Transhumanism

[Phoenix]

So is he saying that Man is merely a transition stage?

 

[Hidden]

Yes; but going further into his writings, he says that everything is a transition stage. This is a difference between Nietzsche and the transhumanists (as far as I interpret them)--the transhumanists see their transcendent goal as something that can objectively exist and be obtained; for Nietzsche, this would entirely destroy its purpose.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't think this transhumanism would be a final stage. It'd simply be a stage above the human, but then you could strive for, for lack of a better word, trans-transhumanism. What could this be? No idea, but it'd deal with problems humans wouldn't be able to understand.

 

[Leonard]

However, perhaps there is a point, quite separate of our own intention, where the world changes significantly enough that humanity as we experience it ceases to exist. But we cannot presume to anticipate, much less predetermine, the transhuman--as the term itself implies, it is something irretrievably beyond our experience as humans.

So basically, you're talking about some sort of accident? Interesting, it really seems like the most plausible interpretation of the term.

But sadly, I guess it wouldn't fit with the original definition of "Transhumanism", though.

 

[Square Ninja]

We've had to endure much, you and I, but soon there will be order again. A new age. Aquinas spoke of the mythical city on the hill, soon that city will be a reality and we will be crowned its kings. Or, better than kings... gods!

kek

Would this really mean that we will stop being human? The only difference is our use of tools. The same could be said of early man and modern man. They are still human, yet they are different. When the machine revolution comes, we will simply have better tools.

 

[frisson]

We weren't always human, I doubt we'll stay human. Replace our cells with circuitry, or just change them altogether. But I think so much has been attributed with the human form, that it might be retained for aesthetic reasons, or a sexual fascination.

 

[Hidden]

I don't think this transhumanism would be a final stage. It'd simply be a stage above the human, but then you could strive for, for lack of a better word, trans-transhumanism. What could this be? No idea, but it'd deal with problems humans wouldn't be able to understand.

Granted transhumanism is not a "final stage", but it is a stage that can be objectively realized--at which point, the prefix "trans" no longer applies, but that's fine (for once I will not involve us in a debate of semantics). My complaint is that we cannot 'plan out' a stage of existence that transcends the human experience (how we define humanity); the closest we get are mystics and really good science fiction writers, but I have my doubts about both.

So basically, you're talking about some sort of accident? Interesting, it really seems like the most plausible interpretation of the term.

But sadly, I guess it wouldn't fit with the original definition of "Transhumanism", though.

The given definition of "Transhumanism" is one group's flawed agenda to my opinion.

But let's talk more about the term you chose, that transhumanism is a sort of "accident". In a sense, I think this does work, that transhumanism is something that "falls out" (an older sense of the word) in a way that extends beyond our human intention or agency. In fact, it is necessary, for the same reasons brought up above--that the human will cannot determine that which transcends it.

I don't want to take us too far out of the picture, however--I agree with Phoenix's premise that humanity itself could be the force that brings conditions to that breaking point, to that point where things will necessarily change in an entirely unprecedented way. But at that point, it will not be the carefully planned development of the human being--it will be a leap in the dark, and humanity will not be there to see where it lands.

We've had to endure much, you and I, but soon there will be order again. A new age. Aquinas spoke of the mythical city on the hill, soon that city will be a reality and we will be crowned its kings. Or, better than kings... gods!

What is this from?

Would this really mean that we will stop being human? The only difference is our use of tools. The same could be said of early man and modern man. They are still human, yet they are different. When the machine revolution comes, we will simply have better tools.

That is one possibility. Maybe the entire universe will shift, and we won't know the difference. William Gibson wrote a wonderful book, "All Tomorrow's Parties", that you might like. Actually, it's an excellent read for anyone interested in this thread.

We weren't always human, I doubt we'll stay human. Replace our cells with circuitry, or just change them altogether. But I think so much has been attributed with the human form, that it might be retained for aesthetic reasons, or a sexual fascination.

What were we before we were human?

 

[Square Ninja]

What is this from?

Deus Ex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is one possibility. Maybe the entire universe will shift, and we won't know the difference. William Gibson wrote a wonderful book, "All Tomorrow's Parties", that you might like. Actually, it's an excellent read for anyone interested in this thread.

Will consider it.

 

[Ryu]

I meant to post sooner but apparently failed to do so, skimmed most posts but I'm sure the essence of what I'm about to say has been said before.

Personally I believe humanity is merely a word we use to describe our current position in the universe and time, it's too broad of a definition to say it can be lost or gained at a certain point. For us to define our existence is only natural, though we as a species evolve literally every day, so I believe it to be useless to define something that's subject to continuous changes.

Also, this is my way of avoiding the philosophical debate concerning humanity while still keeping Ed happy cause I posted in his thread.

continue.

 

[Hidden]

Deus Ex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either you or Master T have brought this to my attention before*; it looks rather fascinating.

*I hope you don't mind that I seemingly can't separate the two of you in my memory; I can, it just seems that I say "either you or Master T" quite often.

Personally I believe humanity is merely a word we use to describe our current position in the universe and time, it's too broad of a definition to say it can be lost or gained at a certain point.

Actually, this hasn't explicitly been brought up. I like the idea. But certainly there must be some continuity between my humanity at home and my humanity at work (at least if we are to take Marx seriously at all).

For us to define our existence is only natural, though we as a species evolve literally every day, so I believe it to be useless to define something that's subject to continuous changes.

I don't know--perhaps it might be helpful for purposes of defining human empathy, human rights, or human morality, even if only temporarily.

 

[Square Ninja]

(at least if we are to take Marx seriously at all).

Nobody does.

 

[Phoenix]

Granted transhumanism is not a "final stage", but it is a stage that can be objectively realized--at which point, the prefix "trans" no longer applies, but that's fine (for once I will not involve us in a debate of semantics). My complaint is that we cannot 'plan out' a stage of existence that transcends the human experience (how we define humanity); the closest we get are mystics and really good science fiction writers, but I have my doubts about both.

If we were able to define humanity, we could indeed plan another stage that can no longer fit that definition, no?

 

[frisson]

What were we before we were human?

Like, bacteria and stuff.

 

[Hidden]

Nobody does.

Fine, if we take seriously the idea that human beings should not be defined as cogs in a machine.

If we were able to define humanity, we could indeed plan another stage that can no longer fit that definition, no?

That would be speculative fiction. And yes, as you noted in your opening post, plenty of sci-fi imaginings have become realities, but they have not shifted our definition of what it is to be human.

This is because that definition is based upon the whole of our experience, the largest universals of which include pain, sickness, and death (that sounds a bit too pessimistic or buddhist--we should probably also include birth, health, and joy). You can say you want an existence without some of those universal experiences (transhumanist); you can speculate on the conditions of that existence (science fiction writer); and you can try your hardest to leave this existence behind and experience another entirely (mystic); but you are ultimately limited by a human imagination that is both shaped by and, in its own way, shapes our definition of humanity.

Put this way, you can (speculatively) plan everything up to the point where you leave human experience behind (i.e. "transcend humanity"). At that point, nothing you are now can predict what will be then.

Like, bacteria and stuff.

That was us?

Meanwhile the mind, from pleasure less,
withdraws into its happiness :
the mind, that ocean where each kind
does straight its own resemblance find;
yet it creates, transcending these,
far other worlds, and other seas;
annihilating all that's made
to a green thought in a green shade.

For a bit more on the imagination shaping our definition of humanity--I think Marvell's excerpt wonderfully expresses this potential of the human imagination to transcend certain limiting conditions of our experience. How far this extends I cannot say (I obviously argue above that it does have some limit), but it is part of what makes literature and the imagination in general so important to human life.

And yes, I'm aware that this is the third time I've referenced this poem on the forums.

 

[frisson]

That was us?

At some point, probably. We're recycled matter, genetically programmed into a specific combination. I believe humanity is just one state we find ourselves in through our potentially infinite existence.

 

[Hidden]

At some point, probably. We're recycled matter, genetically programmed into a specific combination. I believe humanity is just one state we find ourselves in through our potentially infinite existence.

Alright. Put it another way then: how do we relate to this "bacteria and stuff" that, at some point, was us?

 

[Phoenix]

That would be speculative fiction. And yes, as you noted in your opening post, plenty of sci-fi imaginings have become realities, but they have not shifted our definition of what it is to be human.

This is because that definition is based upon the whole of our experience, the largest universals of which include pain, sickness, and death (that sounds a bit too pessimistic or buddhist--we should probably also include birth, health, and joy). You can say you want an existence without some of those universal experiences (transhumanist); you can speculate on the conditions of that existence (science fiction writer); and you can try your hardest to leave this existence behind and experience another entirely (mystic); but you are ultimately limited by a human imagination that is both shaped by and, in its own way, shapes our definition of humanity.

Put this way, you can (speculatively) plan everything up to the point where you leave human experience behind (i.e. "transcend humanity"). At that point, nothing you are now can predict what will be then.

But you're not arguing that it's impossible, correct? You're simply saying we cannot imagine it, as humans.

Now, I don't claim I can imagine what someone other than human might be, but allow me this question: would someone without the experience you referred to remain human? We cannot know what goes through his mind, but would such a being (immune to death, sickness and so on) still be considered human, even if we cannot understand his psyche?

 

[Hidden]

But you're not arguing that it's impossible, correct? You're simply saying we cannot imagine it, as humans.

Correct, which is why I am skeptical of transhumanist claims not simply to imagine such a state but to engineer it. I find the idea itself of humanity giving way to an entirely new state of existence fascinating, and in a way I do hope that happens.

Now, I don't claim I can imagine what someone other than human might be, but allow me this question: would someone without the experience you referred to remain human? We cannot know what goes through his mind, but would such a being (immune to death, sickness and so on) still be considered human, even if we cannot understand his psyche?

I would assume not; we have denied humanity to others before based on much smaller differences (race, class, religion, et cetera), but our justifications still tend to revolve around this idea that they cannot experience the world on the same level that we do. Going back to our fascination with artificial intelligence--most thought on the matter, both in fiction and reality, denies such artificial intelligence "humanity" even without being able to proffer a logical or clearly defined definition of what humanity is that it would exclude such intelligence. I believe it is simply this--our definition of humanity is by experience, which is perhaps impossible to articulate but cannot be arrived at purely by an 'equivalent' level of intelligence or even self-awareness.

Have you given any more thought to Escher's Drawing Hands?

 

[Square Ninja]

I find the idea itself of humanity giving way to an entirely new state of existence fascinating, and in a way I do hope that happens.

Join me, true believer. We can become like gods.

 

[Hidden]

Join me, true believer. We can become like gods.

And in a way it terrifies the very sanity in me.