-Caveat Lector-
The Transhumans are already there - check out their archives -
a generation of would be Cyber Gods - not all necessarily
benevolent to the human race .....
Andrew Hennessey
Transformation Studies Group
Edinburgh Scotland
Transhuman Mailing List
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:19:20 -0700
> From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:
>
> Transhuman Mailing List
>
> Nick Bostrom suggested that he & I take public our private
> conversation about definitions of transhumanism. I proposed:
>
> Transhumanism is the idea that new technologies are likely
> to change the world so much in the next century or two that
> our descendants will in many ways no longer be "human."
I would suggest the following definition:
Transhumanism is a philosophy of science that seeks to transform
the human condition by biological, psychological and technological
means through genetic, pharmacological and cybernetic enhancements.
Transhumanism is a bridge between humanity and post-humanity in which
our species is changed by our own purposeful, intelligent design of
improvements.
It sounds to me more like a definition that would be found in the likes
of
the Oxford (or Webster's) Dictionary or a brief encyclopedia entry.
Web Master,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Futurist-Transhuman Think Tank (FTT),
http://thefuturist.net
on The Futurist Network (TFN)<beta version>
http://thefuturist.net/index-TFN.html
AOL IM: oneWWWorld
ICQ: 15773184
***************************************************************************
* If you need to unsubscribe, send email saying "unsubscribe transhuman" *
* to [EMAIL PROTECTED], without the quotes, from the SAME email address*
* as the one you subscribed under! Yes, it is case-sensitive. Don't blame *
* the admin for your spelling errors. *
* Please email all technical problems to *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list. *
***************************************************************************
Michel Bauwens wrote:
> However, it can be said that even if they are realisable, this
> technological transcendence is not real transcendence. Indeed, what
> techno-transhumanis wants to achieve is longer life, more time; having
> control over more space, etc.. Itall stays on the horizontal axis,
> stays within time and space, and doesn't actually go beyond it,
> doesn't move on the vertical axis. Hence technological transhumanism
> can in no real sense ever replace the need for genuine spirituality.
I see transhumanism as involving increasing control over not just
space/time/matter/energy but consciousness as well. Brain state
control will include, for example, the ability to induce transcendent
experience (kensho/satori/samadhi/nirvana) at will.
Joining in a little late, but:
From: Phil Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Transhumanism is the philosophy that we can and should overcome
>> our (biological) limits by means of reason, science and technology."
>
>I think the spirit is right, but then aren't we transhumans if we skin
>an animal and wear its fur so that we can live in climates otherwise
>too cold for humans?
>
>Maybe we /should/ define transhumanism so that a caveman wearing a skin
>is a transhuman. But then a beaver wintering in its dam is a
transbeaver...
I still prefer Anders' definition to the others. Further to your transbeaver
point, how does a beaver come to know how to build a dam?
1. Genetically inherited
2. Trial and error
3. Learning by observation
If 2 or 3, then you probably do indeed have transbeavers.
We have been transhuman for a very long time. Perhaps there is not much
difference between a transhuman and a hom sap, which, IMHO, is a good thing
for gaining acceptance in the community. I think it's a valuable point that
opening your brain up and sticking a chip in is, in reality, different only
in degree to wielding a sharp axe at a tree trunk. Both are expressions of
transhumanism.
justin wrote:
>
> Transhuman Mailing List
>
> Is it a commonly agreed idea in the world of transhumanism that if
> such things as souls exist, then machines in the future with the cognitive
> and "emotional" abilities of humans will be considered to possess them?
> And will they be given the same rights as human beings?
>
I guess we are the "world of Transhumanism" :-)
Welcome, Justin. This is IMO a good first basic question, and not
on the surface "highly technical." IMO our consensus is that there
is nothing essntial to humanity (in the sense of your question)
in our physical implementation: we should be able to the features
of "humanity" within a different implementation. I personally believe
that you would need to discover a physical principle used in the
construction of a human that cannot be used in the construction of
any other implementation: Penrose (in "Emperor's New Mind") tries
to invoke quantum physics, but I still don't get it, since I can
use the same quantum physics to implement a human in a "machine".
Please don't be put off by the "highly technical" stuff. We've
done a lot of the basic stuff before, and you might have fun
looking at the list archives. Also not everybody on the list
can distinguish highly technical valid arguments from highly
technical garbage. I suspect that our deepest thinkers may not
always agree on the distinction.
By the way, is there a list of books (perhaps a online list) that deal with
the singularity ? I know Vernor Venge has quite a few, and then there is
_The Engines of God_ by Jack McDevitt (can you figure it out in time ?).
Surely there are more ?
>From: Damien Broderick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>I'm happy to report that a long piece by me about the Singularity (or
>varieties thereof) as depicted in science fiction has been accepted for a
>collection of papers in honor of the futurist and scholar I F Clarke, to be
>called *Histories of the Future*. The collection has been formally
>accepted for publication by Macmillan in the UK and St Martin's in the USA,
>and is edited by academics Alan Sandison and Robert Dingley.
--
+ David Cary "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/"
| Future Tech, Unknowns, machine vision, <*> O-
I wish I had thought of this a week ago...
Immagine some transhuman android/cyborg going trick-or treating... In one
hand it carries its jackolantern, the other its living, self sufficient,
head... That
would be cool.
--
"He who cannot obtain the F*#(in manual cannot read the F*#(in manual."
- unknown
I am the Red Team Captain at www.nanocomputer.org
atc.peon.net/~cyborg/
> From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Transhumanism is the idea that new technologies are likely
> to change the world so much in the next century or two that
> our descendants will in many ways no longer be "human."
"Transhumanism is the philosophy that we can and should overcome
our (biological) limits by means of reason, science and technology."
Personally I like this one (y Anders, was it?), as it
contains both a principled stance as well as an expectation/ predection.
Transhumanism is a "right attitude", even if specific
goals cannot be achieved (in retrospect).
Short catch-phrase: "Empowerment trough technology"
(yes, sounds corny but it's very true nonetheless).
> This definition focuses on positive, not normative, beliefs.
> To those who think that a definition should focus on normative
> beliefs I ask: Why do there seem to be so few people who share
> our positive beliefs but not our normative beliefs? That is,
> where are the people who believe that big technology-induced
> change is coming, and think that is a terrible thing?
Those people are no doubt out there, and their numbers will
increase as the actual changes come closer. However, the
point is that we *must* move forward. Assuming that one
values life and wants to extend it indefinitely, there isn't really
a choice. Without progress we will all die (permanently) for
sure. *With* progress we may still die (progress too slow,
killed by runaway tech or SI), but at least there's a fighting
chance. That's why the definition should, IMO, include
the word "should" or "must" as well as "will/might"; it
expresses a will to fight enemy No. 1, death, all the way.
Just ascertaining that there will be massive change relatively
soon does not really capture the spirit of transhumanism,
and would degrade it from a philosophy to a simple
expectation.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
