Comments on: Clone

By: Cuger Brant

Cuger Brant — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:30:20 +0000

July 28th.

By: cugerbrant

cugerbrant — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:03:13 +0000

I personally think an instinct is an automatic subconscious reaction like, fight or flight, sleeping, holding your breath under water. It can even be taught; fear of snakes, spiders or rats etc, coming from subconscious adoption of parental fears. All this is essentially ‘personal preservation’.

Whereas to me, desire could be said to be ‘personal gratification’ from what ever interest/addiction you have, be it hunting knowledge, love of drugs, escapism into alcohol, video games, sport etc.

I often think, one, balances the other, but for what overall purpose?
You would be hard put to work all week, enjoying your interest without sleep.
The same would apply if you lived for a thousand years would it not? Waking up each day refreshed to start over again. Would you go insane? Or would you attack your interests from a different perspective, or question the very concept of them? Go forward to a higher plane of thinking, where material knowledge is irrelevant, after all, boredom is only equated to repetition, is it not?
Perhaps to us, from our perspective some ‘learned monk’ procrastinating on a mountain seems like insanity, but to him, we and our little lifestyles may seem insane. Sanity is a matter of perspective is it not? Or is it a matter of iniformity?
Anyway,To you and anyone else that looks at this blog, take a look at my (self-published, vanity at its best), book on amazon. It has some interesting concepts, also a look inside feature now.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:03:13 +0000

There isn’t much difference between a desire and an instinct, at least in humans. Instinct generally means a more rigid behaviour (something hard to override), whereas desire is a drive which is more easily overriden.

The sanity part of that comes from a common criticism of extending the human lifespan, namely that human minds need constant stimulation to function properly – i.e. if we lived forever, we’d go insane from boredom.

By: cugerbrant

cugerbrant — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:40:23 +0000

I like your blog Joshua!

Two questions though..

Can you clarify the concept between a desire and an instinct?

“If we can maintain our bodies indefinitely, why not our sanity?”
Question.. Why do you think we would need to ’maintain’ our sanity?
Could you expand on this?

By: cugerbrant

cugerbrant — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:15:32 +0000

Hi Joshua,
I agree Knowledge is good, but not inherently good for its own sake . To seek knowledge, is to me, to seek understanding, comprehension, truth and wisdom. The effects of learning put to useful purpose both moral and ethical by the consensus of what is right. Not what is wanted, needed or sought, for personal gratification. Example; do you think embryonic research is inherently good, has a purpose? With the consensus of public opinion acting as a cautionary brake, do you get frustrated or do they have a point? Your reasoning on the subject may be justified, but at what stage does it go further? What dilemma of learning or obstacle takes it to the point of profanity? The happiness of, some knowledge, can quite easily turn to the unhappiness of many, many people.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:08:45 +0000

Knowledge is good for two reasons. First for its own sake – it’s just inherently good to know the secrets of the universe. Second, knowledge helps people keep what they value (their life, their health, their time), and improves their quality of life. In short, knowledge makes people happy – and the only consequence that I, as a utilitarian, think could outweigh this is an unhappiness greater than the happiness brought by knowledge.

By: cugerbrant

cugerbrant — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:52:06 +0000

What is the thirst for knowledge?
From my observations in life, to most, it is satiating their hedonistic lust for all material things and improving on them.
To the spiritual, it is, and always was, enlightenment upon the question of the creator.
To the philosopher it is the need to understand the reasoning of man.
But what is it to the Scientist’, a combination of all the afore mentioned?
Or is what was left in ‘Pandora’s box‘, the driving force, the inner force, the real motive in all its aspects, to go forward ?

If so, what are those ‘motives’ to you. What are you seeking and at what consequence?

By: cugerbrant

cugerbrant — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:20:03 +0000

Joshua,
Thank you for your response.

Firstly; I personally think man should know all he can assimilate, and comprehend. To me, that is our purpose.
Secondly; there is no knowledge or technology , that should be left un-scrutinised or investigated by man. To me that is our curiosity.

However, the world is fast becoming a global test tube for all and any experiments, some of which may have huge ramifications if out of control. One’s singular moral reasoning may be very different to the aims or reasoning of the company, paymaster or government. who subsidises the work.

I strongly suspect the biological experiments at say, Porton Down, are to save lives or, are they to prevent loss of life by means of a threat? This argument equally applies to the Manhattan project and everything that emanated from it.

I believe there is a goodness in the universe as well as a badness. (I am not going down the religious road), there is however, something indefinable, but inwardly known by each and every one of us . It is a moral compass, a pointer to truth and what is morally right.

What I mean by profane is, altering the points of this ‘compass’, even making it immaterial, in our search for ’knowledge’.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:43:40 +0000

I don’t think science is getting ahead of our own comprehension or moral reasoning. And I certainly don’t think there is anything, any knowledge or any technology, that would have been better off never existing. So I find it hard to believe that in the future, there will be things that man should not know.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your concerns?