There's an important difference between Kyle and Jessi living in the same Family. Kyle is adopted and Jessi is not. Surprisingly the same Charlie Jane Anders wrote the following not too long ago: "if he (Kyle) hooks up with his fellow test-tube baby Jessi, then I'll be glued to the screen." Back then we already knew that they were grown in the same test lab.
@Kamuko: Ha... Well, I actually think both things are true. I think it's a little bit ooky, but I'm also glued to the screen! And I like Jessi way better than Amanda.
For fuck's sake people! Kyle and Jessi ARE NOT RELATED! Yes, both were created by Latnok, but Kyle is based on Adam Baylin's DNA, while Jessi is from Sarah's DNA. Got it? If you guys want incest with your sci-fi, read "Fade" by Robert Cormier. You get brother/sister and aunt/nephew action!
@FuryOfFirestorm: @SolKeppanin: Well, they were spawned in test tubes next to each other, so they're "siblings" in the sense that they were grown in the same lab. And now they're both part of the Trager family. They're siblings the same way Kyle and Josh are brothers. It's at the very least a bit ooky.
Interesting, but, uh, beyond the multitude of thoughtfully religious folks out there interested in humanity's future and what it means to play God, it ought to go without saying that one of the hallmarks of religious fundamentalists (who are obviously not atheists) is obsessing over where humanity is headed, and what it means to be human or to play God.
The fact that they have different answers, and even the quality of those answers, doesn't change that.
@Moff: Oh, but the fundamental (pardon) difference is that while atheists wonder, ponder and opine, the religious believe they KNOW where humanity is headed. That is a major difference, and does change the basic character of the discussion: you can't debate with someone who is unwilling to be pursuaded regardless of how compelling the arguments against his or her credo may be. Talk to an atheist and prove to him that there is a deity or deities and he'll say, "Oh, you are right ... how silly of me." Talk to a religious fundamentalist and prove to him that there is no deity and he'll say, "Oh, you are right ... BURN HIM!" I think that qualifies as a distinction. But I could be mistaken.
@Aethelred: Alas, it would be nigh on impossible to prove either of those things -
"Prove" the existence of a divine being (or several) and science can always redefine omnipotence within a new framework using energy, particles and waveforms that we have yet to fully explain.
"Prove" the lack of a divine entity and religion can always gently scold us for failing to understand that we can't find god simply because he does not want to be found.
(Prove in both cases is only in quotation marks as neither proof could ever be taken as empirical evidence by the parties proved wrong.)
But you're right, there would be a fair degree of ire directed at you by one of the groups in particular.
@Moff: Except that the object of the obsession of the "thoughtful" religious folk (fundamental or not) is that humanity's future rests in another world outside of our observable universe whose existence can never be proven.
It would be nice if the goal of the religionists was to prepare for humanity's future in this world, but they demonstrably do not care about it. Many of them want to hasten its end and welcome war and climate change and extinction!! Not much of a future there I'm afraid.
@Aethelred: Sure. Fundamentalists do think about where we're headed, but they don't necessarily think about it. I'm nitpicking over his phrasing, but even if he's actually talking about quality of thought -- well, I would be very surprised if atheists', on average, was significantly greater than believers'. There are a lot of dumb religious people, yes; there are also a lot of dumb atheists.
@mikecap: That's not just a pretty sweeping generalization, but one that's demonstrably untrue. There are an abundance of intelligent religious people who believe quite strongly in preserving and improving the long-term quality of life on this planet, even if they're not in the media spotlight.
@kickarse: Thanks for taking the time to talk down to me and use short words - it's appreciated.
I wasn't aware I made such a broad generalisation as to assume everyone had the same views on proving the existence (or not) of a god. The italicised portions of text in my reply were intended as an example of one possible rebuttal of either hypothetical proof. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer to you.
Aethelred suggested aetheists would be amenable to proof and religious fundamentalists angry. I tend to agree with his interpretation simply because aetheists tend not, on the whole, to kill people for the crime of heresy.
Now, before you pat me on the head and tell me to go play in the sandpit, I would point out that I am not suggesting that belief in god is a bad thing or that anyone with an ounce of spirituality is an intolerant zealot; nor that aetheists or sceptics are shining beacons of tolerance.
Bearing that in mind, I still hold (as a personal opinion, which you are welcome to patronise me for having) that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than scientifically-minded actions and therefore is far more likely to react badly to a proof defeating its long-cherished beliefs.
@Moff: I'm absolutely disappointed in you for creating this thread. I thought you were better and more insightful than this.
A creation myth is not a religious thing. It's EVERY religion's thing. Each has one. Which means that on some level, the myth of origins is necessary to the human psyche. At least, the preoccupation of origins is. It's the same way with modern science, whose preoccupation with genetics and behavioral science can be simply stated as another creation myth.
Now the idea of a creation implies as predicate the idea of an ending, as those two things are indissolubly bound. The greeks had it right when the basically coined Ontos and Telos as the two sides of the same coin, and Aristotle bound up the two in his definition of a thing.
So SF as concerned with the endings of man and his far future and creation mythology as concerned with the origins of man are basically separated by a thin conceptual thread.
@Discodave: @Aethelred: I'm happy that you guys are busy repeating the kind of stale, self-aggrandizing arguments that atheists keep repeating. It makes me proud of the stability of the world that with every new generation of young people the same tires arguments keep re-surfacing.
a) the amount of STRICTLY religious violence in the history of the world is minuscule. Religions, like every human political power structure, are always bound up with the ambitions of the people involved. What used religion as an excuse in the middle ages used nationalism and patriotism as an excuse in the beginning of the 20th century.
b) the 20th century probably killed more people than the entire dark ages/middle ages. Don't quote me on this, but WWI and WWII were totally secular and killed tens of millions.
@Pope John Peeps II: Don't blame Moff for that--the guys phrasing was completely retarded. "This is what comes of being an atheist, perhaps: we think about these things more than most people. Obsess about them, probably."? If thousands of years of theological considering stretching back to the Greeks and before doesn't indicate that the religious are just as obsessed about the nature of humanity, its future, and the nature of deity as the atheists, then I'm not sure what would.
Moreover, you're presuming a materialistic source for the necessity of the creation myths as being rooted in human consciousness, rather than divinely-mandated states of being--which is fine, on the face of it, and is a position that I happen to agree with--but it's essentially unprovable in light of the religious alternative.
Also, you can be disappointed if you want to, but there's no one here looking for your approval; it might be worth it, in the long term, to keep your dickery to yourself.
I'm always surprised I've never seen io9 mention David Zindell's Neverness books (the original and the trilogy after). It has many examples of humans transcending their bodies, plus its a very interesting universe.
Of particular example is Eade the God, a man who transferred his consciousness into a computer, then as a computer consciousness added more and more computers to stretch to a greater size to the point of Eade spanning a size greater than planets.
we can customize our states of mind with amazingly personalized medicines
Yeah, Joss, if only that was true. Then people wouldn't have to struggle for years trying out different amounts and combinations of medicines to get a state of mind that allows them to function in the way that they'd like.
Seriously, does he not know anyone with clinical depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, or anything else of that ilk? It's a crap shoot finding the meds that will allow people to have an average life, let alone posthuman.
Omg. I absolutely back you on this one. I could probably help you support your point with reams of clinical data. There is nothing even approaching a chemical "customization" of the human mind unless you want to somehow include the use of stimulants and psychotropic substances.
On the Joss Whedon tip - I'd be more shocked if all of his friends and associates were somehow not mentally ill and on some sort of SSRI or mood stabilizer. It is Hollywood after all.
@kolacek: Yes, you got part of my point. (Yay us!) He has to know people on the brain-straighteners, so why is he talking such crap about them? Or are his friends excused their non-average behavior b/c they're "artistes", unlike us slobs out here in the real world?
"And pretty much the only easy answer to our myriad problems is some kind of huge leap forward in human evolution, making us smarter and vastly enhancing our brainpower."
Kind of overstates the case.
The easiest answer is just the slow, steady grind of daily life, and coping with things not being perfect.
"A huge leap forward in human evolution" would be more of the glamorous, exciting answer.
Besides, it wouldn't be evolution, it would be design.
I found that quote interesting considering the author was able to ignore Heroes in the article completely when it's by far the most transhuman storyline on popular television.
People are modifying themselves to change their essence. (Mostly for physical abilities not mental or spiritual changes. A singular problem with the show.) People are discovering that the future is deterministic and that it can be changed through empirical modification to the environment. People are strugling with seemingly uncontrollable urges and the outcomes of their lives are often more the result of someone's else's decisions than their own.
Sylar is an interesting experiment in free will. In one timeline he *SPOILERS* turns good. In another he relishes evil.
The heroe's universe is really lacking however transhuman psychology. Where is the character who doesn't just get angry and aggressive but instead becomes saintly in their compassion and non-aggression?
Where is the hive superpower where a set of twins become almost a single organism.
Perception and desire are the two most important variables in one's choices and yet Heroes simply addresses the only the mundane physical realm. A lost opportunity if you as me. But still easily the most posthuman show on television or the big screen right now.
@im.thatoneguy: That's a really good point. The fact that I'm burned out on Heroes right now doesn't change its posthuman nature. They're mutants, but as you say, they're also hacking the future and customizing themselves, to some extent. Thanks for bringing that up!
03/15/09
03/16/09
03/06/09
03/09/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/05/09
03/05/09
03/05/09
The fact that they have different answers, and even the quality of those answers, doesn't change that.
03/05/09
Talk to an atheist and prove to him that there is a deity or deities and he'll say, "Oh, you are right ... how silly of me."
Talk to a religious fundamentalist and prove to him that there is no deity and he'll say, "Oh, you are right ... BURN HIM!"
I think that qualifies as a distinction.
But I could be mistaken.
03/05/09
"Prove" the existence of a divine being (or several) and science can always redefine omnipotence within a new framework using energy, particles and waveforms that we have yet to fully explain.
"Prove" the lack of a divine entity and religion can always gently scold us for failing to understand that we can't find god simply because he does not want to be found.
(Prove in both cases is only in quotation marks as neither proof could ever be taken as empirical evidence by the parties proved wrong.)
But you're right, there would be a fair degree of ire directed at you by one of the groups in particular.
03/05/09
It would be nice if the goal of the religionists was to prepare for humanity's future in this world, but they demonstrably do not care about it. Many of them want to hasten its end and welcome war and climate change and extinction!! Not much of a future there I'm afraid.
03/05/09
03/05/09
Its hard, isn't it, when you don't fully understand the underlying information on a topic to make a good point.
Not everyone has the same explanation of the proof or disproof of a divine being.
03/05/09
03/05/09
I wasn't aware I made such a broad generalisation as to assume everyone had the same views on proving the existence (or not) of a god. The italicised portions of text in my reply were intended as an example of one possible rebuttal of either hypothetical proof. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer to you.
Aethelred suggested aetheists would be amenable to proof and religious fundamentalists angry. I tend to agree with his interpretation simply because aetheists tend not, on the whole, to kill people for the crime of heresy.
Now, before you pat me on the head and tell me to go play in the sandpit, I would point out that I am not suggesting that belief in god is a bad thing or that anyone with an ounce of spirituality is an intolerant zealot; nor that aetheists or sceptics are shining beacons of tolerance.
Bearing that in mind, I still hold (as a personal opinion, which you are welcome to patronise me for having) that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than scientifically-minded actions and therefore is far more likely to react badly to a proof defeating its long-cherished beliefs.
03/05/09
A creation myth is not a religious thing. It's EVERY religion's thing. Each has one. Which means that on some level, the myth of origins is necessary to the human psyche. At least, the preoccupation of origins is. It's the same way with modern science, whose preoccupation with genetics and behavioral science can be simply stated as another creation myth.
Now the idea of a creation implies as predicate the idea of an ending, as those two things are indissolubly bound. The greeks had it right when the basically coined Ontos and Telos as the two sides of the same coin, and Aristotle bound up the two in his definition of a thing.
So SF as concerned with the endings of man and his far future and creation mythology as concerned with the origins of man are basically separated by a thin conceptual thread.
@Discodave: @Aethelred: I'm happy that you guys are busy repeating the kind of stale, self-aggrandizing arguments that atheists keep repeating. It makes me proud of the stability of the world that with every new generation of young people the same tires arguments keep re-surfacing.
a) the amount of STRICTLY religious violence in the history of the world is minuscule. Religions, like every human political power structure, are always bound up with the ambitions of the people involved. What used religion as an excuse in the middle ages used nationalism and patriotism as an excuse in the beginning of the 20th century.
b) the 20th century probably killed more people than the entire dark ages/middle ages. Don't quote me on this, but WWI and WWII were totally secular and killed tens of millions.
03/05/09
Moreover, you're presuming a materialistic source for the necessity of the creation myths as being rooted in human consciousness, rather than divinely-mandated states of being--which is fine, on the face of it, and is a position that I happen to agree with--but it's essentially unprovable in light of the religious alternative.
Also, you can be disappointed if you want to, but there's no one here looking for your approval; it might be worth it, in the long term, to keep your dickery to yourself.
03/05/09
@braak: Thank you.
I have to go not have Internet again. Tomorrow morning, though, it will come to our apartment. Hooray!
02/09/09
Of particular example is Eade the God, a man who transferred his consciousness into a computer, then as a computer consciousness added more and more computers to stretch to a greater size to the point of Eade spanning a size greater than planets.
02/09/09
02/09/09
Yeah, Joss, if only that was true. Then people wouldn't have to struggle for years trying out different amounts and combinations of medicines to get a state of mind that allows them to function in the way that they'd like.
Seriously, does he not know anyone with clinical depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, or anything else of that ilk? It's a crap shoot finding the meds that will allow people to have an average life, let alone posthuman.
02/10/09
Omg. I absolutely back you on this one. I could probably help you support your point with reams of clinical data. There is nothing even approaching a chemical "customization" of the human mind unless you want to somehow include the use of stimulants and psychotropic substances.
On the Joss Whedon tip - I'd be more shocked if all of his friends and associates were somehow not mentally ill and on some sort of SSRI or mood stabilizer. It is Hollywood after all.
02/10/09
02/09/09
Kind of overstates the case.
The easiest answer is just the slow, steady grind of daily life, and coping with things not being perfect.
"A huge leap forward in human evolution" would be more of the glamorous, exciting answer.
Besides, it wouldn't be evolution, it would be design.
-Kle.
02/09/09
02/09/09
I found that quote interesting considering the author was able to ignore Heroes in the article completely when it's by far the most transhuman storyline on popular television.
People are modifying themselves to change their essence. (Mostly for physical abilities not mental or spiritual changes. A singular problem with the show.)
People are discovering that the future is deterministic and that it can be changed through empirical modification to the environment.
People are strugling with seemingly uncontrollable urges and the outcomes of their lives are often more the result of someone's else's decisions than their own.
Sylar is an interesting experiment in free will. In one timeline he *SPOILERS* turns good. In another he relishes evil.
The heroe's universe is really lacking however transhuman psychology. Where is the character who doesn't just get angry and aggressive but instead becomes saintly in their compassion and non-aggression?
Where is the hive superpower where a set of twins become almost a single organism.
Perception and desire are the two most important variables in one's choices and yet Heroes simply addresses the only the mundane physical realm. A lost opportunity if you as me. But still easily the most posthuman show on television or the big screen right now.
02/09/09