Transhumanism

[Plaything48]

'Transhumanism is concerned with ethically expanding technological opportunities for all people to live longer and healthier lives, to enhance their intellectual, physical and emotional capacities and to enjoy a future of freedom and prosperity.

The pace of technological development is steadily increasing, leading many forward-thinkers to speculate that the next 50 years will yield remarkable and radical technological advancements.

Consequently, a new paradigm for thinking about humanity's future has begun to take shape. The "human condition," it holds, is not the constant it appeared to be, and future innovations will allow humans to shape their physical, emotional and cognitive characteristics as they see fit.

Transhumanism maintains that this is good and that humans can and should become more than human through the application of such technological innovations as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, neuropharmaceuticals, prosthetic enhancements and mind-machine interfaces.'

What are peoples thoughts on this? Is all this power of manipulation of the body a good thing or bad?

[harami]

When medicare pays for it, it will become an accepted pratice.

[white rice]

Verner Vinge's Singularity says that there will be point where civilization and mankind as we know it will be totally different than the world today. As machines and computers grow faster and more sophisticated, human limitations will mean that the next generation of computers will be designed by computers to become more efficient up to the point where computers and machines dominate man at every aspect. This comes at the assumption that no stronger entity will serve a weaker entity, and hence the change in mankind. The theory doesn't end there. There's the other possibility of becoming transhuman with genetic and cybernetic modifications in order to increase brain capacity and physical limitations, so computers might not become overly dominant in planning the aspects of civilization and tech. But in order to satisfy the demands of sophistication and efficiency, the modifications needed to accomplish that will make us utterly different than the humans we are today.

This is only a brief summary of the theory. If you're interested, a simple Google search will bring up the scientific theory.

[LogicaLunatic]

At this point, I'd say that our technology is just as necessary to human survival as wings are to birds and gills are to fish.

The problem we face is that our new appendage (technology) could either save us or kill us. Just like the birds' wings, when used incorrectly could get the bird killed. Lucky for birds, their brains are hard wired to deal with flight. We aren't quite so lucky (just ask any tech support professional).

I say, technology is good as long as it's used correctly. I can only hope that the Republicans aren't the ones who determine what "correctly" means.

LogicaLunatic

[Ben Hijink]

I've been a Transhumanist for about 6 years now (and also attended and spoke at the TransVision 03 conf. at Yale), but the movement only really became active on a global, grass-roots level two years ago when the WTA (World Transhumanist Association) opened public discussion lists and encouraged members to establish local chapters. Extropy Institute really pioneered the movement, but it was centered in the west coast.

For a primer on THsm, check out these links (there are a number of recognized THst organizations):
http://www.transhumanism.org
http://www.transhumanism.org/declaration.htm
http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/resources.htm

I agree with White Rice and Stephen Hawking, we will *need* to merge with our technology and improve our own capabilities in order to retain our relative evolutionary position once strong AI systems with recursive self-enhancement come along (there are some great recent threads on this topic on http://www.MURG.org ).

I agree with Logic Lunatic that we need to approach some of these ideas with caution. For instance, there is a prevalent misconception Hilary Putnam referred to as "MIT Mentalism" that mental states = identity. While they are certainly necessary and contribute to it (they collect and integrate our experience and habits), mere replication of mental states does not transmit the original perspective of an intelligent living entity onto the new substrate. Such a form of (usually destructive) "uploading" is best described as "mental cloning" that results an a separate entity with the same mental states. I've begun a group to discuss a gradual process I've been developing called "Meta Brain Growth" on Tribe.Net if anyone's interested:

http://www.MetaBrainGrowthProcess.tribe.net

'What is a human being, then?'
'A seed.'
'A... seed?'
'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree'

David Zindell, The Broken God

http://www.aleph.se/Trans

And if you are a Student, please join the Transhumanist Student Network:
http://www.transhumanism.org/campus
(and our small informal yahoo group)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wta-campus

Best,
Ben

[white rice]

Regarding mental cloning, what religious implications would that have? Would that be like copying a person's soul if those two people thought and acted identical? Interesting stuff.

[Samildanach]

Using occams razor you are forced to conclude that there is no such thing as a soul. Until evidence turns up otherwise I would disregard such concepts. If you mean by the soul your own consciousness then it obviously exists and there should in theory be no problems with copying the information over so long as you have a valid way of transferring the information and a valid storage matrix to which it can be transferred to.

[castille]

In future no human will be able to walk.

We'll all be weak little shits who need robots to feed us.

I think our ancestors are ashamed.

Will humans, as a race, become so weak when our machines break down we won't be able to do anything without a robot hand feeding us?

[dnacode]

We already became utterly weak but not by technology gadgets --is the paternalistic government that we created.

[Ben Hijink]

Occam's razor cuts both ways, and can lead to false conclusions when over-ambitiously applied (e.g. Why is grass green? "God made it that way" - instead of describing the nature of light, macrophysical objects, human sense perceptions and cognitive substrate). But yes, just try to explain what a non-material soul would be: no eyes, no feet (nor matter to resist against the surface of the floor or ground OR be bound to it by gravity), no clothing, no physical location, no temporally-bound existence (bound by changes in matter that constitute substrate). What is left, aside from memories of the person for a time, artifacts, and causual effects of the person in life (actions, exchanges) or the corpse after death (physical presence, rotting if not cremated, or cryogenically frozen* - in which case it might be revived)?

"mere replication of mental states does not transmit the original perspective of an intelligent living entity onto the new substrate" - me

But White Rice is correct in saying it would be like two people who acted and thought in *nearly* identical ways. Life extension as the effort to preserve a phenomenologically experiencing entity (a "perspective") is not *just* about preserving information. I would even go so far as to say preservation of substrate is *more* important. The only way substrate becomes unimportant is through an active process of enxtending connections onto another substrate (wirelessly), which could then be integrated with an inactive functional copy of connections remaining in the skull. The extended portion could then connect with and activate the copy, runing in near parallel with the bio brain. In the event that the bio brain was destroyed then, the continuous perspective could justifiably be said to have been preserved (i.e., the same person remains alive, despite damage to a redundant and expendable region of his or her or zer processing system, i.e. brain).

See my Meta Brain Growth Process tribe on Tribe.net for more details.

As for "weakness," our ancestors did not preserve the species by wrestling bears and lions with their bear hands, they used the muscles in their heads (in a sense, we are "muscleheads" as some of the components of our nervous [neuronal] tissues are akin to those in our voluntary muscles). We got where we are today by staying out of the trees on the savanna, cooking our food (which reduced tooth size by half), devising hunting techniques, improving shelters, developing agriculture, and refining our cultural and conceptual practices (religions, governments, philosophy and science*). In a sense, I believe we are "self-directed" (in the Dennett sense of evitablity and self-models) biologically-based robots. We won't loose an "essense" by extending our capacities through extensions of our nervous - and specifically neuronal system - into alternative substrates, as the facillatory substrates will become "us."

If a "non-biological robot arm" feeds you (digestion could be changed too), but that particular arm is intricately connected to your processing system (i.e. brain) via sensoral and motor fibors analogious to nerves, it could be said that you have become a cyborg, but I think it is a weak assertion to say that the arm is somehow "not you." With certain bionic replacements, humans could actually make themselves much stronger than any human or protohuman that has ever lived. They could eventually extend into non-humaniod bodies that are much more up to the task of heavy work (adaptive machinary) than the relatively soft, structurally weak bodies of humans (for example a much stronger "knee" for a robot extension would bend backward like a grasshopper). Much more interesting to me would be the enhanced processing abilities supported by new substrates, and how those advances would help enhace our conceptual capabilities.

Best,
Ben

[james?]

I'm against it. I'm somewhat primitivist, and the last thing I want is what they're dreaming of. I think it's fully possible and that it will inevitibally happen, but that it'll lead to an utter annhilation of all existence as we know it.

The real problem for me is that the rest of us can't have a choice.

[Samildanach]

I agree occams razor can lead to false positives, however on the whole it does provide the most useful simple explanation which fit the existing data. also I don't believe in trying to explain scientific phenomena with religious belief. That isn't science, its superstition.
I haven't had time to look at your metabrain process but I assume its some kind of substrate transfer mechanism where you are conscious at the same time. I agree that being conscious while the transfer is taking place is much more likely to make the individual not end up questioning whether they are a copy of the original rather than the original but lets say you were copied over unconsciously...would that bother you really?
I get the feeling that it would really bother some people if they knew they were copies. The way I look at it, I could be a copy of the original me every time a wake up in the morning and the only way I get through the day is not knowing about it. As for assimilating new substrates into our bodies..ie robotic limbs etc...I agree they become part of you when they are hooked up to the nervous system.
The most interesting part of transhumanism for me is consciousness transfer. the way I look at it as soon as we get the ability to transfer into a machine of somekind then we can more or less dispense with all this messy unreliable biology.

[NotScientific]

My answer is simple. Transforming humans may be a good thing IF we know what we're doing.

[ruiner]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
mere replication of mental states does not transmit the original perspective of an intelligent living entity onto the new substrate<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I disagree slightly

If you took your brain and copied it onto a electronic medium at first glance it appears that your own perspective would remain in the biological brain, while a new perspective would be created in the electronic copy

But this is only looking it from one side. What would the electronic copy be thinking? From their point of view they have just been transfered from the original copy to the new copy. They will see the organic brain as being the "new perspective" and they will feel they are the original one who was pushed out.

Of course the question is which one really IS the original. I believe the answer is a sort of compromise: neither are
From a pure materialistic point of view I think that every instant of your brain throughout time IS a different perspective. I think your perspective in 5 minutes time will be as different from your perspective now as the perspective of the original copy in the example was to the new copy

[james?]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)
also I don't believe in trying to explain scientific phenomena with religious belief. That isn't science, its superstition.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I see where you're coming from, but I'm the opposite. I don't think it's logical to try and explain spiritual phenomena with science.

[Samildanach]

Why would you not try to explain spiritual phenomena with Science?
If they are truely spiritual then they could well be beyond science as they would be true magic as such....effect without explanation and therefore unassailable. The only reason you could not possibly want science to investigate these phenomena is if you thought it was possible that science could come up with a rational explanation that would refute your belief system.
The whole reason I said I don't believe in a religious explanation for scientific phenomena is that you can pretty much have the same explanation for everything. ie God made it that way...and where do you go from there?

[shanartisan]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)
If they are truely spiritual then they could well be beyond science as they would be true magic as such....effect without explanation and therefore unassailable. The only reason you could not possibly want science to investigate these phenomena is if you thought it was possible that science could come up with a rational explanation that would refute your belief system.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Apparently you feel that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. What do you do with scientists who are Christians? There are a good number of them, very respected in their chosen fields, including astrophysics, biology, and every other field. Sometimes they keep their heads down, I know, not wanting to run into attitudes like yours -- "if you believe in something spiritual you are automatically disqualified as a scientist" -- but they are most certainly there.

The fact that science can document a process of development says nothing about how the process was instigated or what may have set it in motion. We don't even know what exactly exists when it comes to the soul of a man; it's arrogant to the point of stupidity to assume that science has uncovered all the secrets of the universe. Question: How could the same man believe it is possible for other intelligences to exist in physical form in the universe, but at the same time "know" that an intelligence based the nonphysical could not exist? What basis would that man have to make that assumption, being physical and not part of that theoretical spiritual world? That would be like a group of blind men refusing to believe the group who said they could see: they have no experience with a certain phenomenon, thus they feel safe in saying that it doesn't exist. We're little nothings on this earth right now; we're just starting when it comes to understanding where we live and what we're doing next.

To be "truly spiritual" does NOT mean to be "beyond science." Science is a process of learning about the world around us by using a specific method which can be duplicated by other researchers. If spiritual phenomena are part of that world, then they need examination along with the rest of it. The fact that spiritual subjects can't be touched has nothing to do with whether they can be dealt with logically. What you're saying here is, "Spiritual people don't want to have their beliefs examined in the light of scientific evidence because they know those beliefs will be automatically disproved." That isn't true AT ALL, and I hope you soon come across people who can demonstrate that to you. "Effect without explanation" is not unassailable, it's lazy. On the other hand, saying "I don't know yet, but I have this and this reason to believe in this direction" -- that's far more intellectually honest.

[gecko]

i dunno if its been mentioned but the great mambo chicken and the transhuman condition by ed regis is a great book that covers this subject

has anyone read it?

[Samildanach]

[quote]Apparently you feel that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. What do you do with scientists who are Christians? There are a good number of them, very respected in their chosen fields, including astrophysics, biology, and every other field. Sometimes they keep their heads down, I know, not wanting to run into attitudes like yours -- "if you believe in something spiritual you are automatically disqualified as a scientist" -- but they are most certainly there.


Actually the only point I was trying to make is that its pointless to try to describe scientific phenomena religiously. Of course science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. All spiritual phenomena have a basis in science and are just a part of the system working within reality that hasn't been examined yet due to lack of appropriate tools or due to the fact its not there.
A scientist who is a Christian is someone who believes in science and believes in God. Thats not a contradiction at all, Its perfectly possible to believe that some things are not explainable by science ie God and miracles yet still work in the scientific field, I would not disqualify them at all from working within science.

[quote]The fact that spiritual subjects can't be touched has nothing to do with whether they can be dealt with logically. What you're saying here is, "Spiritual people don't want to have their beliefs examined in the light of scientific evidence because they know those beliefs will be automatically disproved."

I think you and I are dealing with two different ideas here. I count God as being something spiritual. God is effectively beyond scientific explanation...after all if you could explain God then we could replicate any effects he might be able to do by utilising the same mechanisms.
In theory being omnipotent and omnipresent god can effectively do things prohibited by the natural order of the universe because God can do 'anything'. That is what I mean when I say effect without explanation, God is not subject to the laws of this universe therefore he is beyond explanation because all we know are the laws of this universe.

I am not talking about a spiritual realm where dead beings might go when they die to inhabit the earth in an apparently noncorporeal fashion. This may well be possible and I wouldn't be at all surprised....really classifying that as a spiritual realm is a bit of a farce...its just an extension of the normal realm which we can't see...more like a parallel universe than anything else.

A lot of what I don't like I suppose is the flowery romantic association when people say 'its so spiritual'..sigh..contented vapid look...like its something special...its not. Its just a part of the whole like anything else and foisting romantic associations onto it is not going to change it in any way shape or form.