Promethean Thoughts

An attempt to philosophy

[promethean-man]

Quick Overview on social organisation and economics

As for my preceding entry, I've been absent for quite a long time. I'll be lying if I told you I was only pondering my own thoughts on the subject that preoccupy me on this blog, but not quite so. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this blog actually. What it represent, things like recognizing it as an attempt; but to do what exactly? I think memetic contagion. That's what. Also, a form of "Italian Spaghetti Cooking": I'm trying to see what's stiking on the wall when I throw it at it, and which of my ideas are "Al Dente", and maybe try to edit and format this stuff into some kind of more in depth and thoroughly thought pamphlet. So, Given the title you have a vague idea of what I'll attack today. That's a whole lot to swallow, and I warn you; I won't be able to eat the whole bite. Not at all. That's why it's an overview. I'll pretty much limitate myself to general concerns on these subject; I won't be nor specific, nor detailled. And even if you can underline an oriented posture in my discourse, I'll be glad if you don't label it. That'll kill the whole point.  With this in mind, here we go! If we had to stick to something during this long tirade I'm about to have is this; for the optic of my ideas are centered on a universalist principle, my concerns are for the most part global. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in local organization; trust me, I'am. But to consider something as vast as the concept of a Promethean society, and limitate it to small scale (yep, nations are small scale) organizations is somewhat conterintuitive to me. Bearing this in mind, I wish to start on the subject of social organisation, and by association, politics. Once defined the Promethean Individual, one thing must be considered; if an individual of rational ( or at least greatly rationalized) setting is needed to organize a Promethean society, one must have the mean to that end. Said, a Promethean society must allow Promethean individuals to exerce power within it, or it defeat and cancel the whole point of having Promethean individuals in the first place. Yeah, I know, I'm being a bit obnoxious here, but I have to settle this before bringing my point further. So, Ideally, a Promethean individual live in a society where he, and others, have a right to decide the policies; he has a right to vote.

It may seem a basic thing, but as we know it, it is not. Democratic organization of politics is the best form of social governance you may wish as a Promethean individual to express your point of view, and set society on better tracks. Nonetheless, if one cannot assume this form of power to bring change in a society, for this society doesn't allow him to do so, one may exerce economic power. Yes, it seem elitist at first glance, but the western world know very well there are many way to exerce such power; Unions, Consummer Associations, and Political Movements exercising boycott or blocades are all popular form of expression of economic power. And as we know it, are effective tools to shape policies, in a more or less profound and lasting way, depend on the consistency of the movement, it strategy, it means, and it achievements.  This said, what are the ideal forms of government we may expect to have in a Promethean society; hint, if there is forms in the sentence above, it's because there are no ideal government.

A Promethean society have to bear these characteristics:

- Each individual is given maximum freedom

- Each individual is taken care off for it basic needs, and hasn't to fear hunger, sickness, violence or homelessness

- Society at large aim to a betterment of itself; it mean it seek to constently improve the average living conditions, while adequating with the conditions of the physical world, which mean it is concerned with it wastes and self concious about the issues, both internal and external, it faces.

This given, we have to recognize such a society may have difficulties to be set in place in a small area. And while it doesn't require a specific economic paradigm, it sure require specific economic policies.

Freedom, as it is defined, is an ability to exerce your will without encountering opposition. Of course, it exist physical limits to it. As it exist social norms that exerce an opposition to certain desires (mostly those that annhilate the will of others, such depriving them of freedom). As I said, given we don't especially have "free-will", according importance to this notion may seem irrelevant. But it isn't, for freedom is important for one thing; it is a setting that allow the expression of desires, and creativity. These are the most important things we have as human beings, to shape a world in which we can thrive and prosper.  The second point is thus deeply interwined with the first, for the absence of means is an absence of freedom. Being unable to do anything but keeping yourself alive kill all purpose of social participation, and thus, eliminate as much potential Promethean individuals as there are human beings put under such conditions. If your busy thinking about your next meal, and being creative about this little money problem of yours, you're deprived of the ability to do so on much more important matters. And if there is no certainty about the added value you may bring to society by doing so, it is by itself deplorable to deprive you of this possibility. Disposing of your time mean you're able of not being concerned by your survival, at least for a while.  A Promethean society thus must give to all it individuals the right and ability to exerce freedom, or the third point, this self concious self improving state is defeated at start.

So, to put it in a nuttshell; democracy and basic economic solidarity are the pillars of a Promethean society. It's the bedrock on which you erect the other aspect of such a society. I'll be more in depth in next articles; this time I won't be fool enough to give a deadline though.  Be only assured that I'll be back! 

[promethean-man]

Promethean Individual II

Sorry for the (quite long) interval inbetween the previous post and this one. I did an awful lot of stuff, among other things thinking, but not forcibly about this entry. Nonetheless, I guess it'll allow me to have a less dispersed focus on things this time. Last time I talked about primary education/socialisation, which emphasized a lot on the initial formation of young minds. But I sketched a rather hollow objective onto which all this dedicated work was aimed. So, I will define more broadly what I have in mind speaking about a Promethean individual, and this is this time I will shamelessly borrow a lot from thinkers from different era.  Also, sorry not to have mentionned it, but the idea (that I find wonderful and utterly important) of teaching magic to children is from Daniel Dennet. This said, let us began! If last time I was especially insistent on how to shape a critical mind, it's because a Promethean Individual, to gather with is peer, and constitute a Promethan Society, as the obvious necessity to do a ridiculous amount of data processing, and to be able to do so, need a solid basis. Brains are lazy ass, and tend to automatize a lot of stuff. A large part of our decision making isn't concious; it's a process largely independant of active thinking, and depend more on a large databank of experiences and previous decisions from which the brain tend to pick, or synthetize, a solution to the current problem. That's why the earliest you're customed to think critically, easier it is to do so, and the more you're proficient at it.  But to keep being good at it, you have to train, as for anything else.  Education is a permanent endeavour, not a trip with a starting point and a destination, but a neverending quest for more informations and new and better ways to process it. This conception of existence as a constant tentative of perfection of the self is directly inspired by the Humanism movement that accompanied the birth of the Renaissance. Alike, I would want to see Promethean Individuals concerned both by their well-being and their mastering of competences.  It's commonly admitted you need around half a dozen of years to master a given subject, and this is mirrored by the appelation of it homonym university degree.  A human life is nowadays around six dozen of years.  There are a lot of things one can aim to be really good at during this period.  To stay in the tone of these ideas, one should always aim to stay healthy, and in a good shape, while keeping in mind it doesn't mean trying to look like "healthy" models, but to find and keep a personal equilibrium in which health problems aren't a main concern because of the shape and internal state of the body. This is a personal matter, as much as what will be one's favourite way to integrate new informations, or how one prefer to socialize. We're all different and unequal in our ways to react to the outside world, wether it is from a purely physiological standpoint or a psychological one. Same inputs will produce different interactions and results in different individuals. The only constraint is being able to get the best out of all the possibilities.  Now, I will talk a bit about epicurism, for I think it is the best time for a transition toward it. Being rational and healthy mean also understanding that having fun and enjoying yourself, as long as you know how much you can handle, or how much of an excess you can compensate later, are far better for you than no pleasure at all. Searching fulfillment of our desires is a biological imperative, and a central necessity in the perpetuation of a happy mental life. This doesn't mean suffering or arm is to be feared either. As much as I understand it is impossible to rationnalize entirely the happening of such circumstances in one's life, and how hollow it always sound when you're really in the depth of suffering to hear about how it'll have a positive outcome on your life afterward, I must say this is at least half true. If I'm quite skeptical of the saying of Nietzsche, what doesn't kill me make me stronger, I must say no experiences must go without a thorough examination of it impact on one's life. You may be truly weakened by an experience, but you're nonetheless richer of  the knowledge of yourself you've gained during these times of hardship. And the process of resilience being what it is, being able to handle things as concepts and ideas you can manipulate, and not simply suffering odd feelings and a lasting pain is a necessity.  As for the saying of Nietzsche, the saying of Socrates, know yourself, must be taken with a pinch of salt, if not a whole bucket. But this is nonetheless another constant in the process of betterment of your critical thought that need to be taken into account; the permanent scrutinity of the self. You may never understand how you work, or even drew bad conclusions about your inner mecanic, but you should at least try to identify what key elements in your life keep you running. What are your forces, and weaknesses. And try to seek for what streghten you, and work on the reasons that keep you down.  This also mean, you must never be afraid to give, nor ask for help. And also, never be afraid to give up if you cannot do something. Trying as hard as you can is great, but if you're not fit for something, it is no use. You've to identify your own limits, even if only to break them, but if you lend an helping hand to someone, make sure this is an effective one.  The last point being compassion. We're social animals. We need each other. But this must be an intelectual notion, as much as a natural one. Realization of the interdependance of everyone is what make one able to think about the concept of society, but also, the very notion of humanity. A Promethan Individual must at least be capable of emphaty toward another human being, if not to directly care for him. Feelings can become dull, if the sentiments aren't enough evoked. Being able to put yourself in the skin of another person, or at least to try to imagine what it is to be like someone else, think like someone else, perceive like someone else, is what make possible building understanding and conversation.  If you do not try to consider another person identity, you're not dialoguing with this person; you're bombarding this person with a flow of your own inner world, trying to flood their own with a paradigm that is fit for you.  Of course, there are broader conception of reality that encompass most of the peoples and the world as we know it, if not, i wouldn't try to produce this text. But unless they are confirmed by experience, are in a sense "reality proof", whatever conceptions you may have are nothing but opinions.  To produce something out of two differing elements, in this case human beings, it is necessary to find a proper way to realize the synergy of their experiences and abilities, and to do so, to adapt to a common ground where understanding is possible. This is how compassion is integrated into this concept of Promethean Individual. If I had to use a metaphor, we're all lonely creatures, and the world is a harsh place. If not for each other presence, we will all perish in suffering and angst. Both our collective organization and our pesonal involvment in it make a difference in it; allowing ourselves to prosper and thrive, while living agreable and fulfilling lives, rather than struggling  to keep our feables corpses alive for the sake of our own survival, is what maek us humans.

[promethean-man]

Promethean Individual

Given the wide range of subject I (quite pathetically) adressed a few days ago, I'll narrow my perspective to talk about the central tenet of the Promethean Society I envision. (Anytime I write down things like that I have the terrible impression of giving a speach on a soapbox, dressed as a Drama Club King with a cardboard crown and a polyester mantle). What can be reassuring is that I wouldn't be of any originality on this topic. Several authors and thinkers writted down in a sensibly better articulated and clear manner than I different distinctive "types" of man. What I'll do, even if it through the lens of my own reflexion, is simply cherry-pick what fit what I envision, and melt it with components gathered from a widely different range of perspectives and philosophies. That does not mean I'll create a paradoxal conecept; I think, for what it is worth, that I crafted a rather coherent conception of a Promethean Individual. So, I may make direct citations of my inspirations, or may be vague, and only quote a period rather than a book or an author. I may as well completly forget about this part, and simply develop the post as it is, for I have a rather blurry vision of the final product this post will consist in. So, let us get our hands on the main course. As I putted it in my precedent post, we're determined as individuals through our conditionning and stimuli.  What  intetest me there, is the conditionning part; through these particular stimuli that are books, formal education, and family upbringing.  These are the major axis upon which you can act on the conditionning of an individual.  And the form of conditionning we are prefering there is rational and critical thinking. Why? Because for what we can notice, this is the best way to interact with our environment, while producing beneficial outcomes for us, both as individuals and societies. For which reason? The reason is simple; it works because it adapt to how reality function. It as simple as that. A truly performant behavior in nature is able to take advantages of the given elements to produce the best outcome for the one exhibiting it.

(I know the Vitruviano Man is about proportions, but given these lines draw limits, thus establishing an environment, it fit the description of adaptation as well) Other types of behavior lead to arm, sooner or later, but more often than not it's the first. We're interested in forming individuals to be able to think critically and act rationnaly then. How do we do that? We have named the tools, what we need now are methods.  I quoted my tools in disorder earlier, I'll rearange them now in the right sequence;

First, through Family Upbringing, we need proper methods of edification; I have hold the conviction, drawn from both readings and personnal observation, yhat human infants inherently curious. It is a natural trait of our species that many animals share as well. It serve a purpose in nature, which is to adapt to novelty; it will also serve a purpose there, it's to ensure a proper conditioning into a more elaborate and refined form of adaptative behavior.  First, exploration, trial and error, initiative, must be encouraged and praised, even if they still need proper monitoring and attention. Just praising children for being temerarious  isn't the idea. But ensuring that adventure isn't a scary thing for them, and that curiosity if it may be painfull, is ultimately rewarding, is what it is all about. It doesn't mean letting underdeveloped children perform demanding physical tasks, like climbing trees or rocky mountain path. To each level of development a particular set of activities must be allowed, and encouraged. What must be found is a compromise between autonomy and supervision, according to the perceived development of the child.  Second, wether introduced through proposed games or activities, an effort must be directed toward development of cognitive capabilites. Weither initiating the child to reading or challenging her/him through puzzles will do the deal, depending on his willing to perform such activities. I'll had, for I have implied it, that age isn't a pertinent way to asses readinness of a children for such activites. There are of course periods of their development more suitable than others depending on the activities, and they are generally temporaly close from one child to another, but that may simply not be the case. In a sense or another. And this  fact must be asserted and dealed with, without any consideration about an arbitrary scale of development. Individuals are unique; this goes too for their psychological and physiological stages of evolution. What a parent willing to raise their children this way must do is training himself into spotting these subtelties in his progeny.  The third one is articulating the Phase one with the phase two; once given the basis of a curious and logical mind to a child, it must be trained into critical thinking. Hypothetical situations can be good tests, but the best way to make them perform their ownw judgments is to put children in presence oftheir peers; send them into school. This is were we need teachers, educative method, and programs. Given the ability to do so, I'll undergo a total reform of the school system. So, while we are at speculating, let's daydream a bit.  I'll say the most curious first; we need magicians. Not sorcerers; there isn't such things as warlocks, witches and other wizards. But true, professional illusionists. Why? To trick the children, then give them the key to the trick, after having make them think hard about; A) The possibility or not of a trick being formed, B) the nature of the trick, C) the possible ways of it being performed. Once again, why? Because that's a wonderful way to exerce critical thinking, while being entertained. It may also encourage group work, and reinforce logic, while teaching them valuable lessons about the way nature works. All good.  This done, we may conserve some bit of the classical stuff; maths as no reasons to be changed, english and languages neither, even if for developmental benefits, it may be of good advice to follow a bilingual formation. What must change is the teaching of humanities; it's quite wide for young minds, but don't be anxious. I'm just talking about history and geography and literature. While geography and literature must only undergo superficial, some may say cosmetic, changes, the teaching of history as to be rearrenged in it's entirety.  Geography must teach about nations, difference of culture and the natural world in a restricted extent.  Literature must, once again, according to a given developmental level, provide tools to the expansion of the afformentionned qualities we are trying to develop, while being entertaining.

(That's why as a sidenote I'll had that we must also rework the way we compose classes.) History, on the other hand, have the difficult task to portray the long series of human interactions that shaped our world; and thus, portray the behavior of mankind from the farthest known exemple of humans we ever heard of, to these days. Common strategies are to mask, or alter fact, to suit the current political agenda. Some horros are watered down or excluded, while some particular event, if iconic for the culture which is providing this particular viewpoint on the course of history, bear in fact, litlle to no impact in reality.  What as to be done is the lecture of the events as is; facts, nothing more, nothing less. But they have to be articulated in the broader picture. It must be asserted and understood that we are nothing but one kind, and the process that lead us were we are today to be properly exposed and explained. These are difficult things to implement in the teaching of history. I don't knoww precisely what have to be done though, and it clearly require more than wild speculations. I'll end this topic (and this post) on the subject of books. Either textbooks, or other form of reading material, they'll be the companions of Promethean Children for a lifelong journey. Their content must be chosen carefully, bearing in mind the concept of psychological readinnes evoked earlier.  But if any advice must be given about it, it's there must be science in them, at each stage. Fantasy and Tales aren't bad, that's not my point. But we must chose to promote a naturalistic sense of awe and marvelous rather than an appeal for mysticism. Mysteries are there to be investigated, not revered and feared. there is a lot of reading material that answer these requirements; but there is room enough, and will ever is, for new productions in this domain, for every level of understanding, from entertainment to academic requirement. I guess I'm done for today. I admit that I didn't expected this entry to be so long, and we're not even done on the topic. To be continued

[promethean-man]

Interactions

Given the topic of the latest post, I will speak some more about naturalistic informations about the human race, before getting started into pure babbling stuff.  we have to consider several things to speak about interactions inbetween human beings. We evolved as a semi gragarious species. We are very self reliable, but we ultimately thrive only in large herds. We tend to slowly rot in a corner without proper social interactions, while a great deal of socialization, or byproducts of it, nurture us into radiant specimen of our species. I insist onto the "byproducts" of human socialization, for many of us if truly thrilled by the prospect of good litterature or art in general, lack the motivation to perform long standing and numerous social activities. But ultimately, every cultural item is a byproduct of social interaction, would it be a scientific paper or a totem. You need several things that emerge onl by puting more than two human beings together to make them. You need what Richard Dawkins called memes. Which are essentially common symbolism and representation, edified by long standing relations between several group of people, and the individuals within these groups. It's a very, very long process, that is still ongoing today, a perpetual renewing of signification and themes. An evolutive process of common intellectual, mental and oniric baggage. We do not share the integrality of it with everyone else; that's why they are such things as different cultures. Even if the internet contribute to merge them, and blur more and more the boundaries between them, there are still cultures impermeable to our memes, and we are ourselves impermeable to some, if not most of their.

Social interactions are natural for human beings. We tend to live in group for a very long time, if not the entirety of our evolutionnary process. As far as fossil records goes, we notice this invariable trend of human settlement consisting of gathering of several individuals of the species. We lack several things to be a species of individualistic creatures; if we are territorial, it's because we attach price to land and inamovible ressources, and it advantages for a group, not because we defend a mating or hunting zone. It is difficult to determine a "natural" type of social hierarchy within human beings. Some of our traits make us akin to the violent, patriarcal, extremely political and warlike chimps, while others link us to the subspecies of the bonobos, more peaceful and egalitarian. While we share these ressemblances, we are an entirely different breed of apes, and therefore, even if we share evolutionnary similar path to these of our cousins, it doesn't determine our behavior in the strictest manner. I consider our behavior to be more than a mere synthesis of the two, something unique to our species, because even if indirect observation can teach us very useful things about our traits, it does not adress our particular characteristics.  We seem to be really adaptable, having succesfully instaured several types of social structures and habits for ourselves. Some are universals, and are therefore simply named "cultural universal". These are the basic bricks of human society everywhere.  But don't be fooled; even if they ensure similar structures, they may be functionnaly absolutely different. Their definition make them similars, but not identical, and this is as much for scientific conveniance in the establishment of classifications and categories as for describing legitimately perceived regularities in our behavior as a species that the term and the list of criterias it encompass exist. It must be noted that most of the time, when a society "cannot afford" one of the criteria, for one or several reasons proper to the particular situation of this society, it's "skipped" from their agenda. We are more adaptable than rigid in our normative structures. What the nomenclature really allow is the constatation of the universality of these concepts, if not their application. Even  so, some societies "lack" even the basic understanding of these allegedly core principles; most of the time, by an accident of history, they forgot one of them, wether it was for the strategical application of seletive ignorance I adressed earlier being enforced for to long, or because they simply cannot maintain it perpetuation given their conditions of existence. I'm lazy, so I won't post the list, but you can found it on wikipedia. Bear in mind what I've told you about the limitations of this little list, and everything will be fine in your mindbending of the world and human societies. This big detour was needed to introduce the different perspectives of my thinking on social questions. There are a thing true for human beings in general: we need society. Is it to profit of it byproduct or actively participating in it self transformation process, it is what is truly universal for us.

We evolved to survive and adapt trough it. It is for us, a way to be more than the sum of individuals, a lever to lift the earth, and achieve infinitely more than what would be otherwise possible for us. By accumulating our knowledge, redistributing it, crossing it several themes and concepts, ensuring a fertile interdisciplinary dialogue, and thus ensuring an ever growing inventivity, society demultiply to the power of thousand our innate ability to adapt and survive. Surely, by it rigidity, it can prevent some forms of adaptations, and favor unfit ideas over better ones. But that is merely due to a lack of activity in the precedently named traits rather than the contrary. What we need is therefore thinking society, and shaping it, to ensure the advantages always outweight it inconvenients.

There is a term used to describe such a self reflecting society; it's called a Promethean society. Such societies are by definition aware of their trajectories, and self reflecting about it. But as a complex organism, it doesn't mean that each part is constantly reflecting about the whole, and  the big picure around it, but rather that at least a part of the entity in question is actively thinking and warning the rest about the development of the group. That is the little door by which I want to introduce my subject; I consider social engineering to be a necessity in the current century, pondering the titanesques challenges our species as a whole must face, whether immediately or later. Speaking about the global warming, a very real and ongoing threat, or hypothetical situations sciences determined as plausible scenarios and thus fates for our species, such as planet killer asteroids or supervolcanoes, these are the kind of problems we are at least integrating in our considerations, with a more or less pronounced sense of their dangerosity.  Social engineering consist in the conscious modification of social structures, and of our mematic materials, to fit our needs and expectation, future or present. It can be done in many way, one of them I'm actually undertaking, said, the influence of other individuals by an individual alone, through ideas, themeselves shaped throughout the centuries by society itself. My goal is federating a group of people around the idea of the faisibility of a Promethean society, and the emergence of a new type of socialy active individuals; Promethean beings. People aware of the broader consequences of the course of social development, and willing to share, act and shape it, to better our chances in surviving. I'll come to what constitute a Promethean individual in a next post, having more than excedeed the number of lines (and certainly unverifiable typos) that I've originally allowed myself for today. 

[promethean-man]

Human nature, or lack thereof

Last time I described human beings as little more than brain. I'll expand a bit the descriptive phase, but not too much, before speaking about it implications in term of reasoning about mankind. Sorry for the tone, english isn't my primary language, and if it sound pompous, bear this in mind; I just feel like the biggest egomaniac in the universe for even writting these thougts on a blog right now. So, if you feel like I'm a self-centered jerk, don't worry, this is a shared concern. I was speaking about the importance of the brain to define a human being; because this is one of the main tenet of my philosophy: materialism. I utterly deny the existence of non physical forces, and supernatural. So, the same goes for a soul, ghosts, or whatever. To resume the tirade about the brain: it is a big part of what we need to function. Without brain, there is nearly zero functions of the body that goes well by itself. No hormonal activity, no autonomous response to stimulus like pain, temperature or touch, and even something as mechanical as breathing does not happen. This is even without considering what we call "evolved" functions, like analytical thinking, problems solving or strategic planning.  This fancy machine come at a price though, and it nearly consume, on average, a fifth of your daily intake in calories (if you have a medium diet according to the FAO).  This said, here come a picture of a "Cortical Homonculus", or a extremely morphed "map of the body" as "seen" by the brain; aka, a representation of the density and importence of nervous connexions. 

I love how we could be resumed as a crossbreed between the Well's Martians and an elephant. We're basically a set of hands with a big mouth, bulbous eyes, big nose and large ears. For the brain, the rest of the body is virtually unimportant. That said, wwe have to consider the questions;  Are decerebred humans humans?  Do we need to define humans at all? If there is no brain,  but conciousness, is it human?

I have my answers on these topics; I keep warning you that these are mine, and if you're unhappy with them, we can discuss the ideas, or you can just come up with a better take on the subject, and leave me alone weeping in a corner. So basically, they used to be but ain't anymore, yes, and maybe I don't know but inclined to say yes.

Don't worry, I'll develop it a bit. For the first one; there is a point when we have to decide for others, whether because they are considered incapable by society, or because they aren't considered capable at all by medicine. When doctors declare a cerebral death (which is what I think about when saying "decerebred") we have to consider that the person is dead, and merely a thing now, without ever will, desires or pulsions. To me, the articulations of theses with the others constitute a frame of interactions that define a person. Dependant or not, if the person is able to have these, it's a human being. And to do so, you need a brain. To the second, I have to say that we need to do so, not to take specific actions about humanity as a status, but to better understand ourselves, and make better choices about our interpersonal and collective behavior. Not that I consider we have free will mind you; but writtings and  discourses are as much part of the stimulus this world produce as hunger, cold, puzzles and daytime television (everything I didn't cited on this list isn't natural, and therefore, product of magic and demonic sorcery). So, me producing them, is both the outcome of the meeting of my previous behavioral patterns and new stimulus, as well as a long conditionning to the scientific method and rational, logical thinking. And, a bit of what I have to call, by default of a better term, randomness. To sum it up, to me, knowing human nature will influence human beings to be better at it, and thus, making us sucking less at everything, because that's how we roll; nature made us the supercomputers of strategy and logic in the animal kingdom, so, let it be! To the last, I must say that I'm keeping myself updated about the evolution of AI's, and what I see incline me to think that intelligence may emerge in yet another form, but for the first time, out of silicium and wires rather than from a good old bag of meat. I consider intelligence and conciousness as emergent property of a body; the byproduct of a constitued system and it's environment. What make us "smart" is our ability to adapt, and successfuly interact with our surrounding, to perpetuate our own hydrocarbonated unit, and more, the pack/horde/nation/city-state/tribe we are linked to. That happen because the brain, through the hands and mouth and whatever appendices and orrifices it see fit, is able to act on it, and receive both direct and indirect stimulus. How we now program machines to "learn" is akin to that, so much in fact that we could already consider we have created "real" artificial life. And the logical next step is sentient life. And what is sentient is concious. And if it's capable of reasonning and corrects, in the sense of adapted to our cognitives responses, interactions with us, therefore, it can be considered human; but whatever I may say here will not apply to such intelligence, for it isn't shaped by the same forces as us, and therefore, will "see" the universe in a broadly different light. Here it end for human nature, as in nature of an individual human. Next step will be a lot hotter, because way more controversial, and I'll take it with amianted gloves not to get burned. So, I'll publish it another day.

[promethean-man]

Getting started: What's being human?

I guess this is one of the most discussed idea of whole time, if not the most. What is it to be human? What are the prerequisite? The limits? The universal traits?

I don't have a real answer to this; I'll just state that science, especially biology, anthropology, both physical and social, and countless ramifications of these fields have provided what can be considered a sketched definition of human condition and nature.

I side with them, and will produce a brief summary of the key concepts. It will be by this way I'll underline what are the main tools of reflexion favored througout the production of these writtings, both in their elaboration in my brain, and their concretization in raw datas on a computer.

Humans are primates. This mean that, without getting too technical, we are animals, of a branch of apes, evolved from, among other particular traits, tail-less monkeys, that evolved themselves from tailed monkeys, which evolved from Lemur like mammals, and so on, until we reach L.U.C.A., an elegant acronym for Last Universal Common Ancestor, the genetic root of all known life, a bacteria that lived a handful of minutes, nearly 3 billions years ago.

These facts, among others, mean we are a by-product of evolution, and by the way, influenced in our very existence by an endless list of evolutive features in our DNA, which determine things ranging from the expression of our phenotype, to the very genetic legacy we left to our children, which could be very different to our own.

We carry inherited diseases, particular pigmentation for our hairs, eyes and skin, universal but circumstancially unique developmental pattern for our hands, faces, genitals, but also, our inner organs, both in their conformation and functionning.

Also, this mean, like animals, we are a complex chemical construction, that is influenced both by it environment and it self inner modification. To put it in a few words; our brains react both to what's inside it and outside it.

I just reduced human beings to brain.

Yes, that's oversimplification, I know that.

This is also the relevant way by which the ideas I'll present here could be stated.

A brain isn't a simple thing. It isn't reductionism, by far, to consider that the most complex organ, the hungrier in ressources and energy of our body, consuming as much as a fifth of our daily input in calories, and from which most of our behaviors come from, is what a human being is.

Almost all the functions you can think of in a body come from there. Every perception of the world that make us react to it depend on there.

So, human are big brained apes, and mostly, the brain part is what make us humans, as well as some aesthetic features, which I consider to be irrelevant.

[promethean-man]

Some fun I had with the GoT Sigil creator. It embody much my views, as I'm a big Nietzsche fan, although I contradict him on many points, some being cardinals. 

[promethean-man]

Disclaimer

This is philosophic writtings. Don't believe it. Philosophy, in the best case, is an attempt to put in layman terms what is true, and therefore, much more complicated, and in the worst case, an attempt to transform the listener into an adept of the speaker. I can plaid guilty of both; wether conciously or unconciously. What I try here, is aiming to translate what I consider as genuine realization about the world, through my own experience of it, and the unique and personal interaction I had with it, that changed both myself and the world around me; in a much greater extent for me than the other way around.

Keep this in mind, and when you disagree, do it; but try to come up with your very own point of view on the subject.