i dont entirely buy the idea of the hedonic treadmill, nor think it will be a factor as it seems to be alterable neurochemically (drug addictions changing one's hedonic set point) which means it probably can be altered in a benign way

neuroticism seems more important to look at

so youre going to drug people in order to prevent their emotional state from changing

this is getting wacky imo

that's not what i said

Just that it is alterable, and that it ultimately has no impact because it is simply a baseline

so you want to do away with normal baseline emotions?

I ultimately think emotional concepts will be deconstructed eventually but no, I just dont think the hedonic treadmill is an issue

so you do want to do away with emotions as a concept

why not just lobotomise everyone on the planet so that they can no longer feel pain?

I don't have an opinion on the progression of the human psyche through integration

just autonomy

so you dont care about whether we have any experience of emotions?

I don't particularly worry if synthesis will ultimately shed us the chemical reactions that lead to certain emotions

well
you could achieve your goals of transhumanism by lobotomising people why not just do that

I'd posit to you that humans are limited in what they perceive, feel and experience

if you think this is equivalent to lobotomizing people youre being disingenuous

I'd posit to you that humans are limited in what they perceive, feel and experience (2)

transhumanism could alternatively lead to much more to perception

emotions and experience etc

well now we are back to the problem of the hedonic treadmill
why would we want this perception if it wont really make a long lasting or genuine impact?

the long lasting impact is the broadening beyond our limitations

it isnt about a continuous dopamine kick

but we know that this is not sustainable due to the characteristics of the hedonic treadmill

we will return to baseline

and no real benefit will have been gained

you are defining benefit by a set point of happiness of a person

broadening of limitations does not seem to correlate with happiness very well

why is happiness undesirable?

when did i say it was undesirable

I just don't think a pseudopsychological idea is the defining heuristic of benefit

i dont really believe the idea of a hedonic treadmill

you seem to imply that happiness is either meaningless or undesirable
so is benefit just being able to fire lasers out of your eyes?
i cant understand this effort to progress just for progressions sake

also
continuum fallacy

you are not understanding what i am saying

just because happiness is ''pseudopsychological'' does not render it invalid

the hedonic treadmill is pseudopsychological

not happiness

still
vagueness does not mean that it is invalid

the conflicting nature of finding benefit through different inhibitions and levels of chemicals that could be altered at anyone's wish anyway is just that

conflicting