Transhumanism

[WanderingTaoist]

I'd be very curious to hear what you all think of TRANSHUMANISM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism).

For those unfamiliar with the movement, here's a few more links:

The Extropy Institute (http://www.extropy.org/)

The Transhumanist Blog (http://thetranshumanist.blogspot.com/)

"Designer Evolution" (http://www.designerevolution.net/)

"The Abolition of Man" a critical, Christian look at transhumanism (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition3.htm)

It's been described by conservative political philosopher Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama) as "the world's most dangerous idea", while its proponents hail it as an inevitable salvation. Where does the truth lie? With either of these perspectives, or none of them?

There's a whole nest of philosophical issues here, so have at it, my friends. :thumbsup:

[WanderingTaoist]

The following is quoted from a section of the movie Waking Life, which I reccomend to everyone who is not afraid of psychadelic animation and is in the mood for philosophy. A copy of the script of Waking Life is available here (http://strivinglife.net/wordpress/waking-life-script-with-revisions/).

In this scene, Eamonn Healy, a Chemistry professor at University of Texas at Austin, shares his views on transhumanism:

If we’re looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you’re looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression.

Now, what you’ve seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you’re beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you’re looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. Uou’re seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it’s gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation.

The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external.

And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That’s the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It’s sterile. It’s efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

[scameter]

Well, personally I don't think that there's anything we can do about it. Or that I can do anyways. It either will happen, if we are capable of it, or it will not, because we won't be capable of it. But, speaking from an ethical standpoint, I think that transhumanism is really just an extension of our communicative abilities. We already evolve ourselves by communicating information; we change our minds, as we change our bodies through things such as skin care, surgery, etc. So, why would the manipulation of our brains or genetic qualities be anything more than the next step? But, I don't think it will be totally permissed. Especially things such as growing embryos outside the body, to allow for a larger brain size; to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have, and they'd never sacrifice that. So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred.

[WanderingTaoist]

to women, having a baby growing in them is one of the best feelings they can have

ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have! :lol:

(just kidding)

So, really, it depends on the relative ethics of individual humans and what they hold as being good or sacred.

What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans?

[Thomas Knierim]

One word: escapist.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

ummmm.....ask a woman in labor if having a baby growing inside of them is the best feeling they can have!

:D Hopefully, if the baby's coming out, it's not still growing.

What about possibility that this technology might be either a ) banned by certain governments, or b ) forced on unwilling humans?

That's very possible. But only if the majority of people approve of it.

One word: escapist.

How so?

[Thomas Knierim]

Thomas: One word: escapist.
Scameter: How so?

Because our science is not advanced enough to understand all evolutionary and developmental phenomena. Our technology is not advanced enough to produce designer babies, nano-implants and the like. I have a feeling that we won't get to this point very soon.

Hence, transhumanism contains too much wishful thinking for my taste.

I have no objections against the philosophical basis of the transhumanist utopia. I don't believe it is immoral to take our biological future in our own hands. But I think we need not concern ourselves with this right now.

Right now we have other problems to solve. Overpopulation, global warming, mass extinction, environmental degradation, inequality, poverty, war, just to name a few.

Cheers, Thomas

[DRImperius]

That we are able to solve problems is a certainty; the extent of our powers to change things and solve problems of such grandeur is the true question, yes?

The technology we have now is impressive as far as animals go...we thrive, we can explore the depths of the seas, far reaches of space (in time, no doubt,) we even have extensive wanderings on our own philosophical existence.... Now we see ourselves powerful.

This ideology of transhumanism is itself indicative of how much we overestimate our powers over nature, the universe....it is as if we claim to have evolved into "the" absolute.

Take for instance the subject of global warming. Well, we now have so much scientific evidence supporting the matter that to openly deny it without mountains of counter-evidence would be dumb, to put it bluntly. But look a few decades back...back then when scientists seriously thought that the world was cooling down at a dangerous rate. How much do we really know, understand, see? Because everytime we make such claims, we appear as if...we knew everything...at the time, at least--perhaps why science always moves forward....Alas, but that's besides the point and might be on a completely different discussion.

[scameter]

Thomas, although I think we're closer to it than you might would think, I agree with you. We have more immediate problems, like the ones you listed, to be attending to. The reason most people prefer dealing with the less immediate ones is because there's nothing to solve or go against; it's not happening right now.

And psyche, we could solve them, we just don't want to. Most societal problems are done by choice, and are desired by those who do them, such as war and crime, and problems like poverty and inequality could be fixed, it's just those who could fix them don't want to, because they profit off them, or would otherwise not be profitted by fixing them. Ease.

[schrodinger]

And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.--Wandering Taoist, quoting "Walking Life"

Until what? That is a good question indeed! Look at what a science student has to contend with today, 100 years of non-stop, break-neck paced progress that has left many scientists straggling in the dust! Even those who we consider to be leaders are only capable of leading in very narrow fields. They can never hope to be conversant, let alone master, the entire realm of scientific achievement. How can a student ever catch up with the pace? I think it is already close to impossible. So the “crescendo” mentioned here may well be a backlash, a call for a return to normal, perhaps a retrenchment into a new dark age. In fact, I believe we are already experiencing this, if not, why has it been nearly 40 years since the Apollo moon landings? If not a retrenchment, the crescendo may well be a mass hysteria or mass insanity, which leads us once and for all over the brink to self-destruction. We are not ready for such”advancement” and maybe we never will be.

[Michael]

Can't say I'm too optimistic about the immediate future. Hard rain. All I can see is mass extinction. We think its the end of the world. It isn't. Every population builds and wanes. Mankind is nothing if not resilient. Evidence indicates that epoches of mankind have risen and fallen.

Of course we will have to pay the price of our present indulgences and everybody who reads this will feel the acknoweledgement of that truth within themselves as they read it. But mankind, or that consciousness, will persist.

However, in the texts here I find an arrogance that is close to that of the story of Satan. Or perhaps close to the idea about 'Rapture' amongst the Christian fundamentalists. Expotential growth for mankind - the easy way out.

Each of us must find his own way towards being a member of the Godhead while, paradoxically, already being a member of the Godhead (or whatever you want to call the ultimate).

[WanderingTaoist]

Or perhaps close to the idea about 'Rapture' amongst the Christian fundamentalists

"Singularity" is often refered to as "The Rapture for Nerds" :lol:

I tend to agree with most of the criticisms voiced here. I think we're technologically a long way off from transhumanism. And even if we were able to implement it, there are far more pressing social and political problems.

Besides, most of us have hardly figured out what it means to be human, let alone figured how to be good human beings. And we're talking about just leaving that behind? That seems to be very cowardly, very escapist, very arrogant, and very stupid. We can't solve our problems by giving ourselves bionic limbs.

[Michael]

But the fact is we are on the road - plastic surgery, vital organ and face transplants, a trade in human body parts, cryogenics, nanotechnology, gene slicing, robotics. All issues with which we are not dealing very well. There is the potential for the development of more powerfully endowed humans. Please consider the implications of that statement in the light of mankind's unending and insane lust for power.

[DRImperius]

But that is exactly it--mankind's unending and insane lust for power. We will end ourselves seeking for powers we cannot even handle, powers we cannot even comprehend fully. All of that simply becuase we will do what we figure we "can" do.

The battle for equality and against prejudice is hardly over...there are still such heavy nomencleture as "races." With this problem hardly solved in our world, why should we introduce a new race of supermen. How do we expect that this creation will not be our own undoing? At this point in time, maybe even for a few centuries to come, we will have tons of problem denying that prejudice and / or racism is a big part of human nature. How do you convince this race of superior beings that we are "equal" and should not be purified from the face of the earth? Would it not be morally correct to them since we ourselves sought to make ourselves a more powerful race?

[Thomas Knierim]

AlphaAurigae: However, in the texts here I find an arrogance that is close to that of the story of Satan. Or perhaps close to the idea about 'Rapture' amongst the Christian fundamentalists.

I would call it -perhaps less dramatic- spiritual ineptness. It's quite telling that some of the figure heads of the transhumanist movement (sorry, forgot their names) are also into cyronics. As if their bodies are somehow special and need to be preserved for ensuing ages.

It seems like a playground for human folly if you ask me.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

:D I agree Thomas. Like many of the other ways we try to manipulate nature, instead of simply living in harmony with it. For instance, a new study has shown that methane gas from cows causes more pollution than does humans. But, is what the study prefered to not point out is that there weren't nearly as many cows before we began domesticating and breeding them. Because we did that, to suit our need of them, we have to breed more than there would have been without us domesticating them.

[Michael]

Quite right, Thomas. Satan is off the hook. It was Lucifer, or the twisted version of Lucifer that we have inherited, that I had in mind - rebelling against God, falling to arrogance, pride, hubris. Though I like spiritual ineptitude, like sin, missing the point. That said, the reader mightt bear in mind my Luddite tendencies.

And I prefer the idea of Lucifer as the Bearer of Light.

[scameter]

Lucifer and Satan are different? And I mean that from an idealogical view, as we're currently in.

[Michael]

Yes, Satan is actually that snakey guy from the Garden of Eden who is responsible for the fall of man.

Lucifer has a couple of bios. The original was that he was Lucifer the Light Bearer, god of light, and a good guy, of a people conquered by the Isaelites and consequently seriously liabled whereby he became the chief angel as which he got an over-inflated idea of himself and led the angels in rebellion against God.

Someone more scholarly than I may have a detail or two to amend or add, but's about how I understand it. The story demonstrates just how warily you have to thread when you're reading the bible which as well as being a religious document is a heavilyedited and biased history of a people.

[scameter]

I know. As I said, I mean in an idealogical sense, and by that I mean in a meaning, philosophical, representative viewpoint, if you see.

[Michael]

Your question does not make sense:

Lucifer and Satan are different? And I mean that from an idealogical view, as we're currently in.


As I said, I mean in an idealogical sense, and by that I mean in a meaning, philosophical, representative viewpoint


You are asking for an ideological and philosophical analysis of S & L as architypes, with representative viewpoint from the current understanding of Jewish iconography?

Or are you asking that your question be answered with the parameters of the discussion on tranhumanism?

Scam, I suspect that's that's exactly what your question is. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do bear in mind that the question is yours and I certainly don't accept it as a valid question.

[bito]

I know. As I said, I mean in an idealogical sense, and by that I mean in a meaning, philosophical, representative viewpoint, if you see.

scam, from my POV, and correct me if I am amiss, you seem to be trying to understand the concepts of Lucifer and Satan within the limitations of your intellect.

If you understand intuition to be a higher faculty than intellect, then can you see within the intuitive-whole , what, for you, is the meaning of Lucifer and/or Satan?

[Michael]

I believe he was tempting me into answering his question

[WanderingTaoist]

Alpha, I think the Satan/Lucifer analogy is definitely appropriate. The driving force behind transhumanism is that we can, and should, control nature; we think we are able to "be as gods" and "know good from evil" in a variety of matters. The current state of the environment should show that, at the very least, we lack the maturity and forethought needed to control nature, or more strongly, that we should never try to "control" nature in the first place.

[WanderingTaoist]

As if their bodies are somehow special and need to be preserved for ensuing ages.

From a Buddhist perspective, I'd imagine transhumanism would represent one of the worst sorts of material attachment.

These people seem to be in complete denial of their own death.

[scameter]

You are asking for an ideological and philosophical analysis of S & L as architypes, with representative viewpoint from the current understanding of Jewish iconography?

I am asking of Lucifer and Satan's meaning as symbolic, representational figures, as in mythology, and how they are different beings. For instance, you said that Lucifer is the "bearer of light". What did you mean by this? Did you mean it in a Gnostic sense, that he was rebellious and tried to free himself from God's reign? Or did you mean that as an angel, Lucifer was an upholder of good? I'm speaking from a mythological, interpretational point of view. And if it has anything to do with transhumanism, I guess you could answer that too, but that's not my main question.

If you understand intuition to be a higher faculty than intellect, then can you see within the intuitive-whole , what, for you, is the meaning of Lucifer and/or Satan?

I could, but I'm not asking myself; I'm asking Alpha. And, furthermore, to me, the arts and mythology both are interpretational yes, but because mythology is an academic study, it is possible to study the interpretations of others; the arts are specifically about the individual's interpretation. I'm speaking objectively, trying to study whas Lucifer and Satan represent.

[Michael]

Oh, you mean how I see them. Well Satan is a sadistic old recidevist reprobate who delights in the pain of God and man alike. Lucifer is an idealist, a Che, a Pearse, a Prometheus, a tragic figure, romantic and besmirched.

But more interesting is to observe what we do with architypes and how they evolve and inter-act within our collective and personal beliefs systems. You too Scam have your Satan and your Lucifer.

[scameter]

I agree. That is why I like mythology: it reflects the minds of both those who make it and, more especially, those who read and interpret it.

[Michael]

Scam, seems to me you search for the idea, I search for what is, while recognising the solipsism.

[scameter]

I do search for the idea indeed. As to me, ideas are what make people people, as they are the product of thought, emotion, imagination, and awareness, the true components of the human consciousness.

[Michael]

There's where we differ. For me ideas are simply extensions of our ego systems. To know anything I must surrender my ideas.

[WanderingTaoist]

There's where we differ. For me ideas are simply extensions of our ego systems. To know anything I must surrender my ideas.

Plato, when discussing what he called intellectual courage, described two versions of it: poltical courage, and philosophical courage. Political courage, the courage of the Guardians of The Republic, is the courage to cling to one's opinion in the face of opposition. Of course, for this to be a virtue, one's opinion or doxa must be correct; it must be an ortho-doxa.

Then there is "philosophic courage". Philosophic courage consists not of clinging to one's opinions and ideas, but of abandoning them, sacrificing them or surrending them, if you will. It is only when one lets go of one's opinions and ideas that one can truly come to know.

A philosopher must have the courage to lose all her ideas so she can receive truth. My idea (or my opinion) is my idea, it is not your idea, and there's only so much we can share it. The truth, on the other hand, is the most shareable thing there is. It is nobody's property, it belongs to everyone, it is perhaps the one thing all people can share without there being conflict over it. I don't have to take it from you in order to have it myself.

The philosopher, who gives up his opinions, is able to know; while the guardian mere opines. He may have the correct opinion, but he doesn't know, and as long as he clings to the opinion as his he will never know.

Of course, one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern philosophy in the West is that the ancients hold that knowledge is possible; for the moderns (starting with Descarte), all you can know is your opinion. You never know anything, only your own "clear ideas" of the world. There's an unbridgeable gap between yourself and the world. The most you can do is to project those ideas of yours out onto the world, hence controling the world and making it yours.

[scameter]

I don't see how you totally correlate opinions and ideas. Opinions are an individual's thoughts regarding their perspective, and their view of it, with the thoughts changed into beliefs. Ideas are concepts gotten from looking at and thinking about existence, and life in general, and morphing these thoughts and observations into coherent bodies. Ideas aren't necessarily subjective, unlike opinions. And, philosophy is deeply routed in ideas. So, how can one "surrendering", somehow, their ideas be philosophic? To me, ideas are how we have truth; nor do I think we can ever have total, definite truth anyways. We can only have the amount of clarity of seeing the truth that our inevitable subjectivity allows. And, these glimpses of truth are conveyed and packaged in ideas. Without ideas, we couldn't have any sight of truth; we would simply see existence, and think no further, as other animals do.

[WanderingTaoist]

I don't see how you totally correlate opinions and ideas. Opinions are an individual's thoughts regarding their perspective, and their view of it, with the thoughts changed into beliefs. Ideas are concepts gotten from looking at and thinking about existence, and life in general, and morphing these thoughts and observations into coherent bodies. Ideas aren't necessarily subjective, unlike opinions. And, philosophy is deeply routed in ideas. So, how can one "surrendering", somehow, their ideas be philosophic? To me, ideas are how we have truth; nor do I think we can ever have total, definite truth anyways. We can only have the amount of clarity of seeing the truth that our inevitable subjectivity allows. And, these glimpses of truth are conveyed and packaged in ideas. Without ideas, we couldn't have any sight of truth; we would simply see existence, and think no further, as other animals do.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "idea"! :) After all, Plato's eternal forms are often referred to as "ideas" from the Greek eidos.

If your concepts and ideas are truly pulled from existence (or that peculiar philosophic beast, "the thing in itself"), then I think Plato would agree with you that you're getting flashes of truth; you're seeing "outside the cave". In this model, ideas are essentially like windows to reality.

For philosophers like Descartes and Kant, true reality (Kant's noumenal world) is essentially inscrutable. At best we can know our own "clear, distince ideas" (Descartes). With these ideas, our mind divides up the world that appears (phenomenal world) into Cateogries (Kant), such as Time and Space (which are, for Kant, a priori). In this model, ideas are like portraits of a landscape, except that ultimately you never really know the landscape. You can only know the portrait.

Philosophy in the West has three basic approaches when it comes to knowing truth:

Ancient Philosophy: "There is God (or "The Good" or "The One"; the Absolute), who is the source of all things. Therefore, there is Truth."

Modern Philosophy: "There is no God, but there is still truth. The self and its ideas are the source of all truth."

Post-Modern Philosophy: "There is no God, and hence, no truth."

These are, of course, massive generalizations ;) But they describe the basic structure of thought.

And Eastern philosophy, of course , is a whole different kettle of fish. While I think an Eastern perspective would agree with Western Modernist that "God" may not exist as some seperate, Abrahamic entity, I don't think they would say that "the self" is the source of all truth. Truth might come from within, but it is not the ego.

[scameter]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "idea"!

I described what I mean by this word.