Categories
announcements vacation

I’m taking a break. So here’s a fantastic Bollywood dance number.

tumblr_mhet26sxEg1qzl7x8o1_500

 

Hey, everyone. So I sat down to write something about this horrific discussion of domestic violence on The Spearhead – which some of the Man Boobz commentariat have already started discussing here – and, well, I just couldn’t do it.

I need to step back a bit from this blog for a little while to clear my head and maintain my sanity. So I’m going to take a bit of a break – maybe just a few days, maybe a week – and post nothing but interesting videos and other things having nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny or the manosphere. You all, of course, can treat this any any other thread as a totally open thread to discuss whatever you want, including the regular Man Boobz topics of misogyny and general MRA shitlordery.

I’m going to start off with the dance number that first got me hooked on Bollywood music some years ago. This is from the 1998 film Dil Se, a drama about love and terrorism. But in Bollywood, even serious dramas have dance numbers, and Dil Se’s dance numbers are gorgeous and a little surreal.

The music from the film is by A.R. Rahman, a prolific and popular Bollywood music director best known in the US for doing the music for Slumdog Millionaire.

And  yes, that is Bollywood megastar Shah Rukh Khan dancing on top of a moving train without any safety harness or stunt double or CGI trickery. (Well, there are a couple of brief bits where a double might have been used.) Enjoy!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

312 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Yeah, when they do get us riled (or more often, creeped out, or disgusted and contemptuous) it’s because of things they say in general, the misogyny, racism and ableism they all display, and the stuff so many of them fantasise about doing.

The sheer dumbfuckery’s in there too, of course.

Noadi
7 years ago

The thing that really struck me (yesterday, when I was holding more spoons) was how many people apparently believe that you should never have anything to do with someone who has spent time in jail/prison and that she deserves it for that reason. Do people really think we should just avoid convicts forever? Why do we even let them out of jail/prison? (I mean, I know why, but I also wouldn’t write someone off forever without considering what they’d done and, in most cases, why.) People are such assholes.

This angers me to no end. My dad is one of the best men I know, anyone I’m with has to live up to the standard he has set with how he treats my mom. I can count on one hand the number of actual yelling arguments they’ve had during my life and you know what happened? He never hit my mom, ever. He also has a criminal record for something back when he was young and stupid and barely out of highschool. By their logic my mom should never have had anything to do with him instead of being married to someone who loves and respects her for the last 31 years. I really hate how we make it so hard for someone to get ahead once they’ve done anything wrong. My dad was lucky and wasn’t kept back by it the way he might have been had other factors been different.

GettaLode
GettaLode
7 years ago

You’ve a gentle soul, Boobz.

An Inconvenient Truth
An Inconvenient Truth
7 years ago

Single mom shacks up with exciting tatted ex-con badboy and brings her kids along because WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

The victims in that story are the children who had no say in the matter. Equating the mom’s voluntary plight to theirs is ridiculous.

Feminism: seeking to give women the rights of adults with the accountability of minors.

Karalora
Karalora
7 years ago

If I may just weigh in on the whole “skepticism vs. harmless unprovable beliefs” thing…

I, like a couple other posters here (I cannot remember who you are at the moment, please forgive me), am Neopagan. Not Wiccan, since I find that religion a bit too regimented for my tastes, but I do identify as a Witch. I worship deities of nature and leave treats out for the faeries in springtime.

The thing is? I’m also agnostic. I’m not especially confident that said deities and faeries are really real. If they’re not, does that mean I’m wasting my time? Of course not. The rituals are as much for me as for them, if not more so. Acting as if these beings are real has made me a better, more gentle person, and studying witchcraft has introduced me to many concepts and techniques I have used to help myself and others.

For the most part, I trust science. But I don’t think it will ever have all the answers. Science relies on predictability and repetition of phenomena to get its answers, and some very important things are unpredictable and unique…such as human psyches. Science has to treat the mind as a “mere” extension or function of the body, specifically the brain, because dualism cannot be proven. But I think taking that view as a given leads to harm in that it leads people to treat minds as mechanistic things when clearly they are not.

Amnesia
Amnesia
7 years ago

Is there some conspiracy here to get me kicked out of the library for belly-dancing in the quiet reading room? Resistance seems futile.

The thing that really struck me (yesterday, when I was holding more spoons) was how many people apparently believe that you should never have anything to do with someone who has spent time in jail/prison and that she deserves it for that reason. Do people really think we should just avoid convicts forever? Why do we even let them out of jail/prison? (I mean, I know why, but I also wouldn’t write someone off forever without considering what they’d done and, in most cases, why.) People are such assholes.

Yeah, I’m staying at a homeless shelter right now, and a lot of other people in there are ex-convicts (usually some sort of drug charges) just trying to get a job and get on with their life. Personally, I think if the U.S. weren’t so keen on locking up people for nonviolent drug crimes, we might be able to do something about all those rapists out there.

Falconer
7 years ago

Well, I’ve identified as an atheist for a while now, and I’m sorry there are so many jerkass atheists out there. Lately I’ve been identifying with Atheism Plus, and striving to be a friend to everybody (except jerkasses).

Also: French whiskey? This (not-so-)old Bourbon County boy’s cautiously optimistic.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Hrm…

Okay, as one of those evil “Capital-A Atheists”, I kinda feel a little need to speak in defense of the crew.

1: Anyone who says that science knows everything, or even that it WILL know everything, is completely unaware of how science works, and how the scientific mindset operates. A scientist–one who is actually doing it the way it’s meant to be done–loves nothing more than being told, “You’re wrong,” and having it backed up with proof. To be a good scientist, the first thing you have to do is take your ego behind the woodshed and shoot it.

2: Most of the really bad science-types you folks are referencing aren’t scientists–they’re science fans who’ve overlapped real-world science with science fiction (see Argenti’s post regarding transhumanism). Amusing point: “Brain-downloading”? That’s totally a dualist thing–it can’t work as described in a materialist world-view. (While the movie The Prestige talks about teleportation rather than downloading, the same core issue is at play there, and pretty much puts paid to the idea.) I can think of some other cybernetic-type options for brains, but that’s definitely not one of them.

2.5: On the flipside, note that most popular science fiction is fairly technophobic, and thus tends to obsess about the potential downsides (often completely imagined) of the suggested advances. See “Caveman Science Fiction” by Aaron Diaz as an example of why this line of rebuttal is often not as well-received as might be expected.

3: Atheism, humanism and skepticism are three different circles on a Venn Diagram. However, they are often overlapped, and there’s a good deal of confusion in the ranks about where the lines are/should be.

4: Atheism is not about saying “There absolutely is no God.” Rather, it’s the viewpoint that, until proof of a deity, deities or other supernatural claims can be verified, there’s no point in acting as if they are true–the default is the null position, and claims counter to that need to be backed up with evidence. Given the sheer number of God-claims, many of which fly in the face of direct evidence, this seems to be the soundest approach.

5: All that said, yes, there’s a very smug subset of atheists who need a good smack-down, particularly those who’ve decided that being right about one thing makes you right about everything; when this gets added to privilege, well, things get messy. (See: Elevatorgate.) In addition, anyone can be a smug bastard about anything (I’ve seen it in pagans and neopagans, Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, traditional Native American believers, atheists, etc, etc.). More often than not, associating the smugness with the identification and belief, rather than the particular individual, is a mistake. For those of us who want to think that being a Capital-A Atheist carries with it additional responsibilities, check out the Atheism+ movement.

Falconer
7 years ago

I don’t know if that was one of Mr Al’s socks, David banned his arse* after he pulled that one, and he’d only posted a couple of times, so we never got to explore the issue. Yeah, I thought that effort was really funny/baffling too – it was the dumbest effort (if genuine) and Pecunium’s “if so, then this; if not, then that” takedown was a thing of beauty.

I think I saw the start of this, but I missed Pecunium’s smackdown because BABIES COMING RIGHT NOW happened, and now I can’t even remember which thread this was in. 🙁 because I want to read Pecunium being awesome and smart.

thenatfantastic
7 years ago

Can I have a little derail?

I got some bad news today. A good friend of mine has a daughter who’s 12. Since she was about 3, she’s been receiving treatment for brain tumours. Today a few of us got an email from the friend’s sister – the chemo’s stopped working and the doctors have said there’s nothing more they can do. My friend’s asked that none of us contact her at the moment because a) she doesn’t want to have to talk about it over and over again and b) she doesn’t want her daughter to know. I don’t need advice or anything like that, I just had to have a little vent, because I can’t talk to any of my friends because I don’t know who knows and who doesn’t. It’s just. Not. Fucking. Fair.

I don’t even know why I’m telling you guys. It just won’t go out of my head and it feels like it’s just filling up with how just fucking shit it all is.

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

>>Science has to treat the mind as a “mere” extension or function of the body

Back when we couldn’t know where the ‘seat’ of personality was in the body, questioning this fact might make sense. Now that we have observed the results of brain injuries upon patients, and in fact have developed methods by which we can reliably ‘read minds’ via EMR, it seems to me the onus is on people who still believe in dualism to explain the mechanism by which acting on the brain acts upon the soul.

I have been acquainted personally with one of a very limited number of cases worldwide of transexuals that were the result of an accident that involved brain trauma. Did his soul become dislodged and her new soul come in because of the accident? Did brain damage alter her soul? Or should we just assume that since there seems to be a one-to-one correlation between the brain and personality, it’s quite probably that dualism is a bunch of hooey and that there is no such entity as a soul?

(It’s important that I note here that I’m not implying that transexualism, in the general case, is a result of brain damage. Anymore than the fact that one known case of a person who was an introvert having a radical personality change and becoming an extrovert upon receiving brain damage means being extroverted is caused by brain damage.

The reason I feel obligated to mention it is that that particular trans person repeatedly said transphobic things and used her privilege as a former cis person to deny that the general trans population was anything other than either fakers or brain damaged, and I repudiate that interpretation vehemently.)

Falconer
7 years ago

Don’t worry about us, nat. Just let it out. That’s really shit about your friend’s daughter, and the whole situation with not knowing who’s been told.

Alls I gots is hugs for you and everyone.

thenatfantastic
7 years ago

Slightly more on topic, if I weren’t already an atheist, I fucking would be now. And capital-A atheists are wankbubbles.

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

@thenatfantastic: Virtual hugs if you want em.

ellex24
7 years ago

Kitteh, if you don’t mind my asking, I think you are a reincarnationist, or something like that? I’ve been a little confused as to the corporeal state of your husband, but I read a little of your blog and it seems a bit clearer now.

LOL, typing out “reincarnationist” makes the word look like it means someone who does strange things to flowers!

But as long as you’re happy, and your perception of the world currently around you is solid enough for you to adequately care for yourself, I have no issues. I’ve had enough experience to know that everything and anything is possible. It’s why I tell people that I am a confirmed agnostic. Any other label would be too restricting, and nothing is going to shake me from my belief that nothing can be completely proven to be true or false.

Personally, I like Terry Pratchett’s notion that whatever happens to us after we die is whatever we believe will happen to us after we die.

Argenti, it’s sad the young man you’ve been talking to has such narrow views. Fiction is basically speculative fact – everything is fiction until someone discovers it or invents it. But it’s typical of someone with the type of background you describe, with or without ASD, to have trouble looking beyond their own limited experience. Hopefully, he’ll get the experiences he needs without actually being “upgraded” into a Cyberman.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Thenatfantastic: I obviously don’t know you well enough to say anything useful, so just know you have lots of sympathy, and yes, feel free to vent here about it. You might want to contact the friend’s sister (the one who told you about it in the first place) and ask if she can tell you who else knows, so that you can offer one another grief support without taxing the family or talking out of turn.

thenatfantastic
7 years ago

Thanks guys.

Her sister asked me to pass the message on to someone she couldn’t track down, so I’m talking to him now, and I know two of my other friends were told at the same time, because they were CC’d in (although one of them is out of the country at the moment). I don’t really know the daughter too well, since obviously she’s too ill to go out most of the time. I’ve asked her sister to ask her if she wants me to go over in the next week or so.

I feel pretty bad because when I do see my friend she tries her best to just be ‘normal’, so it’s not something we’ve discussed a lot, and when she mentions other stuff on FB I never know what to say without it sounding insincere, so I usually just say nothing. It just feels especially unfair since just before Xmas they were told the tumors had shrunk by 20%. Gah. Right. Sorry. Shutting up.

ellex24
7 years ago

@thenatfantastic: Oh, I’m so sorry. Somehow it always seems so much harder when it’s kids. Virtual hugs if you want them, and otherwise just comforting thoughts in your direction. Don’t worry about venting – sometimes it just helps to say it out loud (or type it and know someone will read it),

Falconer
7 years ago

Gah. Right. Sorry. Shutting up.

Please don’t think you’re galling us. It’s a shit situation. That poor little girl.

Love and hugs all round!

Falconer
7 years ago

Great, now I’m almost in tears myself, from the situation and from imagining it happening to my little girl. Not your fault, nat. I am moved to tears easily in general, and when it comes to my babies, much more easily than usual.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@thenatfantastic

I am so sorry. Hugs if you want them. (I also have freshly ground coffee if someone else wants to contribute a shot of something, it’ll be a slightly better virtual offer.)

@C.R.

Didn’t you just run a fundraiser?

That reminds me to check and see if the boyfriend made the promised contribution. Thanks, asshole troll!

Some Gal Not Bored at All

I use Atheist/atheist interchangeably because I like the rationale behind the capital letter/movement (hope that makes sense), but hate the racism (most recently had to unlike something on Facebook for that) and, of course, all the other -isms that Atheism seems infested by. I like Atheism+, but don’t really need the community (I am one if those Atheists) and don’t think I should let the assholes dictate what I call myself.

thenatfantastic
7 years ago

Sorry Falconer. I didn’t mean to upset you. Hope the little’uns are OK, or at least a little bit more sleepy than they were a few days ago…

cloudiah
7 years ago

Oh thenatfantastic, I am so sorry. All the hugs, if they’re welcome.

Shaenon
7 years ago

The thing that really struck me (yesterday, when I was holding more spoons) was how many people apparently believe that you should never have anything to do with someone who has spent time in jail/prison and that she deserves it for that reason. Do people really think we should just avoid convicts forever? Why do we even let them out of jail/prison? (I mean, I know why, but I also wouldn’t write someone off forever without considering what they’d done and, in most cases, why.) People are such assholes.

Ironically, the photo essay came out of a project on the difficulty ex-cons have reintegrating in society. The photographer thought the guy would be a good subject because he seemed friendly and gentle, which goes to show how charming abusers can be.

Okay, color-changing dance scene from Muthu Maharaja!

Karalora
Karalora
7 years ago

That fucking sucks, nat. Virtual hugs if you want them and if it isn’t too weird coming from someone who is only intermittently active in this community.

@BlackBloc, I’m not trying to argue “OMG, the soul is totes real, guyz”–agnostic, remember? Actually, I was trying to say that it’s perfectly reasonable for scientists to reject dualism as a model for understanding the personality, based on the data they have and the way science proceeds. The caveat is that we mustn’t make the mistake of thinking that since brains are ultimately machines, that we can treat human beings as predictable, interchangeable entities. There’s way too much variation and complexity there, and our free will (or the really convincing illusion of it, if you swing toward that interpretation) confounds the ability of science to analyze the mind as reliably as it does most other phenomena.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Nat: I am so sorry. Hugs to you. Vent all you want, this situation is beyond shitty and unfair.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Hugs to Nat if you want them – & a swig of Baileys for that coffee.

Bollywood at the circus, anyone? Only Hrithik could rock bin bag trousers …

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

@Freemage: Just a point about “brain-down-loading”. I’m not sure exactly what you claim to be impossible here. Obviously the brain is a physical thing and can’t be down-loaded. But one can believe that A PERSON is a set of psychological phenomena (a set of beliefs, desires, memories, and so on) rather than a physical brain. Since you don’t have to believe in an incorporeal soul in order to believe that there are beliefs, desires and memories, you can hold the belief that it’s possible IN PRINCIPLE (although obviously not with our technology) to transfer a person from one body to another, or from a body to, say, a robot body or a computer, without believing in a soul. All you’d have to do is somehow exactly copy the beliefs, desires and memories on to a new medium.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@ Dvärghundspossen

But wouldn’t that be a copy and not a download? (I think I have the original point, but I may have gotten lost in all the pretty men in my memories of The Prestige.)

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

It depends on how you view things, and that’s the point.

To make a comparison: Suppose I have a DVD with a movie on, and for some reason it’s gonna deteriorate soon. In order to save the movie, I download it into my computer. The DVD is destroyed, but I can still watch the movie.

Now, what is it that I have on my computer? Is it the original movie, that I transferred to the computer hard-drive? Or is it a copy of the old movie, that merely looks exactly the same? I don’t know. I think you could say either. These are just different ways of speaking about what just happened. That’s my view. Likewise with persons.

Suppose you have a human being. You clone a new human body, with a brain, and then configure the brain cells and synapses and so on in the new body so that exactly the same memories, beliefs and desires as in the first body appears, and then the first body is destroyed. Now, have you made a precise copy of the original human’s personality in this new body? Or have you transferred the person from one body to another? Again, I’d say that’s just different ways of speaking.

We can imagine that the first body isn’t destroyed. Then the question will be whether one person “branched” into two persons, or whether you have created a new person which is exactly similar to the first one. Once again, I think that’s just two ways of speaking.

However, lots of philosophers think that there must be a definite answer to the question “did I make a copy of the first person, or was zie transferred to a new body?”. And they give various philosophical arguments for either an “animalistic view” according to which you make a copy, or a “psychological continuity view” according to which you transfer the person. But it is normally assumed by both camps that we don’t have a soul – it’s just that the psychological continuity camp believes that “a person” is a set of beliefs, desires, memories and so on which could in principle be instantiated by different media.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Some Gal Not Bored at All has it right. What you’re calling a ‘download’, Dvarghundspossen, actually isn’t, any more than ‘destructive teleportation’ (ala Star Trek) is actually a transfer through space. Emulating the brain state of a person with a sufficiently advanced computer might theoretically be possible–but it’s definitely a copy, not the original (which is only eliminated from the original brain if you choose to add that to the process).

If you’ve ever seen the Schwarzenegger flick, Sixth Day, the key to understanding the movie is that the actual super-science isn’t the cloning (that’s mostly based on stuff we can do now, or theoretically could develop from that), it’s the not-really-explained-or-commented-on brain-copy-device that works with a simple flash to the retinas.

Most transhumanists tend to avoid this aspect of it–they specifically talk about leaving ‘meatspace’ behind, and act as if the copy and the original are not merely identical, but actually the same entity–that there’s a transfer between the two environments.

Some Gal: And yes, the menfolk in The Prestige are very pretty, though it’s also fun to think of it as a an alt-world battle between Wolverine and Batman in a steampunk setting.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@ Dvärghundspossen

Ah. I see where you are coming from. I am personally of the belief that if it can only be copied, then it wouldn’t meet the criteria of a “soul” and if it can only be transferred, then it is something that might. (I am a Soul-less Atheist, though, so it isn’t as though my definition of the soul holds a ton of weight.)

I believe that it might be possible someday to copy people, but not transfer them. Like, I could copy a DVD and the movie would be indistinguishable, but I couldn’t copy the DVD that I (to make up an example*) inherited from my grandmother. There could only ever be the one of them.

*My grandmother always had one of those little mirrors that attaches to her lipstick and I was lucky enough to get it when she passed away. I could always find an identical one, but it would never be a copy.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Some Gal Not Bored at All has it right. What you’re calling a ‘download’, Dvarghundspossen, actually isn’t, any more than ‘destructive teleportation’ (ala Star Trek) is actually a transfer through space. Emulating the brain state of a person with a sufficiently advanced computer might theoretically be possible–but it’s definitely a copy, not the original (which is only eliminated from the original brain if you choose to add that to the process).

Uh, I’m feeling you don’t get what I’m trying to say. In Star Trek teleportation, no MATTER is transferred through space, no ATOMS, just information. However, the beliefs, desires, memories etc were first instantiated in a body on the space-ship and later instantiated in a body on the ground. We can agree on all the physical stuff here, we can agree that one BODY is destroyed and a new one created, but still disagree on whether teleportation COUNTS as transferring the PERSON from space-ship to ground, or whether it COUNTS as destroying the first person and creating a new identical one.

If the first body isn’t destroyed, as were the case with Riker in TNG at one point, then we can agree on the physics: A new body which is exactly like the first one has been created from new atoms, and this new body has the same memories, beliefs and desires as the first one. Whether this COUNTS as one person branching out in two, or as one person getting an identical copy, depends on whether we think a person is a) a brain, or a brain in a body, or b) a set of mental states.

This is NOT a disagreement about what physically happens when you teleport. It’s a disagreement on what counts as a person. I think that’s just a matter of how we choose to talk. We can choose to use “person” to refer to a brain or brain-in-body, or we can use it to refer to a set of psychological states that can be instantiated by different media or in different bodies. These are co-extensive today, but would come apart in a Star Trek scenario. If you were a scientist in the Star Trek world, you would probably choose to use “person” as referring to mental states, and talk of “persons” being transferred from the space-ship to the ground via teleportation, if you were a social scientist, while it might work better for you to use “person” to refer to physical brains if you were a biologist. I don’t think either of these scientists would use “person” in an objectively right way though, because I don’t think there’s an objectively right way. You certainly couldn’t use natural science to determine which one is using a certain word correctly, since that’s not what natural science is about.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@Freemage

And Bowie. He’s still pretty too. (At least to me.)

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

On the “personality transfer” discussion here: there seems to be a way that duality still sneaks back into the debate – just instead of “soul vs. body”, it becomes “brain vs. rest of body”.

Yes, the vast majority of our consciousness and thus personality clearly arises from the brain. But the rest of our body isn’t just a trivial mechanical brain-transporter. Take my thyroid gland – once my hypothyroid got diagnosed and treated, it didn’t just change my energy levels, my whole outlook on life improved (yay). Certainly the hormones churned out by my ovaries (or someone else’s testes) will feed back on the brain and affect thoughts, feelings, personality. If you transplanted, or magically copied, my brain into a totally different body, that body’s adrenal glands may have a completely different response threshold to stress – suddenly making me much more (or less) likely to stress out in a given situation than I would be in my current body. My body isn’t just an interchangeable appendage to my brain, it’s an integral part of me. So uploading/copying my brain into another body wouldn’t exactly copy me. It would copy a large part of me, but quite possibly create a different person – a person who shared my opinions and memories, but who may have a significantly different temperament, energy level, sex drive, etc. – adding up to a possibly rather different personality.

This is not to dismiss the concerns of those of us who feel quite divorced from our bodies – for example (though not limited to, and not always the case for) many trans* people. If anything, to me, this underlines why something like gender dysphoria can be so painful. If our bodies are part of who we are, then finding yourself with the wrong body can be a major blow to one’s sense of self, and getting to a point where our body feels right can be an important part of finding wholeness. (Probably not for everyone, but certainly for some of us!)

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Some Gal: Ooh, I always forget Bowie is there. Okay, so the Goblin King is present, too.

Dvar: I think the distinction comes from which groups we’re discussing. I’m talking about the vast majority of casual transhumanists I’ve come across online–they don’t recognize the distinction involved, and presume a “download” entails an actual transfer of ‘personhood’, with a unique identity.

Let me put it this way: If Star Trek writers really grasped the ‘copy’ aspect of what ‘beaming’ does, why is it that they don’t just make backup data-copies of individuals deemed sufficiently important? (I’d certainly include a starship’s captain and probably their entire officer crew, if not everyone on-board.) After all, the only difference is a perception of time. However, the writers and fans ignore this element of the universe, because they want to believe in the uniqueness of the individual.

Hell, for that matter, why not, in warfare, just spam Worfs (and a few of your other best fighters) onto the enemy ship, instead of sending the one unique copy of everyone that you never make back-ups of? The fifth Worf to land is no less “Worf” than the first four were–they’re either all ‘fakes’ or all ‘real’.

It’s the use of terms like “teleport” and “download” that allow that fiction of dualism (and thus, uniqueness) to remain in place.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Neurite: An excellent point, for the record. When I’m talking about simulating a psyche (to describe the personality that arises from the body in question), I’m definitely including all those hormonal factors that are part of the ‘person’ that exists now. Presumably, those, too, could be emulated in terms of the effects they have on the brain, and thus the psyche.

Falconer
7 years ago

Okay, I’m going to refrain from the discussion of the physics and metaphysics of the transporter beam. The superscience of it is that there is a continuity of experience throughout the process, and that, coupled with IT’S JUST A TELEVISION SHOW (and some movies) is enough to satisfy me.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@Neurite

Your point is why I actually think uploading into non-meat mechanical forms would at the very least be incredibly traumatic even if, as Freemage said, we reproduced exactly the body/brain interactions and so, say, when asleep you were pretty much you. When awake, everything would be so alien because the body wouldn’t be what it has always been. That alien-ness would have its own impact on who you are. I’ve had fibromyalgia for years now and it isn’t until this year that my pain and limitations are enough coded as “me” that they show up in my dreams, that is, that I always have it as part of my definition of my body*. In addition, the pain substantially changes the way I see the world and so has changed me. And it has been traumatic and taken a long time to get used to even though my body looks the same and many of the same reactions certain things. I think going in the direction from normal human body issues to none would be at least as traumatic.

*technically, fibromyalgia is most likely a brain problem and not a body problem, but since I experience the problem as being in my body, it makes more sense to treat it as that for the analogy.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@Falconer

And they have an empath. Their science is different from mine. 🙂

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

Ok, bear in mind I spend way too much time thinking of dumb hypothetical scenarios.

I think there is a way to “transfer” a person from a biologic body to a mechanical (synthetic, whatever) one without it being traumatic. The key element here is continuity, basically you “install” redundant parts on a person that take over when the original part fails, that way the transition is gradual.

Of course then you get into Theseus’ paradox territory, but the same could probably be said about the human body as it is.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

@karalora – high fives for THIS. So much.

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@Myoo

But, you really couldn’t call that an “upload.” I think you may be right, but gradually would have to equal decades not years. I still think it is possible that in a whole is greater than the sum of its parts way, there might be trauma when the whole thing was done, but it would require actually trying it to know. So, we’ll meet back here then. 🙂

(That wasn’t meant to stop the conversation btw.)

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

The whole copying a person thing just reminds me of a comic I read, where one of the villains cloned himself to have help with his crimes, but it ended up with both of them constantly arguing about who was the original and who was the copy.

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

Also, I meant to say this, but got distracted:

Take all the time you need David, it astounds me that you can take as much of the manosphere crap as it is.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Falcolner: The main point is that, yeah, it is “just a TV show”, but it’s one that’s informed a lot of the transhumanist discussion without actually thinking it through.

Freemage
Freemage
7 years ago

Myoo: Most often, if movies or comics deal with the issue, they do it for comedic effect, yeah. Even if they both accept that neither is more ‘original’ than the other, the supervillain mentality is poorly suited to taking direction, or even working to a common goal.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Poor Inconvenient, pops by for a bit of fun trolling and everyone ignores him. and how dare women chose who to be with?