To be more than human is to be human

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

So are there any transhumanists in the ranks? Not sure what a transhumanist is? EDUCATE YOURSELF

In order to be a transhumanist, one must accept the idea of the technological singularity. Basically, the singularity represents the point in technological advancement where there is nothing that humanity can do that AI cannot do for itself, including self-improvement. It's almost like Skynet. Acheiving this is an important evolutionary step for humanity, though it may seem difficult to understand why. Ultimately, this will change the course, but not the direction, of evolution.

A transhumanist desires above all else to be more than human. Only once we've reached the singularity will we really understand how to pursue this end. We've already begun dabbling in at our relatively primitive stage of advancement, but most of us don't realize it. Artificial organs, retinal implants, our constant connection to AI in one form or another, all of these and more represent a massive paradigm shift towards a posthuman culture. Eventually, we will be able to able to integrate technology and biology to the point where we can transcend the human condition and quite possibly overcome even involuntary death.

Sooooo, what's up, guys? How is your day going?

Transhumanism all sounds rather masturbatory to me, frankly. Besides, evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it. Furthermore, what are the parameters that define "human" in the first place that must be overcome?

[kahljorn]

jeanette x i think the point of this thread is that science fiction and technologu and nanotechnologu and also quantum mechanics.

the internet

that's the point ok

[Sethomas]

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it.

The problem with this statement, while 100% correct in certain vantages, is that it seems to set a universal standard of "evolutionary success" that is incoherent with the idea of passing such a judgment that evolution "succeeds". That is, evolution itself has no reason to CARE whether or not it is successful because as a mere statistical model that describes the process of speciation it really doesn't bear any emotional or rational judgment. If evolution guides a species one direction to benefit a generation, only humans would say "evolution has succeeded." Likewise, when the same adaptation encounters an evolutionary bottleneck where it actually sees to the demise of all those who have it, evolution doesn't have a voice to say, "oh shit, I failed".

Hence, in this context "evolutionary success" a purely anthropocentric judgment as it ever shall be, but in relation to an anthropentric motion then axiomatically it reduces to "whatever we think is a good thing".

Thus, your question of what it is about being human (as we now know it) that sucks so fantastically becomes more relevant than the goal of excluding ourselves from a definition that would recognize it.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

The problem with this statement, while 100% correct in certain vantages, is that it seems to set a universal standard of "evolutionary success" that is incoherent with the idea of passing such a judgment that evolution "succeeds". That is, evolution itself has no reason to CARE whether or not it is successful because as a mere statistical model that describes the process of speciation it really doesn't bear any emotional or rational judgment. If evolution guides a species one direction to benefit a generation, only humans would say "evolution has succeeded." Likewise, when the same adaptation encounters an evolutionary bottleneck where it actually sees to the demise of all those who have it, evolution doesn't have a voice to say, "oh shit, I failed".

Hence, in this context "evolutionary success" a purely anthropocentric judgment as it ever shall be, but in relation to an anthropentric motion then axiomatically it reduces to "whatever we think is a good thing".

So? Transhumanism is anthropocentric, why should it matter if "evolutionary success" is an anthropoocentric judgement? This just seems like a needless disgression.

Thus, your question of what it is about being human (as we now know it) that sucks so fantastically becomes more relevant than the goal of excluding ourselves from a definition that would recognize it.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me that the definition of what is human to begin must be established before transhumanism can be strived for? I'm so fucking tired right now I can barely think, this had better make more sense tommorow morning.

[kahljorn]

yea, that was kind of the response i was expecting you to have and my response is that you then assume evolution is the all encompassing factor in life -- and evolution as is understood by only some people.

and furthermore, disregarding the idea of "planning," there's always the idea of not planning and it just happening ; did evolution really ever plan anything? no but it happened obviously they can exist along side each other, assuming we transhumaned... Also, the change from biological to mechanical or some mixture would certainly mark some CHANGE which, from further scientists minds living in the wake of such events, if evolution were still believed in, would have to mark some evolutionary event and certainly an evolutionary POSSIBILITY.

finally, the idea of evolution being influenced by "outside forces" encompasses this since technology is kinda outside us but can be placed inside us! whether "planned" or merely demanded by the possibilities of the world or whatever...

my example still stands you just attacked my word usage.

Besides, evolutionary success is not measured by the complexity of the organism, it is measured by the ability of the organism to surivive and reproduce, or at least that was my understanding of it. Furthermore, what are the parameters that define "human" in the first place that must be overcome?

How can you measure things like successes if there's no plan to be sucessful based on? iin this case, survival would be increased manifoldly, more than likely, by the switch to mechanical life. indeed, life could perhaps be extended indefinitley!

The parameters in this case would obviously be mostly biological, and over-coming biological limitations -- through technologu.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

How can you measure things like successes if there's no plan to be sucessful based on? iin this case, survival would be increased manifoldly, more than likely, by the switch to mechanical life. indeed, life could perhaps be extended indefinitley!

The parameters in this case would obviously be mostly biological, and over-coming biological limitations -- through technologu.

Yeah, but are we really psychologically equipped to live forever?