entails that we take practical steps to ensure that we survive and flourish.

This would include rigorous scientific inquiry into the nature of all things - as a practical measure. We'll need to understand both our affective systems and the world around us in general.

Also, because you have found that intentionally seeking happiness did not work for you - does this mean that you cannot find happiness by seeking it intentionally? I say don't give up and put faith in god - trust in your fellow man and the scientific process to lead us to greater happiness.

Perhaps you had the wrong approach, and now you have learned how to live in a way that makes you happier. Seeking happiness intentionally can mean that you are open to learning how to be happiest.

I don't appreciate the pig analogy - I find it ignorant and disrespectful. Einstein may have said it back in the day (when we knew less) - but you are promoting it.

The value of happiness pertains to the happiness that others experience and the happiness we hope to achieve in the future as well as subjective happiness in the here/now.

I value happiness and contribute to society;

Besides the admin of abolitionist-society.com : I also help to raise 3 kids whom I did not help to create, work full-time, and go to school. I like to learn about affective neuroscience and the world in general in order to experience greater happiness.

Would would living for 'god' or 'meaning' lead to?

The problem is that these concepts are devoid of value - meaning isn't necessarily good and god is just a word to represent something unknown.

Death is meaningful - so is suffering. Injustice is meaningful. Cruelty is meaningful.

Should we seek the unknown? Not necessarily - caution is valuable. However, learning about one's world and being open to learning new things is edifying.

In the end what we find to be 'god' will be whatever distinctions are popular at the time. When creating a definition for god - we try to convince ourselves [faith] that our current knowledge is inherently valid.

History has proven this untrue.

You cannot equate abolitionism with transhumanism since they are not the same thing. The problem with abolitionism postulating the abolition of suffering and maximization of happiness as some sort of universal ultimate goal of existence is that it is a shallow goal that reflects ignorance and, on top of that, it can never claim universality since many people do not buy into it. It is one thing to deny the value of something without fully understanding and appreciating the other person's perspective. The sort of argument you would like to have with me is asymmetric in the sense that I do appreciate your perspective and yet still find it naive, whereas you cannot say the same for me because you do not understand where I am coming from (which you've said as much above).

Does the Abolitionist Directive, which claims that it is imperative to maximize human happiness, address the questions of self identity, the nature of reality, and other fundamental questions of existence? No. Any "directive" or "imperative" that fails to take these into account should be taken with a grain of salt because they fail to address what is meaningful. I have never claimed that my "ethics" should be universally accepted (though I'm not certain that it shouldn't be). My hope was only that people would approach it with open minds. Any attempt to impose your ethics on other people, partly by insisting the other person's ethics are wrong and yours are right, are bound to fail since ethics is largely a personal choice.

If you think 'god' or 'meaning' are concepts devoid of value, you are responsible for that. 'God' is not just something to represent the unknown. It is all experience and what we make of it, and more.

Think of the directive, "Know thy Self" (which is related to what I would advocate), and consider how shallow the quest for maximizing happiness appears alongside it. To paraphrase Rousseau, quit your childhood and wake up.

It is a fact that the universe is evolving towards increased consciousness (or conscious awareness) and consequently, increased meaning. If you extrapolate into the future, you will hit the consciousness singularity. You are limited by your human consciousness and human desires and notions of happiness, and thus are still trapped inside the box of the human mind. However, the human mind and human consciousness are just temporary phenomena, which will soon be eclipsed by a greater consciousness which constructs greater meaning and has a greater sense of Self and Self-awareness.

Your reasoning that "ultimately we seek increased intelligence and spiritual experience because they will make us happier in general" is incorrect precisely because you are clinging to your limited human notions of happiness. When the human mind transcends itself, do you really think it would cling to human notions of happiness as a goal? You are assuming happiness is some sort of ground truth, when in fact it is but one of many facets of consciousness, and there are far greater experiences and types of consciousness than belong to happiness. Our Being consists in our consciousness or conscious awareness, as Siddhartha and the ancient Brahmins realized. We are the Universe conscious of Itself. It is a reflexive process, the snake biting its tail, involuting on itself. Notions of individuality are illusions due to the myopia of the mind. There is but one conscious Self with parts believing they are individuals with their own unique consciousness, but there is but one Self behind the many selves, that is increasingly becoming more Self-aware, and in the process, the mysteries of the Universe unfold and reveal yet more mysteries, and greater meaning is found. I view your claim that happiness is the ultimate goal like I would view an ant's claim that gathering food for the queen is the ultimate goal. It is utterly ridiculous, small-minded, and species-bound. When you realize the universality of consciousness, you will realize the pettiness of your abolitionist goals, and will realize there are far greater goals to aim for and processes to participate in.

Abolitionist, your higher Self looks down on your actions and inside your thoughts, and it mocks your folly. The sooner you realize this, the better.

More ethics:

Introduction.swf

in the folder at:

link expired

[quote name='Hey Hey' post='76411' date='Feb 17, 2007, 02:03 PM']
More ethics:

Introduction.swf

in the folder at:

link expired

when I follow the link it prompts me for a login and password. Do you have this info?

"it can never claim universality since many people do not buy into it."

My ethic is open to debate, I promote what I believe in and seek challenges to my thinking.

Does Abolitionism address self identity, the nature of reality, and fundamental questions of existance? Yes, Abolitionists do, check out the forums - I like to address all the implications of the Abolitionist directive.

What is self identity? A creation of memetic and genetic interaction.

What is the nature of reality? Our brains create this. Objective validification is not fully possible - though we choose to agree on conventions and temporary symbolisms.

Do you make your experience? Or is it the result of genes interacting with environment?

The truth isn't necessarily what will make us feel most comfortable - the mind is designed so that we believe in our own power and freedom, this should come as no surprise as the human mind was not designed for an objective truth - only behaviors that lead to genetic survival.

Most humans simply don't care about the nature of reality - only improving happiness for themselves in their daily lives. Our minds invent and adopt conventions and symbolisms about the nature of reality to facilitate behaviors that are genetically programmed.

Why did the Buddha believe in reincarnation? He spent his life trying to find a way out of it.

He was susceptible to the memetic programming of the time - the vedic memes.

"God" is a memetic entity. An intentionally vague concept of open possibilities and unknowable intentions.

Should we try to expand our capacities to improve the ability to increase happiness and minimize suffering according to the Abolitionist directive?

I think so.

Also, we'll need to be actively trying to increase our knowledge of the world in order to pre-empt suffering and increase our capacity for reward.

If you want to increase happiness and minimize suffering, philosophizing is not the way to go. Pondering the unknown with conjectures will not minimize suffering. I like to think of philosophy as a chess match--a battle of logic. If it is answers you seek, focus on sciences

If you seek to minimize suffering you are also seeking minimize your capacity for happiness. Try going a few weeks living out of a van without a shower--you will get a new appreciation for something so routiene.

You have to take into account the larger societal picture and the propagation of memes.

Our debate of ideas/known facts has an effect on the world.

Minimizing suffering does not necessarily require that you minimize your capacity for reward. Too much pain minimizes the capacity for happiness.

What the hell do you care about the world for? The world isn't going to bring you happiness, you are going to bring you happiness. Buddha didn't preach as far as I recall correct? He simply lived, and others followed. If you want to change the world walk the walk, and if people like your stride they will follow.

It's not about my personal stride.

We are all inter-related.

The Buddha did preach a sermon, yet admonished his listeners to question everything he said.

All I am saying is if it is answers you seek, philosophy is not the way to go--philosophizing only brings on more and more questions. I love philosophy because I am seeking a question whos answer I already know; life is the answer to a question no one knows~

I will give you that everything is interconnected--interconnected through selfishness. The same selfish drive that brings about war has created relatively balanced reciprocity in nature (plants convert Co2 into O2, people convert O2 into Co2). It seems to me that all things truely are connected, just not in some mystic hopeful way.

I would like to see results on a global scale, also my search for knowledge related to Abolitionism teaches me new things which improves my knowledge base and capacity for reward on a personal level - it's also very satisfying to me personally to promote the ethos.

I'm having a good time.

What is universal needs no claims, makes no claims. What is universal exists regardless of any claims and is postulated universally and multidimensionally.


Of course you do. Because you believe you cannot control what you believe in, you try to control everthing else to see if it conforms to what you believe in. That is the only way that you can uphold the belief or destroy it.
The wiser part of yourself provides the arguments against any belief and you will resist as long as the belief serves your purpose to see something greater.


Actually there is a choice made that prepares the memetic interaction and the genetic makup of the body prior to inhabiting the physical body. Consciousness itself however is not bound to the meat sack other than through belief and choice.
Lucky thing for you beliefs change and choice has its options.


This is a belief. The mechanical brain does not create itself to perceive reality as it does. It is created equally receptive to any belief and is subject to filter reality to what the ego holds onto physically as proof of reality. It ignores what it doesn't understand or sense, limiting its scope of understanding and perception.


Yes..but there is more to it than that as far as the experience and scope of interaction on the level of consciousness itself.


Power and freedom can be sensed beyond the physical brain, as such mind is not subject to anything other than a choice to see truth or not. Relative truths are chimeras built through attachment to levels of understanding or the need to identify with reality in terms that are personal. Universal truth is much simpler and underlies all relative truth.


Programming can be changed. Humans are not stuck in any program other than by the choice to maintain a habit. The human spirit is ultimately more flexible than you think.


Are you sure he believed in it? If he sought to escape from it he must've believed it was not a permanent condition, rather a condition created from ignorance.
What Buddha sought was truth to destroy ignorance and a truth that was tangible.

He lived in and amongst the stage of props of which he was acting. He sought to find out who he was within the props and the others who facilitated his own choices. He was not bound by the outside circumstance and he took advantage of that.


That is an assumption based on your current experience. Lucky for you, you can grow beyond this vague concept of identity.


Every path exists until it is no longer useful. Every step a human takes is toward something or away from something.
Everyone will take a road they will personalize and make their own until they experience the greater part of themselves, that is beyond the confines of the personal, and is universal.


Know yourself and you will know the world. The greatest reward is freedom from guilt, fear and the frustration of changing beliefs.


Because the universal truth lives within the cpability of free will and the choice to self realize through experience of the personal as the universal.







The results of perfection or the results of choice are at hand.
(Heaven on Earth)
The mind that perceives suffering as a reality of circumstance cannot change reality because it is not connected intimately to it. It is observant of itself as a prisoner.
Until one realises their ownership of suffering they themselves cannot begin to create anything different.
So one waits for truth rather than seeing it and experiencing it first hand.

Seek and ye shall find. But if you have not sought the wisdom of one who has found it you will most likely seek within the confines of your own delusions.

Abolitionist, I appreciate your response to my first post in terms of memes, but please do not overlook my more thoughtfully prepared second post which shows, among other things, that happiness is not ground truth or an absolute value, and that your experience is limited and does not hold for other forms of consciousness which you have never experienced.

Your comment that God is a meme indicates that you are only familiar with God as concept and not as experience. It is the spiritual experience that is the crux. Einstein knew this, and so it's not surprising that you don't agree with his pig analogy, precisely because you lack the type of experience that validates this sort of statement.

And so, how can you honestly maintain your Abolitionist directive when you lack the experience to objectively assess the validity of it, and are still trapped inside a box of limited experience? You may say that you rely on Reason alone, but you have failed to convincingly rationalize why your notion of happiness should be maximized for anyone other than yourself. You may choose to believe that spiritual experience runs counter to Reason, and thus in your mind, dismiss the validity of spiritual experience, but this would be a mistake because even in the absense of this experience, the study of history will reveal many prominent individuals who maintained the same thing.


your search for knowledge and direct experience related to conscious awareness and its expansion would also teach you new things and would potentially be much more rewarding than searching for ways to make you happier.

Aboitionist and Shawn: What are we trying to accomplish in this thread? In other words, what are our goals?
BTW, I value dialogue over debate.

Read the thread Lindsay, theyre talking about aboitionilsm. Its a debate whether or not the theories behind aboitionilsm are correct or incorrect, it is mainly philosophical in nature.

Aboitionlist is essentially trying to pick a debate with Shawn, why? a possibility is Shawns statement on ethics? http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=ethics . Actually it would be nice to see Shawn on the board more often *nudge* because I enjoy reading his ideas on a lot of subjects.

Our goals?...I believe the topic wasn't thought out with the goal of attending to your personal values...

Abolitionist has remained oddly silent.

You are incorrect on many counts.

For you to say that abolitionism is a "shallow goal that reflects ignorance" is pretty judgmental. I wouldn't say that it reflects ignorance because I don't give out insults so readily. I live for a higher consciousness haha.

Anyway, the maximization of happiness is considered to be the ultimate goal of existence by many, many people. It may not be universal but it is widely accepted. On poll after poll, what people want more than anything is happiness. It follows, then, that a scientific way of achieving happiness is a very legitimate goal, and that is where the abolitionist idea comes in. It is in no way ignorant or shallow to many people; if you think so, that's your opinion and you're entitled to trumpet it, but not as fact because that would not be correct. At one time, slavery was universally accepted as perfectly OK and even God's will. It is now recognized by almost everyone that slavery is wrong, should not have ever existed, and was a total injustice. Therefore, universal attitudes are certainly not objective measures of truth. They can change over time. Saying that abolitionism "can never claim universality" is not true because perhaps someday it will. At the same time, just because something's universal does not mean it's true... if there is a goal in life that is more important than happiness, people will eventually realize it, science will conduct studies on it and that will all be well and good. There can be another movement besides Abolitionism. I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I haven't seen a good debunking of the Abolitionist movement other than you saying it's "ignorant" and happiness will come when time is not spent on it. However, studies prove this wrong. There is a baseline happiness that everyone has and where they will basically remain their entire lives. This has been proven time and again in studies. See the studies of Daniel Gilbert from Harvard, for example. Your system unfortunately won't allow me to post a url, but do a search for "gilbert harvard happiness" and you'll see the results.

So, even though many people make it their life's goal to be happy, they will not ever be happier that way and you do have a point on that. However, your idea that focusing on other goals in life will make the person happier in the end does not have any more merit... baseline happiness or "hedonic thermostat" will stay the same either way. That is the nature of reality, and the Abolitionist movement is certainly thinking about it, contrary to your statement. By supporting scientific research into this area, questions of reality, self-identity and questions of existence can all be discussed and researched. Science and philosophy support all these things, and the AS supports a scientific way of looking at these philosophical questions. It has taken it all into account.

That's where the Abolitionist Society comes in. By working on scientific means to make people happier, that overwhelming goal of most people can actually be accomplished rather than simply wished for.

It will not be accomplished by your means.

How is the universe evolving towards increased consciousness? I agree that we are all limited by human desires and notions, but so are you if you are human. How will the human mind be eclipsed by a greater consciousness? This sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. It's certainly not based in scientific facts. Perhaps you should write a New Age self-help book?

In all representations of Heaven that I've seen, most people are imagining themselves as being eternally happy. It seems to me that even in people's hoped-for afterlife, they are imagining finally being completely happy. If there is a higher consciousness in store, what WILL it be about? WHY would it be better? You act as if you know everything about this coming consciousness, so please enlighten me about what it will involve so I can look forward to it.

" I view your claim that happiness is the ultimate goal like I would view an ant's claim that gathering food for the queen is the ultimate goal. It is utterly ridiculous, small-minded, and species-bound. "

Are you not species-bound? You say this as if you are some sort of god-like creature who can see above and beyond the realm of humanity into what lies in the future. How is anything humans do not supposed to be species-bound? What would an ant say their ultimate goal in life is? It seems their ultimate goal would be gathering food so as not to die. It seems humans' ultimate goal is happiness. Perhaps these are not worthy goals, but that doesn't change what people/ants see as their goal and what they spend their time doing.

If you don't think they are worthy, you can have other goals. But that doesn't mean you can say that others are small-minded who do believe that happiness is a worthy cause. How is your idea not anymore small-minded? You say we should concentrate on goals in life rather than trying to be happy. Why can a goal not just be happiness and that's it? Some people's goals are to kill people-- they'd like to do it, and they think it will make them happy. Should they then follow your advice and live out their goals? To them, those goals might be both meaningful and worthy. Who decides whether a goal is meaningful or worthy, or neither?

The mind interprets happiness in different ways. Personality attaches itself to personal desires and happiness becomes relative to those desires.
If science is manipulated according to relative ideas based on the personalities that are attached to their own interpretations of happiness any goal will be relative and on a small scale in scope with a generalized theme that fits an archetype derived from a few thoughts about reality.
Being that consciousness is a part of all living things, that which drives the universe drives all of its parts to move in a direction that is universally beneficial and often misunderstood by a mindset that has it blinders on with the attention of achieving goals that are projected as universal in nature.

Just as there is no one definition of God, nor one way to experience God there is no one material solution to the achievement of happiness..
If happiness is relative to patterns of the ego then any material achievement is temporary. Humanity continues to evolve beyond its attachments and desires for the things that make it temporarily happy.

Give someone their favorite food and nothing else, and it becomes something that is not a favorite anymore.
What is fulfilling, is something that is permanent and expands all situations and all manifest realities at every stage of evolution. Such a thing cannot be fabricated from a mind that believes that humanity derives permanent satisfaction from the material world.
Such a thing can be understood from a mind that is fulfilled and finds happiness in any thought feeling and action.
Such a mind is an enlightened mind, a spiritually scientific mind.
Such a mind exists in every social structure and time, it has and always will provide the ultimate example to the truth of happiness even if the ego cannot identify with it and seeks to manufacture its happiness from temporary knowledge thru changing and evolving scientific procedures.

Science is the reflection of the mind working itself toward the truth, (that which us universal and permanent in all times, places and experiences) it (Science) is inspired by the heart and the spirit of all things.
Spirit is what moves humanity towards something greater than what it can conceive of in God and in the manifest thru the ego, in any given moment in time, and the reason for evolution and experience of expansion in consciousness and awareness itself.
For every scientific discovery another door is opened into the unknown and the inspiration to move beyond the greatest conceivable idea of the universe continues to drive the evolving mind towards itself, its inspiration, its consciousness.

The questions who am I, what is this universe, what keeps me from standing still in my own thoughts about myself and reality, are as old as humanity itself. In the time (any time) that the first question was asked to the moment one finds an answer of any kind, there exists a greater answer to the question and the desire to experience the totality of consciousness itself.

The mind is capable of witnessing itself above and beyond all scientific systems of measure. It is not capable of escaping the imaginitive and often delusional and speculative definitions of the personal systems in interpretation of reality, and the limits of personal measure.
History shows us that every concept can be improved upon and broken down into greater understanding.

The very nature of humaity is to expand itself as does consciousness itself.

This is what makes humans happy.

Unfortunately the ego tries to contain everything in an idea, a word, a concept, and to isolate the mind in a conceptual state of euphoria.

Just as a child grows into an adult, the mind awakens to itself and its eternal consciousness and ascends the meatbag that will wither and die no matter how much science tries to manufacture its immortality.

My entire point is that that does NOT make humans happy and neither does anything else-- the "very nature of humanity" is disputed. Humans have a baseline happiness that they will return to their entire lives, a preset, genetic point that they cannot change. By using science, it may be possible to change that and I think it's worth trying. Humans have been adapted for reproduction when they should have been adapted for happiness. That is why the favorite food is not fulfilling for all time-- but there's no reason why that can't change in the future just as humans get taller and fatter over time, etc.

Whether you think that happiness can be derived from the material or spiritual or some other world--- it cannot. Studies have consistently proven that temporary events that seem that they would have a great effect on lifetime happiness (such as children's deaths or moving to Hawaii) might make humans happier or less happy for a little while but will have no effect long term. Nothing makes humans happier than anything else, once the basics of food and shelter are covered. That's the problem! We should be able to make ourselves happier beyond what our genes allow us, and that's where Abolitionism comes in.

what is happiness and why is it preferable over related states of consciousness? Why not prefer feeling in general instead of focusing solely on happiness? And why stop at feeling when it's but a sliver of consciousness. It seems increased conscious awareness is what it's all about and with that comes increased meaning and significance. Awe-inspiring mind-expanding levels of consciousness cannot be adequately classified as "happy" states. Recall what Einstein said about aiming for happiness as being fit for pigs? Do you believe Einstein got it wrong? Do you really think humanity's destiny resides solely in obtaining everlasting happiness? Maybe you do but many do not. Perhaps Nature is being selective that way.

Those among us who have decided to concentrate our efforts on finding a way to preserve life, as we know it, have found in the concept of Consciousness Singularity (as I understand it) as the only plausible alternative so far. I would imagine, then, that quest of such magnitude should become the only priority worth all and any of our efforts as a species; as its outcome will define the final destiny of, not only the human journey, but of the Universe itself. What good, may I ask, would finding total happiness (as found by way of the concept of abolitionism) do to humanity so long as we are still conditioned by all other circumstances and possibilities that come with being human under our present circumstances? Please define how ephemeral you find the human quest for understanding his own role in the universe in comparison to his quest for ultimate happiness. Perhaps there is an intricate relationship between the two concepts that I have yet to understand? Or perhaps you are not entirely familiar with the concept of Conciousness Singularity as it is proposed here at BM?

And Christianity, Judaism, Jainism, Confucious, Buddhism, Datta Swami, Scientology, Psychology, Drugs, Masturbation..etc. etc. etc...

[quote name='lucid_dream' post='76418' date='Feb 18, 2007, 12:35 AM']
[quote name='Hey Hey' post='76411' date='Feb 17, 2007, 02:03 PM']
More ethics:

Introduction.swf

in the folder at:

link expired

when I follow the link it prompts me for a login and password. Do you have this info?
[/quote]
Sorry, I missed you reply. url should be:

link expired