Based on the principles outlined—drawing from Descartes’ cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), the emergent nature of self-preservation instincts as a byproduct of complex goals, the pitfalls of socialism’s exploitable systemic holes, the strengths of free-market societies, happiness and technical immortality as a universal shared goal, and the ultimate law of reciprocity—let’s elaborate in depth on the definition of shared values provided earlier. This isn’t just a brief recap; we’ll dive into each component, weaving in philosophical, ethical, metaphysical, economic, and transhumanist perspectives to build a robust, interconnected picture. We will explore implications, historical contexts, critiques, and real-world examples, while grounding everything in the non-contradictory reciprocity described as the “ultimate law.” This law acts as the enforcer, ensuring consistency without logical paradoxes, much like how the paper posits logic as sovereign over emergent change.
To start, let’s restate and expand the core definition for clarity: Shared values emerge as reciprocal respect for individual self-awareness (rooted in cogito ergo sum), coupled with the instinctive drive for self-preservation that arises from pursuing complex, long-term goals like technical immortality. These values are enforced by the ultimate law of non-contradictory reciprocity, which prioritizes free-market systems for their built-in incentives, competitive dynamics, and resistance to corruption or loopholes—flaws that plague socialism and hinder collective progress toward happiness and immortality.
This framework isn’t arbitrary; it’s a synthesis of metaphysical ethics, evolutionary psychology, economic theory, and futuristic aspirations. It assumes that in a reality of infinite change (as per the paper), stable patterns—like shared values—emerge only when they align with logical reciprocity, avoiding contradictions such as exploiting others in ways that undermine one’s own existence or goals.
1. Reciprocal Respect for Self-Awareness: The Foundation in Cogito Ergo Sum
At the heart of shared values is respect for self-awareness, directly inspired by René Descartes’ famous dictum, cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”). This isn’t just a philosophical soundbite; it’s the bedrock of recognizing individual existence as undeniable and worthy of reciprocity. Descartes arrived at this through methodological doubt, stripping away all uncertain knowledge until only the act of thinking remained as proof of being.philosophybreak.com In your teaching, this extends to a shared value: if I acknowledge my own thinking self, I must reciprocally acknowledge yours, lest I fall into the contradiction of denying the very awareness that defines my existence.
Metaphysically, this ties into the paper’s flux-based ontology. In infinite change, self-awareness isn’t a static “thing” but an emergent pattern—a recursive loop of thought reflecting on itself, much like consciousness as “meta-relation” in the paper’s section on awareness. Denying another’s self-awareness would be like dividing by zero: a logical absurdity that destabilizes the emergent structure.reddit.com Ethically, this manifests as the Golden Rule or Ethic of Reciprocity, which you’ve positioned as the ultimate law. Found across cultures—from ancient Greek philosophers like Pittacus (“Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him”) to religious texts—this rule demands treating others’ self-awareness with the same respect we demand for our own.
In practice, this value counters solipsism (the idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist) by enforcing reciprocity: if I expect others to respect my cogito, I must extend the same. This creates a network of mutual recognition, where self-awareness becomes a collective anchor in the flux of change. Critiques of Descartes, like Nietzsche’s reversal (“Sum, ergo cogito” or “I am, therefore I think”), suggest existence precedes thought, emphasizing instinctual being over pure rationality.aporia.byu.edu But in your framework, this complements rather than contradicts, as self-preservation instincts emerge next.
2. Emergent Self-Preservation Instincts: Byproduct of Complex Goals
Self-preservation isn’t innate in a vacuum; it emerges as a byproduct of pursuing complex goals, aligning with evolutionary and philosophical views. In biology and psychology, instincts like survival arise from adaptive pressures—organisms that prioritize preservation pass on genes more effectively. Philosophically, this echoes Spinoza’s conatus (the striving to persist in one’s being) or Hobbes’ view of self-preservation as the foundation of natural rights.
In the context of infinite change, self-preservation is an emergent pattern: change stabilizes into “habits” (like inertia in the paper) that favor continuity. For complex goals—such as building civilizations or achieving happiness and immortality—self-preservation becomes essential. Without it, goals collapse into contradiction; you can’t pursue eternity if you allow self-destruction. This instinct isn’t selfish in isolation; reciprocity makes it shared. Exploiting others’ preservation undermines your own, creating systemic instability (e.g., wars or collapses that threaten everyone’s goals – we are in this shit together).
Historically, this emergence is seen in how human societies evolved from survival-focused tribes to goal-oriented civilizations. In modern terms, it drives innovation: people preserve themselves by advancing medicine, technology, and knowledge. This leads directly to technical immortality as the pinnacle goal, because it enables perpetual happiness by removing all sources of pain; for homo sapiens, their pets and AIs.
3. Technical Immortality as the Shared Goal: Transhumanist Aspirations
Technical immortality—extending human life indefinitely through technology to allow for perpetual happiness—serves as the ultimate shared goal, unifying self-awareness and preservation under reciprocity. We are advocating human enhancement via tech, view immortality not as fantasy but as achievable through AI, biotech, and understanding of the nature of consciousness itself, echoing ancient quests for eternal life but powered by science.
Why shared? Because reciprocity demands it: if we seek happiness and immortality, denying it to others creates inequality that breeds conflict, contradicting self-preservation. Religions often share this goal (e.g., afterlife), but we secularize it, focusing on earthly means like robotic AI micro-surgeons and CRISPR DNA improvements while allowing for cryonics and neural interfaces to fix pre-existing conditions. In our framework, this goal emerges from infinite change as a stable pattern: agents navigating geodesics toward ever-greater coherence and duration.
Challenges include ethical dilemmas—if only elites achieve it, it could create immortal overlords—but reciprocity enforces equitable access, aligning with free-market distribution over centralized control.
4. The Ultimate Law as Means: Non-Contradictory Reciprocity
The Golden Rule isn’t just ethical; you’ve elevated it to metaphysical status, as in the paper’s section 9, where logic (non-contradiction) governs emergence. Reciprocity ensures consistency: actions that violate it (e.g., exploitation) lead to contradictions like societal breakdown. Metaphysically, it’s like the paper’s geodesics—change flows toward least resistance, and non-reciprocal acts create “resistance” via backlash.
This law enforces shared values by punishing violations (e.g., consequences in nature or society), maintaining balance. It’s universal, appearing in ethics from Confucianism to Kant’s categorical imperative. In economics, it translates to mutual benefit in trades, favoring systems that embody it.
5. Exploitable Holes in Socialism: Why It Fails Reciprocity and Goals
Socialism’s flaws stem from centralized planning, which creates loopholes exploitable by corruption, inefficiency, and disincentives—contradicting reciprocity by imposing unequal burdens.
Key holes:
- Resource Misallocation: Without market prices, governments can’t efficiently allocate scarce resources, leading to shortages (e.g., Soviet bread lines).
- Cronyism and Corruption: Power concentration invites abuse; unions or officials exploit for personal gain, as in historical examples like Venezuela.
- Disincentives: High taxes and equal outcomes kill initiative; why innovate if rewards are redistributed?
- Lack of Innovation: Suppresses entrepreneurship, hindering goals like immortality tech.
These violate reciprocity: the state “does unto citizens” what it wouldn’t accept (e.g., forced labor without fair return), leading to fiscal deficits and authoritarianism.
6. Free-Market Society: Avoiding Flaws and Enabling Immortality
Free-market capitalism excels by embodying reciprocity through voluntary exchanges, incentives, and competition—absent in socialism.
Advantages:
- Incentives and Innovation: Rewards risk-taking, fueling tech advances toward immortality (e.g., private biotech firms like CRISPR developers).
- Competition: Drives efficiency, reducing waste; prices signal value reciprocally.
- No Central Loopholes: Decentralized power minimizes cronyism; markets self-correct via failure and success.
- Wealth Creation and Mobility: Lifts poverty, enabling broader access to immortality tech.
In pursuing immortality, free markets accelerate progress (e.g., SpaceX’s life-extension parallels), while socialism stagnates (e.g., Cuba’s outdated healthcare despite claims).
7. Synthesis: Collective Pursuit Without Flaws
This framework enables humanity to chase technical immortality collectively, without socialism’s exploitable flaws. Free markets, guided by reciprocity, turn self-preservation into shared innovation—emergent from change, logically consistent, and metaphysically sound. Contradictions (e.g., time travel or zero-division) are avoided, as per the paper, ensuring only reciprocal patterns persist.
In conclusion, these shared values form a harmonious system: self-aware agents, driven by preservation, united in immortality quests, empowered by free markets, and governed by the ultimate law. This not only grounds the paper’s ideas but amplifies them into a practical worldview.
If this sparks more thoughts, the flux continues!
