Transhumanism and you

[afroebob]

You don't want to use technology to increase the ability of the human body? OK, fine, just give me all your glasses, your canes, your wheelchairs, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Gorden Springel]

Will transhumanism give people the ability to use basic punctuation in their posts? If so i'm all up for it.

Transhumanism is more than being technologically able to upload consciousness into machines. In its entirety, it's all about enhancing our human abilities with the aid of technology to the point that we're "no longer" human- and hence transhuman. This is why i have problems with transhumanism itself- how do you define exactly when you're no longer human because of technology? There's also something rather narcissistic about the whole idea- there's an implication that transhumans are "better" or have more worth than ordinary humans and strikes me as being rather arrogant.

If it didn't make you better than a normal human what would be the point?

 

[OneCatch]

Transhumanism is all about enhancing humanity's abilities beyond what is natural, it doesn't necessarily have to involve future technology. Given that life expectancy has doubled from what it was 50 years ago & we can communicate with anyone anywhere in the world using a smartphone, it's very easy to say we are already transhuman by ancient standards.

Not entirely sure about this. Ultimately things like medical care, corrective surgery and improved diet don't really constitute transhumanism in my view, because they don't really bring about a change in our basic physiology and more importantly, thought processes.
To take an example, the common fox lives for about 4-5 years, whereas in captivity they can live to 14. Would we call such foxes trans-vulpene? I wouldn't, because it's still a fox - indistinguishable in intelligence, instinct or physiology.
Whereas most transhumans in sci-fi I've read have entirely alien abilities and outlooks; in 2001 we get the starchild, in Childhood's End they become positively inhuman, in Ilium they ascend because they get bored of reality, in Night's Dawn they become a kind of hive mind and benefit from the perspective that offers.
Since this is a gaming website; Prophet in Crysis could be said to be transhuman because he's almost entirely beyond human emotion, predicts future events and seamlessly melds with computers by the time of Crysis 3.
Masterchief isn't though, because he's basically a fast human in a suit.

To take your example, we'd appear pretty godly to an ancient greek, but we have essentially the same physical abilities, and ultimately think in a very similar way. Yes, we can communicate all over the world in an instant, but the messages we send, whether bitching about work, flirting, making jokes, whatever; if appropriately translated, would make just as much sense to Mr Hypaspist as to us.
As a sidenote, I saw an Exhibition on Pompei the other day, and it's striking just how much we haven't changed in spite of literally a quarter of recorded history having passed since then. There are probably more significant cultural differences between me and a Saudi guy who's was born the same year as me, than with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

I do agree the main thrust of your post though - that transhumanism is somewhat amorphous, depends on perspective, and is difficult to do. I'm not sure where I'd explicitly draw the line. I guess that could be why they call it transhumanism though!

 

[Khannea Suntzu]

I am Khannea Suntzu and a longtime Transhumanism. Ask me anything.

 

[Armadox]

What is even the point of uploading your brain to a computer?

Teaching the future with the greatest minds of the past (er, their past, so our future still). Think about it, how often does someone say " I really wish I could have met 'x'"? The ability to learn from artists, debate philosophy with those who refine it, learn from history by asking it personally. You know how much I'd pay to be able to debate art with Stan Lee if he croaks before I had a chance to meet him?
Family who can talk to their ancestors, learning what happened during their lives. It'd be endlessly useful.

SNIP

But it is the same, presuming the technology is sufficient, it physically will be the exact same person. If the program that simulates your brain is made correctly it will be the exact same person as you. Not a clone, not a copy, you. The same person whose body died. Like I said, as long as you bridge the gap, so that your memory/thoughts maintain the narrative you will be the same person.

Of course it's not.

No matter how good a copy is, it's still a copy.

You can't transfer your consciousness, all you could do is replicate it.

I disagree. Do you realize that every particle that makes up your body right now is different from the particles it was a few years ago. Maybe even a few months ago. And yet you are still...you. If the entire composition of your body can be changed over time and yet you still survive then why should it be any different when it's digital or silicon?

The key thing is the structure. When all the particles are replaced in your body the thing that is preserved is structurally & functionally the same as before. A digital version of your mind just has to be structurally and functionally identical and so long as that criteria is met: It's you.

This debate is the same one they have for the teleporters in Star Trek. Using a computer to make an identical map of your body while breaking it into it's composite atoms, then transporting the mass somewhere else, or using vats of matter to rebuild you. Is what comes out the other side the same person as what went in? No.

The same way that you of this second isn't the same you of last second, or the same you of two days ago. As you gain new stimuli, forming new memories and the like, you change. Conceptually, you are nothing more then your experiences as interpreted by your personality. If I made an identical replica of you, the second it had a thought you did not, it's officially someone else. If I was to replace my body with machinery, it'd be someone who knows everything I did, plus what it's like to go through Dr. Robotnik's Roboticizer.

And that isn't a bad thing. For all you'll ever know, it's the same person, and for the world it'll be a success because what will remain will talk like you, think like you, and know what you knew. The only way to download your consciousness into a machine would be to lock out all new stimuli, putting you in a loop that never changes, never learns more.

When I was a child, I had no soft spot. When they chose to do surgery at birth to correct it, they nicked something during surgery that disabled my skin's ability to feel pain. Over the years I've had an amazing time surviving various accidents and the like, and have metal grafted to two ribs and right leg. From a simple standpoint of structure, these would be no different then the hard point attachments needed to graft in place new technology. I am partly metal, am I human?

When technology finally masters splicing nerve impulses to sensors that would allow me to wear a new skin of circuitry and feel pain again, would I still be me? I don't think so, but I don't think it'll matter.

I personally am all for transhumanism. The ability to take what we are, and use technology to drastically alter ourselves to adapt would start out paltry, sure. We'd start with prosthetic alterations, followed by wetware, then biological machinery, and finally we'd be free to do everything. Live on other planets, breath water, connect ourselves to the overmind, be cloud computing..

I did a 20 minute presentation in Grade 12 about Transhumanism, and a paper in University on it so I know a little of the ins and outs of the concept. People seem to be forgetting here that Transhumanism is not a new concept, in fact, it's a concept about as old as it gets. As Transhumanism is simply the enhancing of the human condition through means of technology, one trip down to Wikipedia will remind you that Transhumanist themes are present even in Gilgamesh and his journey for the Fountain of Youth.

As for what's cool about it, I can't wait to see a super-intelligence and the Singularity. Like one of those Daleks that can't wait to be exterminated by the better model, I can't wait to see AI life start evolving into a flawless neo-humaity with perfect order and harmony, and absolute reason and rationality.

No, dear god no. When you figure yourself perfect, when there is no more to learn or do or see. When you've killed art and creativity for ration and order you kill what actually makes us human. That's not transhumanism at all, it's trans-speciesism, the end of humanity for what comes next. And whatever that is, will stagnate and rust and die as it'd be all there is left to do. No, I'd always toss in the mad to gum up the works a bit. There must always be the thirst for what comes next, otherwise what's the point to it all?

 

[Flatfrog]

Some people have predicted that this Transhumanism process can happen as soon as the year 2040.

And don't forget those who argue it's already happened - I think David Deutsch was the first one to seriously propose it. His argument is that given that we almost certainly *will* be able to create a simulated universe eventually, and all conscious beings probably would develop the same kind of technology, the balance of probability is that we're probably in a computer-generated universe right now.

If it's true, then that would explain quantum mechanics - the Planck Length would basically be the level of resolution of the simulation.

 

[Flatfrog]

This debate is the same one they have for the teleporters in Star Trek. Using a computer to make an identical map of your body while breaking it into it's composite atoms, then transporting the mass somewhere else, or using vats of matter to rebuild you. Is what comes out the other side the same person as what went in? No.

The same way that you of this second isn't the same you of last second, or the same you of two days ago. As you gain new stimuli, forming new memories and the like, you change.

Well, that's the same argument as the idea that time doesn't exist, all there is is a 4-dimensional space time which just happens to have a causal relationship in one direction. It always struck me as a fairly empty argument. Our memory of a continuous conscious experience *is* a continuous conscious experience, so if something has exactly my experiences and my brain structure, then it's me. And if a teleporter malfunction makes two of me, then no big deal - they'll both be equally me for a microsecond, then they'll become distinct beings with separate experiences.

 

[Esotera]

Not entirely sure about this. Ultimately things like medical care, corrective surgery and improved diet don't really constitute transhumanism in my view, because they don't really bring about a change in our basic physiology and more importantly, thought processes.
To take an example, the common fox lives for about 4-5 years, whereas in captivity they can live to 14. Would we call such foxes trans-vulpene? I wouldn't, because it's still a fox - indistinguishable in intelligence, instinct or physiology.
Whereas most transhumans in sci-fi I've read have entirely alien abilities and outlooks; in 2001 we get the starchild, in Childhood's End they become positively inhuman, in Ilium they ascend because they get bored of reality, in Night's Dawn they become a kind of hive mind and benefit from the perspective that offers.
Since this is a gaming website; Prophet in Crysis could be said to be transhuman because he's almost entirely beyond human emotion, predicts future events and seamlessly melds with computers by the time of Crysis 3.
Masterchief isn't though, because he's basically a fast human in a suit.

To take your example, we'd appear pretty godly to an ancient greek, but we have essentially the same physical abilities, and ultimately think in a very similar way. Yes, we can communicate all over the world in an instant, but the messages we send, whether bitching about work, flirting, making jokes, whatever; if appropriately translated, would make just as much sense to Mr Hypaspist as to us.
As a sidenote, I saw an Exhibition on Pompei the other day, and it's striking just how much we haven't changed in spite of literally a quarter of recorded history having passed since then. There are probably more significant cultural differences between me and a Saudi guy who's was born the same year as me, than with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

I do agree the main thrust of your post though - that transhumanism is somewhat amorphous, depends on perspective, and is difficult to do. I'm not sure where I'd explicitly draw the line. I guess that could be why they call it transhumanism though!

It depends what you're discussing - if you were talking about quantum mechanics with someone, then your ancient greek would require a lot of time to catch up with the necessary concepts, whereas if you do science to A-level in the UK you're likely to touch upon the basics, and you'll almost certainly encounter it at degree level (providing you do a science). I guess an implied part of transhumanism is advanced knowledge, although this doesn't really define the concept, and relies on your point in history.

Maybe humans are just too adaptable for transhumanism to actually occur or be recognised as an official thing - we are notoriously good at adapting to new environments & learning new strategies. Therefore I would probably say 'soft' transhumanism would be being able to use whatever technology is available in the period in which you are born, and 'hard' transhumanism is changing yourself enough so that your behaviour has major benefits over what is currently available. From our point of reference that could be stuff like living for hundreds of years, being able to communicate telepathically, and a much higher level of intelligence/persistence. I would love all those abilities but am also glad that I wasn't born 100 years ago...I'm not sure how much sense this makes or whether it's just a ramble.

 

[Silvanus]

I imagine that curiosity would eventually convince me to go transhuman if the option was there.


Dayum, the aliens in 2001: Space Odyssey even had their consciousnesses downloaded into spacecraft.

 

[Nickolai77]

Will transhumanism give people the ability to use basic punctuation in their posts? If so i'm all up for it.

Transhumanism is more than being technologically able to upload consciousness into machines. In its entirety, it's all about enhancing our human abilities with the aid of technology to the point that we're "no longer" human- and hence transhuman. This is why i have problems with transhumanism itself- how do you define exactly when you're no longer human because of technology? There's also something rather narcissistic about the whole idea- there's an implication that transhumans are "better" or have more worth than ordinary humans and strikes me as being rather arrogant.

If it didn't make you better than a normal human what would be the point?

Well would you say a physically able person has more moral worth than a disabled one? Does an athlete have moral value than a run off the mill office worker?

Will transhumanism give people the ability to use basic punctuation in their posts? If so i'm all up for it.

Transhumanism is more than being technologically able to upload consciousness into machines. In its entirety, it's all about enhancing our human abilities with the aid of technology to the point that we're "no longer" human- and hence transhuman. This is why i have problems with transhumanism itself- how do you define exactly when you're no longer human because of technology? There's also something rather narcissistic about the whole idea- there's an implication that transhumans are "better" or have more worth than ordinary humans and strikes me as being rather arrogant.

The philosophical argument here is what defines a human? How many body parts can you hack off before your definition changes? Is a feotus a human? or a brain dead man? Or a deformed baby? If humanity is defined by resembling a human Then humanity is simply the "ability" to be a human.

Lets take that another step. If deficiency doesn't make me less human then what about add ons? If i start off with a human core and upload into a cybernetic conciousness or change my base genetics to an ethereal form do I lose my humanity status? why? It reminds me of the Theseus paradox

I do not think arrogance is humanities problem. It's loneliness and boredom. The morbid idea that we might be alone in this vast and cold, indifferent universe. That our time will come and go and no one (if aliens exist) will even know we were here. The old gods we created (whom are simply personifications of mans fears and aspirations) are dead (I apologize if you're religious, I speak existentially); the next thing its to take our fates into our own hands and control our mortality and maybe even create life of our own.

I think "humanity" is all tied up in the mind. You could have a human body which biologically works in every way but if it doesn't have a brain then it can't really be a person and therefore shouldn't be considered to have human rights. (This may raise some questions concerning the moral status of brain-dead patents- my stance with that is that such people have the potential to regain consciousness then they should be considered human) You could put a human brain in a jar and give it a wholly robotic body and i'd still consider it a human. I don't like the term transhuman however because of the implications it raises suggesting that a cyborg human has more "moral worth" than a wholly biological human.

The boundaries between biological and the technological have been blurred for eons. Could the spear or the sword be considered a technological enhancement for the human arm? Humans have been making glasses since the middle ages to correct eye-sight, and artificial limbs since forever. (I remember reading something about a Roman centurion who had his arm amputated and replaced with an iron limb which he used in battle like some sort of space marine power-fist and gained quite a reputation from it) The only thing is we're getting better and better at making these technological "enhancements" however i don't think these enhancements are making us any more or less human.

I don't know where you're from because your profile doesn't say, but the point is i'm communicating with someone in real-time who could live thousands of miles away on a different continent. By medieval standards that is superhuman but i don't think that makes me any more or less human than my medieval ancestors.

 

[FalloutJack]

The real world is moving at an incredible pace towards what I believe will be similar to that of the Ghost in the Shell world. Cyberization technologies and implantation into the brain is already happening. We have other incredible technologies such as nanotechnology and DNA-based information storage, to which the application of one into the other could make wonders, theoretically. We can clone human organs as easily as we can make cloned kittens and sheep. Eventually, the ability to replace large chunks of the body will be possible and eventually the full-body prosthetic may be possible. I'm almost certain that it will happen in my lifetime, and it will be awesome to behold.

 

[The Event]

I disagree. Do you realise that every particle that makes up your body right now is different from the particles it was a few years ago. Maybe even a few months ago. And yet you are still...you. If the entire composition of your body can be changed over time and yet you still survive then why should it be any different when it's digital or silicon?

The key thing is the structure. When all the particles are replaced in your body the thing that is preserved is structurally & functionally the same as before. A digital version of your mind just has to be structurally and functionally identical and so long as that criteria is met: It's you.

Imagine someone invents a teleporter. You step into Booth A and then a few seconds later you step out of Booth B.
Seems great doesn't it, instant travel.
Would you use it?

Before making your first trip in it you discover that all is not quite as it seems. The teleporter isn't really a teleporter. It doesn't disassamble you and then reassemble you at the destination after all. What it actually does is Booth A scans you and then sends data to Booth B which creates a perfect duplicate of you. Booth A then destroys the original.
To the outside world it appears you've teleported as "You" have just stepped out of Booth B. The You that came out of Booth B is structurally and functionally identical to the one that stepped into Booth A.
Would you still use it?

Now the booths develop a fault. When Booth B created the copy at the destination, Booth A failed to delete you. There are now two of you. The teleporter chief says that one of you will have to be destroyed (to keep the system balanced or something). Would you be happy to be the one destroyed in the knowledge that the you at Booth B is just the same as you?

 

[Armadox]

Now the booths develop a fault. When Booth B created the copy at the destination, Booth A failed to delete you. There are now two of you. The teleporter chief says that one of you will have to be destroyed (to keep the system balanced or something). Would you be happy to be the one destroyed in the knowledge that the you at Booth B is just the same as you?

Technically speaking, the booth operator should keep the person in Booth A there telling them that there was an error in the booth and that he didn't jump at all. They should delete the one in Booth B for being a replica, and send the person in Booth A back through. Not only would it solve the issue, but also keep any discrepancies from happening without causing alarm. This way the system would never seem broken, and no one would worry about it. You'd use it thinking it was fool proof.

 

[OneCatch]

Not entirely sure about this. Ultimately things like medical care, corrective surgery and improved diet don't really constitute transhumanism in my view, because they don't really bring about a change in our basic physiology and more importantly, thought processes.
To take an example, the common fox lives for about 4-5 years, whereas in captivity they can live to 14. Would we call such foxes trans-vulpene? I wouldn't, because it's still a fox - indistinguishable in intelligence, instinct or physiology.
Whereas most transhumans in sci-fi I've read have entirely alien abilities and outlooks; in 2001 we get the starchild, in Childhood's End they become positively inhuman, in Ilium they ascend because they get bored of reality, in Night's Dawn they become a kind of hive mind and benefit from the perspective that offers.
Since this is a gaming website; Prophet in Crysis could be said to be transhuman because he's almost entirely beyond human emotion, predicts future events and seamlessly melds with computers by the time of Crysis 3.
Masterchief isn't though, because he's basically a fast human in a suit.

To take your example, we'd appear pretty godly to an ancient greek, but we have essentially the same physical abilities, and ultimately think in a very similar way. Yes, we can communicate all over the world in an instant, but the messages we send, whether bitching about work, flirting, making jokes, whatever; if appropriately translated, would make just as much sense to Mr Hypaspist as to us.
As a sidenote, I saw an Exhibition on Pompei the other day, and it's striking just how much we haven't changed in spite of literally a quarter of recorded history having passed since then. There are probably more significant cultural differences between me and a Saudi guy who's was born the same year as me, than with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

I do agree the main thrust of your post though - that transhumanism is somewhat amorphous, depends on perspective, and is difficult to do. I'm not sure where I'd explicitly draw the line. I guess that could be why they call it transhumanism though!

It depends what you're discussing - if you were talking about quantum mechanics with someone, then your ancient greek would require a lot of time to catch up with the necessary concepts, whereas if you do science to A-level in the UK you're likely to touch upon the basics, and you'll almost certainly encounter it at degree level (providing you do a science). I guess an implied part of transhumanism is advanced knowledge, although this doesn't really define the concept, and relies on your point in history.

Maybe humans are just too adaptable for transhumanism to actually occur or be recognised as an official thing - we are notoriously good at adapting to new environments & learning new strategies. Therefore I would probably say 'soft' transhumanism would be being able to use whatever technology is available in the period in which you are born, and 'hard' transhumanism is changing yourself enough so that your behaviour has major benefits over what is currently available. From our point of reference that could be stuff like living for hundreds of years, being able to communicate telepathically, and a much higher level of intelligence/persistence. I would love all those abilities but am also glad that I wasn't born 100 years ago...I'm not sure how much sense this makes or whether it's just a ramble.

Yeah, explaining quantum mechanics to a greek would be pretty difficult, but it would also be pretty difficult to explain it to a modern person who isn't educated to an affluent standard (I'm using the term affluent in lieu of 'First World' or 'Western' because it's more precise than either). But basic tenants of cause and effect and logic apply across all cultures, similarly emotions and instincts are pretty universal.

I stress that this is entirely my take on it, but I'd say that transhumanism isn't so much the ability to have advanced knowledge, but instead to be able to process and store knowledge in a manner beyond current humans, in the same way that our thought process is entirely beyond that of, say, earlier hominid species.

A transhuman, to my mind, wouldn't just be able to learn things faster, or parallel process, or 'think outside the box' to an extreme degree (by our standards). After all we have geniuses (albeit usually limited to one particular field) who can do that anyway.
In a funny kind of way, I think if we could imagine or follow the thought process of a transhuman, then they by definition aren't transhuman.

I do however like your idea of soft and hard transhumanism[footnote]Please let's not compare to the alleged theory of micro and macro evolution though[/footnote]. Strikes me as a good way to 'fill the gaps' so to speak, and it means I don't have to keep bugging myself with where I draw the line.
I've been doing thought experiments as precisely where and which suit iteration in Crysis causes transhumanism as per my definition, but sod it, Nomad+Suit1.0 is soft transhuman, Prophet+Suit2.0 is true transhuman. Problem solved!