Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[nenjin]

Yeah, what Eagleon proposes is the mediated view between the extremes. 20 or 30 extra years could mean a lot of things to humanity, both good and bad. I can get behind that kind of testing the limits.

What Eugenitor proposes though sounds more like what Aqizzar is outlining, playing with the very definitions of humanity as though they are just variables to be swapped. Your average, dirt-farming peasant doesn't see it that way, because their definition of humanity is ultimately all they have, and their whole world exists within that framework. They have the freedom to choose to experiment with it....but it's just as equally valid, and therefore rational, to not want to.

[Eagleon]

Yeah, what Eagleon proposes is the mediated view between the extremes. 20 or 30 extra years could mean a lot of things to humanity, both good and bad. I can get behind that kind of testing the limits.

What Eugenitor proposes though sounds more like what Aqizzar is outlining, playing with the very definitions of humanity as though they are just variables to be swapped. Your average, dirt-farming peasant doesn't see it that way, because their definition of humanity is ultimately all they have, and their whole world exists within that framework. They have the freedom to choose to experiment with it....but it's just as equally valid, and therefore rational, to not want to.

Don't get me wrong. I'd be seriously interested in, for instance, a DNI, improved and remote senses, gradual replacement of biological mechanisms in my brain to achieve electronic consciousness (a transition is altogether a more appealing option than chopping me up and 'scanning me in' as it were), and at least a slight alteration in my capacity for anger. There's all kinds of cool stuff we could do if there were market demand and solid, foolproof ways around rejection of implanted devices. I'm a cybernetics nerd all the way. Immortality is just pretty much bread and butter for transhumanists, and definitely the most cut and dry to ultimately sell.

[Pandarsenic]

Ninjin, CHOICE is one of the most basic tenets of Transhumanism. Everything is a choice. The idea is just to provide more choices.

[G-Flex]

That's a naively Libertarian style of thinking about it.

Whether or not something is a valid choice depends on a lot more than whether or not the option is available. It also has to do with the choices other people make, and what is expected of you/them. Freedom is about more than being theoretically able to do something of your own volition.

[nenjin]

Ninjin, CHOICE is one of the most basic tenets of Transhumanism. Everything is a choice. The idea is just to provide more choices.

The way it's being presented here, it's being made to sound like an offer you can't refuse. "Embrace transhumanism, or be condemned to....being human."

I'd like to think any philosophy that posits choice as important weighs the pros and cons of both evenly. I'm not seeing that here. Transhumanism as it's presented here sounds more like a religion. You've got the choice between obeying and burning forever in the fiery pits of condemnation. Some choice.

[DJ]

If you're going to do e-lobotomy, where is the point when ship of Theseus is not the same ship any more? Being human is both about virtues and faults, and the line between the two can be very blurry. Some of mankind's greatest achievements were born out of selfishness, for example. And if you can somehow come up with some kind of perfect personality towards which you'll "correct" humans, what's the point of building an aircraft carrier out of a wooden ship if building a carrier from scratch is easier? Why not just create a sentient AI with this personality to replace the humans? It's certainly more plausible than achieving immortality.

[Aqizzar]

And if you can somehow come up with some kind of perfect personality towards which you'll "correct" humans, what's the point of building an aircraft carrier out of a wooden ship if building a carrier from scratch is easier? Why not just create a sentient AI with this personality to replace the humans? It's certainly more plausible than achieving immortality.

Because, as Nietzsche once said, ever philosopher designs his vision of the perfect society, and places himself at its top.  I don't say this pejoratively, it's naturally human (oh the irony) to imagine a society that perfect for yourself.  What's the point of building a perfectly sentient and moral AI, when no human will ever be able to enjoy its existence?  I think Eagleon's take on mortality says a lot about the idea as a whole - it's not just about improving the world, it's about living "forever" (per any reasonable person's definition of forever).  There's a strain of selfishness in everything; improving humanity, or thought in general, it's a great goal and all, but it would be so much better if we personally could live long enough to reap the benefits.

[alway]

If you're going to do e-lobotomy, where is the point when ship of Theseus is not the same ship any more? Being human is both about virtues and faults, and the line between the two can be very blurry. Some of mankind's greatest achievements were born out of selfishness, for example. And if you can somehow come up with some kind of perfect personality towards which you'll "correct" humans, what's the point of building an aircraft carrier out of a wooden ship if building a carrier from scratch is easier? Why not just create a sentient AI with this personality to replace the humans? It's certainly more plausible than achieving immortality.

Because it isn't really easier. Humans have the advantage of having grown up: our neural networks have been trained in real life scenarios for decades, whereas an AI would need to be designed in such a way as to come out with a fully formed mind. Adding onto a pre-trained mind is relatively simple compared to creating a whole new one from scratch: even moderately noisy or bad implants would still be able to be integrated in some way by our flexible neural systems. And the pre-trained nature of humans would allow for the system to work its way into the mind, rather than affecting its growth. With an AI, you need to figure out how to both augment and have an end result which isn't utterly worthless at best and batsh*t insane at worst.

[DJ]

You're thinking in today's constraints, man. Who knows how far computer science will advance in the next decade. It seems to be progressing faster than medicine at least 

[Eagleon]

That's a naively Libertarian style of thinking about it.

Whether or not something is a valid choice depends on a lot more than whether or not the option is available. It also has to do with the choices other people make, and what is expected of you/them. Freedom is about more than being theoretically able to do something of your own volition.

Nothing new there. You can choose to do without electricity. The pressure to use it is not an argument against its benefit, it's an argument against the culture that pressures you. Opposing or preventing its creation is only putting a temporary patch on the root of the problem, and in the meanwhile preventing others from using lightbulbs in their stairwells.

If you're going to do e-lobotomy, where is the point when ship of Theseus is not the same ship any more? Being human is both about virtues and faults, and the line between the two can be very blurry. Some of mankind's greatest achievements were born out of selfishness, for example. And if you can somehow come up with some kind of perfect personality towards which you'll "correct" humans, what's the point of building an aircraft carrier out of a wooden ship if building a carrier from scratch is easier? Why not just create a sentient AI with this personality to replace the humans? It's certainly more plausible than achieving immortality.

Why not indeed? This is why I don't intend to alter my children in the same way. I'll let them decide. But as for the first, I don't know. I wouldn't know. I don't think it matters, as long as I'm content with its outcome. I have no idea if a changed me would object in some way to my decisions, but I think it's absurd to avoid my own desire for self improvement for fear of the destruction of some nebulous ideal of humanity I don't even agree with. There are some faults that you might find important, that I think are unimportant and detrimental, and vice-versa. Is it anyone's place to decide if I'm wrong but my own?

[KaguroDraven]

Eagleon you, perhaps inadvertantly I'm not too sure, pointed out the biggest problem with this. Most people would have it done to their kids when they are infants, no choice involved.

[DJ]

The problem is, you don't get to have any children if you want immortality, which was my objection to it from the start.

[Criptfeind]

There's a difference

Sorry, only got this far before I had to say.

Why?

[nenjin]

Please don't conflate philosophy with apparently-immutable reality.

Lol. This is why you're on the end of this conversation that no one wants to be associated with. But do go on about how your own quasi-philosophical view point, based on things that don't even exist yet, is somehow more relevant than applying philosophy according to what we actual know and understand. You're debating the nature of humanity itself, and somehow this isn't a philosophical as well as scientific discussion?

Case in point. Newborns in space are born, according to the research, smaller and their organs function less robustly because they aren't born under the effects of gravity, which directly impacts their development in the womb, which directly produces the kind of life we appreciate on this planet. They haven't broached what gravity does to brain development in the womb. But that's coming.

You're a product of the very rules you believe are incidental. But like I said, do go on about how there's nothing philosophical in this.
I'm quite amused by you trying to talk about immortality on the one hand while saying the actual laws of the universe don't matter. It's really quite funny.