Eugenics works! So why not use it? A hard problem begging for a simple answer…

Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

In a recent online discussion where the idea of modern eugenics was brought up, many people were against it. Since eugenics bring up correlations with the Nazis it is easy for most people to discard such ideas as wrong or unethical. It is obvious that applying eugenics is wrong.

But all obvious things are very hard to prove.

In this case, someone simply asked “Why shouldn’t we engineer a baby not being sick?” and since then, this simple question has stuck into my mind. Sure, eugenics seems obviously wrong. But why? Why shouldn’t we make better babies? Only because we have bad memories of some people who at some point in time used similar techniques to do bad?

This sounds as stupid as fearing nuclear energy because at some point the US Air Force dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Surely it did happen, but one has nothing to do with the other.

So why is eugenics wrong?

Why shouldn’t we eradicate disease if we can?

The argument that “eugenics will not work and will cause probably more disease” is a plausible one, but yet it is not enough. For sure eugenics are currently not so advanced that it is error-free. Editing the genome of a person could result in numerous other mutations that could in turn result in more dreadful diseases than the ones we try to eradicate. But this argument does not answer the question at hand. It simply defers the answer. What if we had a way to have a working method for eugenics and for editing genome without problems? Would we then accept eugenics as something good?

Imagining this perfect scenario where we have mastered eugenics in such a way that it can produce perfect humans with no diseases whatsoever, is the key to the answer we seek. You see, the problem of technology as Heidegger put it, is not that it does not work, but that it does.

Humans without disease.

Humans not dying.

Humans perfect in any way.

This is our dream. But we have been into that dream for so long, that we have forgotten it is a nightmare. Humans not dying, means humans enslaved into the material world were we do not belong in the first place. A cosmos without disease and pain, means a world where there are no warning signs. We might all fear pain and death, but philosophy does strongly indicate that these might not be issues after all, in a cosmos which strongly suggests that the material aspect is insignificant in front of the spiritual one that engulfs it. A world with perfect humans, is not a dream of a rational man but the hubris of an irrational psychopath looking for perfection is a world which is nothing but. A world with people not dying is no different than a world full of zombies.

In simpler words: Yes, a car might get you faster where you go. But that does not say anything whether your destination is the right one.

Eugenics is a way to build on modern materialistic dogmatism and enhance it to new unprecedented heights.

But is materialism correct as a philosophy?

Is the cosmos made of matter only?

Do you breath only because your cells do?

Do you think because your brain does?

Do you love because of chemistry?

Do you cry because of molecular interactions?

Sorry to break the news, but if your answer to the above is “Yes”, then it doesn’t even matter if eugenics works or not.

Because you are already dead.

Materialism. The poison of our age.

Scientists “discovering” the source of things in… things…

Depression’s physical source seems to be discovered, or at least this is what some scientists claim. Thanks to new research the understanding of the physical root of depression has been advanced since researchers have identified the lateral orbitofrontal cortex as the area of the brain affected by depression. The human medial (reward-related, OFC13) and lateral (non-reward-related, OFC47/12) orbitofrontal cortex networks show different functional connectivity in patients with depression. This discovery could open up possible new treatments, say the researchers. (1)

Scientists find new genetic roots of schizophrenia: Using a recently developed technology for analyzing DNA, scientists have found dozens of genes and two major biological pathways that are likely involved in the development of the disorder but had not been uncovered in previous genetic studies of schizophrenia. (2)

Materialism. The dogma which has poisoned our age.

We have always been afraid to grow up.

We have always been afraid to have free will.

We always wanted to be machines.

We always wanted to be nothing.

Be careful what you wish.

It usually comes true…

And through this example of exertion of free will, humans managed to actually become machines, thus proving that matter is not only illusive but can be actually manipulated by the mind and the mind alone.

Take a look at that rock.

It is not a rock…

Consciousness: Σκέψεις.

We all agree we are conscious beings.

But what is consciousness?

There are numerous Harmonia Philosophica articles about consciousness and various aspects of that elusive and yet so familiar concept. We know we “are”, we know it is “us” who speak and act, we understand and question everything as persons and yet we fail every time we are asked to define what “consciousness” is.

For some – me included – consciousness is one more evidence that we are part of “something of higher essence”. Simple lifeless matter cannot question it’s own existence, cannot doubt about the meaning of being. We can. And yet, there are atheists who claim that many clues hint towards a different direction. Consciousness could be just a byproduct of our inner struggle with our oppressed instincts, a by-product of our ethical esoteric dialogue with our self. (Nietzsche) Others mention the fact that some experiments have shown how the neurons fire before we are conscious of an action we make as an argument in favor of the materiality and the unimportance of consciousness.

Could consciousness be something trivial?

Could consciousness be just an illusion?

Could consciousness be just a phenomenon of no significant importance?

The short answer: NO. The arguments in favor of that answer are many and significant. Consciousness is what makes us be “us”. Could that be affected by matter? Sure! Why not? At the end, everything is affected by everything. So? Could consciousness seem to be the product of the brain? Sure. In the same way the TV seems to be producing the images we see. But it does not. Could experiments showing that neurons fire before we are conscious of an action we make mean anything? Sure. If we know what the unconscious is, it could. Neurons fire and then we do something. But again, what fired the neurons? Do not forget the TV: It could fire up and start doing things before we start watching the show. But again, this does not mean anything about the one who made the show. Could it be that the neurons simply react to a field with which we are connected? Could we be part of something “higher” than us which dictates or affects what we feel and do? Couldn’t we just have made the decision before we are consciously aware of that decision? Who is “us” anyway? Is it the conscious and the unconscious combined? Is it something else (bigger than us) as well? Or could it be something much more simple? Every day we walk and we breath and we are not even aware of that actions. Does that mean that we do not actually do them? If some actions are dictated by “automations” in our circuitry (which again would be something material affecting the non-material), this does not mean that we do not exert free will in other more important aspects of our life, like creation of a sonnet for example. Let us not also forget quantum mechanics, which has shown that the observer can affect an experiment’s conclusion in the past. Could this be happening with our conscious mind and the brain? (see Penrose and his thoughts about quantum phenomena in the brain)

And it is not only the arguments in favor of the existence and the importance of consciousness and free will. It is that consciousness as a product of the mind poses more unsolved problems than the ones it supposedly solves. If matter is all there is, how can the matter of the brain affect the results of experiments? (quantum mechanics) If matter is all there is and we do what our neurons tells us to do, how come we feel that we are in charge? If we are wrong about such a fundamental thing, why not be wrong for science and its foundations as well? Why not be wrong for the validity of our own senses? In such an interconnected world of matter, what meaning is there in talking about the “self”? Such a world is more close to the One that Parmenides envisioned and that Christianism talked about in the form of God than any other idealistic theory could ever be. If everything is predetermined, does that mean that the love for God is predetermined as well? And how does that fit the atheistic materialistic world where the love for God is an illusion? Let’s not forget that we do not even know what matter is. As far as we know, matter is just a set of elusive waves of energy materializing when observed by “someone”. For people who do not even have a solid definition of matter, we are pretty arrogant trying to “prove” that everything is… matter. If neurons fire seconds before we are conscious of the decision, how can we say that brain produces consciousness? What is that thing which creates the firing in the neurons? Simple random movements of electrons? If so, why do these random movements produce actions which seem so… not random at all?

All in all, matter or no matter, denying the higher essence of consciousness is like denying your self. Modern people like that of course. They like the nothingness which comes as a result of the nihilism of believing in… nothing. And yet here they are. In the same cosmos, being conscious, questioning their own existence.

Could a machine do that?

Could matter believe it does not… exist?

Could the TV believe it does not… work?

We are conscious beings. Beings with free will.

And we believe we are not. What better proof could there be than this?

No! Science has not “proved” that consciousness is generated by the brain.

A simple and yet elusive truth:

Science has not proved that consciousness is generated by the brain!

And yet. So many people believe that something like this is proved. People who are just not capable of understanding philosophy or who are just lazy to see beyond the veil of materialistic propaganda spread by the media. They tend to believe anything as long as it is in accordance with the mainstream fashion of today’s “progressed” era. And for these people it could really make a difference to clarify this simple truth in order to spare them from false perceptions regarding some of the major philosophical issues which could affect your life profoundly.

The problem: Mainstream science (and mass media supporting it) claim that we know that the brain generates consciousness because we see the brain functioning in this or that way when a person thinks. Hence, materialism is true. (and of course all related research is valid and worthwhile – who would dare to question all research done in the brain today?)

The solution (via TV analogy): Materialism is an old obsolete philosophical DOGMA. It is not a scientific solution or a scientific conclusion! Materialism has not even solved the basic problem of where matter came from in the first place (!!!), would it be serious to claim that it has solved any other problem? Scientists claim they see how brain generates consciousness because if the brain is damaged, there is no consciousness. But think of it another way: I watch TV. When the TV brakes, the picture is gone. It is “obvious” that the pictures I see are produced by this box in front of me. Right? Wrong! So simple and yet so misleading. How come we think in a similar naive way when it comes to consciousness and the brain? Yes, ALL observational data we have is FULLY COMPATIBLE with this different way of thinking. Seeing the brain just as a “receiver” of consciousness is as legitimate and scientific as seeing it as the producer of consciousness! Seeing everything through the lenses of materialism (which is a starting point and not a conclusion) makes you see.. everything as matter. Self evident and obvious.

Look closely. There is nothing to look at…

The solution (enhanced): In addition to the above, there seems to be a lot of evidence to support the non-materialistic nature of the mind. Search here and here and here for more on non-local consciousness.

We are not just a set of meat and bones!

We are luminous beings with soul!

Spiritual elevation is and must be the goal of every human being. Denying this simple truth based on materialistic propaganda can only hinder us from reaching and achieving our full potential. Try to see though the lies of the mainstream media. The truth is not always so obvious as watching CNN. These media were not able to predict Trump’s win even one hour before it happened, do you really believe they can solve one of the greatest philosophical problems?

Our place is among the stars.

And we will never be able to reach them if we CHOOSE to crawl in the dirt…

Reading… Believing in parallel lines…

Neuroscientists at UC Davis have come up with a way to observe brain activity during natural reading. It’s the first time researchers have been able to study the brain while reading actual texts, instead of individual words, and it’s already helping settle some ideas about just how we read.

The team has applied the technology to test ideas about how words are represented in the brain. There are two theories about this, Henderson said. The first holds that words are represented by connections to the real world: What does it look like, how do I handle it, how does it make me feel, reflected in brain areas for vision, touch, emotion and so on. The second theory holds that words are represented as abstract symbols that interact with each other.

To test these ideas, Henderson and colleagues scored the nouns in their test paragraphs for “manipulability”: do they refer to real objects that can be manipulated to some degree?

As volunteers read the manipulable nouns, areas of the brain that deal with manipulation and carrying out physical actions lit up, lending support to the view that words are represented in the brain by connections with real actions. (1)

Sounds great. But tautological in every sense. When reading about manipulable nouns it is mostly natural to think about how to… manipulate them. We are first taught materialism and then we are… surprised to discover it in our thought.

But what about words which are NOT related to action?

These words are the words which make the world go around. Not words about tools, matter or tangible objects. But world about abstract ideas like freedom, honor, love, axioms, infinity.

Somehow somewhere there are two perfectly parallel lines.

I believe in them.

I have not seen them.

But I know they exist…

Am I a stubborn human?

Or a God?

Euclid is drawing on the sand. And the universe is watching speechless.

Exit mobile version