Transhumanism

[Phoenix]

"Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1]"

Transhumanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Day after day, our technology becomes even more advanced, giving us access to alternatives that might have seemed sci-fi 10, 20, 50 years ago. Now we look to the future, when technologies like mind-uploading, cryonics, cyborgs, genetic engineering and so on seem quite plausible. But some fear that, in the process, we will lose our humanity.

What is to be human? Is it our species, to be Homo Sapiens? To have a conscious, thinking mind? Is it possible to lose our humanity if we modify ourselves, or is our humanity inalienable? Do we want to remain human, or do we want to be something different?

Discuss.

[Tenyasyugan]

Humanity, scientifically speaking, is a large intelligent species that has managed to take control as the top of everything on this earth.

In a spiritual way, I think it's our minds that make us human, few other creatures even think relatively akin to us. Our physical shape is changing anyway, we've grown a standard 2-3 feet compared to people several thousand years ago, so I don't think it's a biggy to change ourselves, so long as we retain our state of mind.

[Hidden]

It is remarkable how strongly we identify ourselves through our limitations. Once these limitations are removed, how do we know ourselves?

But I remain confused--is it the technology itself which is supposed to provide the "trans-" prefix to this transhumanism?

[Phoenix]

But I remain confused--is it the technology itself which is supposed to provide the "trans-" prefix to this transhumanism?

Technology or nature (particularly evolution), but technology would get there faster, so yes.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

[12:32:00 AM] Sam says: My first thought when I read about that was that people find ways to lose their humanity every day without technological means. Working at the top of a corporation for too long can rid a person of their humanity quite effectively.
[12:32:26 AM] Eduardo says: but what's humanity? Empathy for the follow man?
[12:32:29 AM] Eduardo says: fellow*
[12:32:31 AM] Sam says: Then it occured to me that I was going by a very loose, romantic definition of humanity, and that ultimately it can only be defined a- exactly
[12:33:03 AM] Sam says: And when I realized that, I decided that I was more interested in whether or not the human state was worth preserving at all than when the condition was transcended.
[12:33:49 AM] Eduardo says: Do you include us being homo sapiens in the human state?
[12:33:54 AM] Eduardo says: I should've named the topic humanity.
[12:34:01 AM] Eduardo says: Since we'll probably debate that for like 5 pages.
[12:34:15 AM] Sam says: The human mental state? No.
[12:34:40 AM] Sam says: I think that theoretically, an AI could very easily be considered a human being on a mental level.
[12:34:47 AM] Eduardo says: I was going to ask that, yeah.
[12:34:53 AM] Eduardo says: Would a computer be human.
[1203 AM] Sam says: We're all just machines, but some of us are organic and some of us are metal.
[1217 AM] Sam says: ...or at least, that statement might apply in a few hundred years.
[1225 AM] Eduardo says: But then you can have humanity without you being human.
[1238 AM] Sam says: Sounds weird, doesn't it?
[1248 AM] Eduardo says: Perhaps personhood is the right concept here.
[1258 AM] Eduardo says: You can be a person without being human.
[1209 AM] Sam says: If that is even a word then yes, I'd probably go with that.
[1218 AM] Eduardo says: Yeah, it's a word.
[1229 AM] Eduardo says: Then the word humanity becomes obsolete.
[1240 AM] Sam says: Say we discovered an alien species that was roughly the intellectual equal of humankind -- would we say that they posess humanity?
[12:37:08 AM] Sam says: If not then humanity is probably a biological rather than a mental state of being.
[12:37:11 AM] Eduardo says: And if they were 100 times smarter than us, would they consider us to have humanity?
[12:37:40 AM] Eduardo says: Because we know chimps are pretty smart, yet we afford them no rights.
[12:38:25 AM] Sam says: We should just copy and paste this conversation in the thread, along with the disclaimer that I'm writing all of this on about three hours of sleep.

hello!

[Tenyasyugan]

That was a lot to read, but you all made some very good points. Really makes you think about how we see ourselves and consequences like that.

[Hidden]

For purposes of this thread, I think we can define humanity first as a shared set of experience. This is not exactly the same as 'empathy for fellow man', but I think that's rather close. It is what makes this empathy possible--that we can recognize our own experiences in other human beings, experiences of joy and pain, desire and disgust, et cetera. It is by this shared experience that we recognize ourselves and others as "human", and why we would not extend that recognition to other intelligent animals/objects based purely on cognitive ability.

Of course, we have also denied this recognition to other homo sapiens in the past, based on race, class, and culture, and we have justified this denial by calling them "animal" or "subhuman" and assuming that they are not capable of the same thought and feeling we experience.

The problem of transhumanism in this sense then is that it proposes to take away some of the most fundamental experiences the human race shares--pain, sickness, and death. Though we do not like them, we identify by them--I will experience these things as surely as you, and we recognize this in each other; thus we recognize each other as sharing in the human experience. What happens when one or both of us no longer does?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Technology or nature (particularly evolution), but technology would get there faster, so yes.

And why didn't the cotton gin accomplish this?

[Phoenix]

The problem of transhumanism in this sense then is that it proposes to take away some of the most fundamental experiences the human race shares--pain, sickness, and death. Though we do not like them, we identify by them--I will experience these things as surely as you, and we recognize this in each other; thus we recognize each other as sharing in the human experience. What happens when one or both of us no longer does?

We already try our damnedest to avoid these, don't we? We go to hospitals, drink medicines and so on. All humans try to eliminate these experiences.The difference between a human and a hypothetical transhuman is that the latter actually succeeds.

And why didn't the cotton gin accomplish this?

We no, it just made our lives easier. It didn't change our bodies or minds in any way.

[.:[Kazuma]:.]

Rise of the Cybermen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Let's hope humanity doesn't become so depend on technology were this happens lol.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

We already try our damnedest to avoid these, don't we? We go to hospitals, drink medicines and so on. All humans try to eliminate these experiences.The difference between a human and a hypothetical transhuman is that the latter actually succeeds.

That's precisely the point--that every human, from Ponce de Leon to Achilles, ultimately experiences this failure, this 'limitation' that goes so far in defining humanity. You're right, we've tried a million different ways to overcome it, but we're united in our failure to do so. It is a shared experience that connects even otherwise god-like men, such as Gilgamesh and Achilles, to the rest of us.

Properly speaking, man did not exist before Adam took the apple from the tree of knowledge and introduced us into this world of experience; that we've been looking for a way out ever since is just another shared aspect of this world.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

We no, it just made our lives easier. It didn't change our bodies or minds in any way.

Let's try another then. You may have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey (wiki link). In an iconic scene of the film, an ape-like creature, supposedly one of man's precursors, is scavenging through bones as it always has. But it discovers that it can use one bone in particular to smash others bones... to fight other apes... to kill for food. It has discovered the use of tools. The ape then screams and throws the bone high into the air; it becomes a spaceship, and we are brought into the world of humanity, as envisioned in the year 2001.

It's obviously something of an "artistic leap", but is this the transcendence you're looking for?

Originally Posted by .:Kazuma:.

Rise of the Cybermen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Let's hope humanity doesn't become so depend on technology were this happens lol.

If you want a truly excellent vision of transcendent humanity, I would suggest Arthur C. Clarke (partially responsible for 2001: A Space Odyssey), "Childhood's End".

[Phoenix]

That's precisely the point--that every human, from Ponce de Leon to Achilles, ultimately experiences this failure, this 'limitation' that goes so far in defining humanity. You're right, we've tried a million different ways to overcome it, but we're united in our failure to do so. It is a shared experience that connects even otherwise god-like men, such as Gilgamesh and Achilles, to the rest of us.

Properly speaking, man did not exist before Adam took the apple from the tree of knowledge and introduced us to this world of experience; that we've been looking for a way back out ever since is just another shared aspect of this world

But we wouldn't actually overcome this completely. We might extend our lifespan a great deal, but we can't overcome death. How is this any different than drinking medicines?

Let's try another then. You may have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. In an iconic scene of the film, an ape-like creature, supposedly one of man's precursors, is scavenging through bones as it always has. But it discovers that it can use one bone in particular to smash others bones... to fight other apes... to kill for food. It has discovered the use of tools. The ape then screams and throws the bone high into the air; it becomes a spaceship, and we are brought into the world of humanity, envisioned as in the year 2001.

It's obviously something of an "artistic leap", but is this the transcendence you're looking for?

Not yet. The spaceship didn't change our bodies or minds either. It allows u to overcome some limitations, but the human itself isn't modified in any way.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

But we wouldn't actually overcome this completely. We might extend our lifespan a great deal, but we can't overcome death. How is this any different than drinking medicines?

Then it isn't; but I wouldn't call that transcendent either.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Not yet. The spaceship didn't change our bodies or minds either. It allows u to overcome some limitations, but the human itself isn't modified in any way.

I didn't describe the scene sufficiently--the creatures at the beginning of the film are nothing we would identify as human; but the ability to use tools, from a bone to a spaceship, is what we see spark this transition from proto-human to human (some physical evolution is left assumed). This is perhaps the only sense in which I can also see technology moving us from human to transhuman.

The problem being, how can human technology or human-directed evolution create anything but a human product?

[Red Socks Pugie]

The only real example I can think of this in todays world is immunizations. Am I on the right path?

[mad cunt]

I dunno, I sort of figure it's another step in evolution. The point where the species takes a bigger role in its own advancement.

And yes through Transhumanism we'll lose our humanity, because we're transcending it?

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Hidden

For purposes of this thread, I think we can define humanity first as a shared set of experience.

The problem of transhumanism in this sense then is that it proposes to take away some of the most fundamental experiences the human race shares--pain, sickness, and death. Though we do not like them, we identify by them--I will experience these things as surely as you, and we recognize this in each other; thus we recognize each other as sharing in the human experience. What happens when one or both of us no longer does?

But wouldn't the striving for a method to escape death and every thing that belongs to that be such a factor, too?

Originally Posted by Hidden

The problem being, how can human technology or human-directed evolution create anything but a human product?

This pretty much sums up my opinion on this matter. No matter how much we try to alter ourselves, we still have a certain "origin", right?

Every change and every invention we make on ourselves is still, in the end, man-made (human-directed evolution) and as such, in a way something "human" and a part of us. If that makes any sense.

I am aware that this statement is a little shaky though, because I don't quite know where the boundaries of this lie. :l