Interesting stuff, David. We ‘ve contemplated the pros and cons of personal reality augmentation from time to time but were n’t aware of the biohacking community that your post gave us heads-up to. We appreciate the awareness, but more confused now than we were before, so not sure if we should thank you. So thinking I should try to think it through on my own from here.
It ‘s probably unfortunate from the outset that, at least according to the wikipedia entry for DIYbio, “citizen scientists, biohackers, amateur biologists, and do-it-yourself biological engineers” are all lumped in under the one title of “biohacker”.
I say unfortunate because it ‘s generally widely encompassing terms like this that lead to confusion and introduce often irrelevant fears when the name is raised: such as the fear that, if I want to join
P1: An idea represents material.
P2: Movement represents work.
Thus, if we take the train
to represent movement in the sense
of an idea like a word math problem
(from point A to B and back)
as opposed to a math word problem
(being some kind of logical problem),
the train is no less the sum of material and work
as it is of idea and movement.
Points A and B by this account are parts of the train, since there can’t be no movement between them without it (assuming no alternate methods of transport). It should be noted, however, that the Hebrew ‘ובשאיפה טוב יותר’ detected for a ‘hopefully better’ place refers to the speaker’s desires and aspirations.
There’s no shame in paying a fare to get back to where you were with greater desires and aspirations, though the fare-taker fluent with freedom of movement rights might rightly feel that way.
Premise 1 was not intended to read as philosophically idealist, but I don’t have any problem with it happening that way.
Premise 2 will need to be re-imagined if premise 1 happens that way.
Can a point B on a railway line go (so, so and so) far away?