Transhumanism

[Pseudomammal]

All this talk of "improving on nature" is nonsensical. Anything living alters its environment in some way. Transhumanists propose to do more altering of our internal environments, using the intelligence and proclivity for tool use we've naturally evolved, to extend our ability to enjoy the things we've naturally evolved to enjoy. We've started to transcend the basest sort of natural selection, but only because our prior evolution got us to a point where we could.

Adaptability is the human* condition. There's nothing "unnatural" about an evolved surviving machine with a complex enough brain trying to address its own internal causes of suffering and death.

*or, if you will, raptor

[Amicitia]

is there anything innately valuable one reaches through becoming a tranny?

Putting aside that nothing is innately valuable except insofar as that it is valued......

What's *not* worthwhile about eliminating aging and adding to and increasing one's own physical and mental and abilities?

Last time I checked, elimination of the human condition isn't worthwhile.

What are you defining as "the human condition"?

And in my defense, I didn't dismiss your points until you started making broad sweeping statements, complete with unnecessary insults, about transhumanism and "the human condition", without explaining yourself.

I guess I've just been dodging to ask what I really want to ask: if you think that immortality is a valid and worthy end, why don't you defend the its value? Since it's not self-evident in its value, I think it's only fair(to defend your own case, not immortality).

But yeah, I'm a bit annoyed at the massive lack of structure in this thread.

[Insignificant Deifaction]

Value is subject to what you want.

What if you find the cons of being immortal greater than the pros? Then don't be immortal.

However, if immortality sounds mighty neat to you, shoot for it.

Defending the value of it is pointless, as it is subjective.

[Amicitia]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value ... extrinsic/

[Infornographer]

There exist two branches of thought people refer to as "transhumanism," in my experience. The first deals with the concept of conquering existing flaws within humans, and the latter deals with replacement of biological organisms with mechanical counterparts (or some combination thereof). I would like to address them in that order, but preface it with some history for perspective.

The ancient Greeks/Romans practiced various forms of animism from which their later pagan beliefs grew. The Latins use the word "pontifex" to mean "priest." The word "pontifex" literally translates as "bridge-builder." You see, for the ancient Romans, there existed a very definite natural order. Structures such as mountains, hills, and rivers, all acted harmoniously in part of this natural order. When the Romans built bridges, they always brought along a priest to oversee the construction. They viewed the very act of building bridges as a disturbance and perturbation of the natural order, and felt they needed to pay their respects to nature and/or the spirits involved (and possibly disturbed) by this "unnatural" act. A river represented a boundary that one should not cross, a boundary imposed by Nature itself, and superstitious early thinkers felt that cross that boundary- or eliminating it- required special care.

I feel my audience has the intelligence to see where I planned to take this discussion. In order for any such efforts (eliminating all disease, achieving immortality, etc.) to take place, society requires a paradigm shift. We need to move away from this primitive thinking that somehow, we should not perturb the "natural." The implication always exists, by the way, that somehow our adaptive ability does not have a place in this "natural," despite the fact that it indisputably evolved there. We need to step away and realize that no spirit will smite us for building a bridge and taking down a boundary. We need to realize that society will not collapse inevitably as a result of doing so. For me, the very fact that people still debate the merits of eliminating death represents a very sad tendency to fall back onto this sort of thinking.

I value immortality because it provides the maximum opportunity to discover and construct knowledge (which I, currently, axiomatically value). We shouldn't, as a society, keep going back to "it's not natural." This represents an incredibly large intellectual cop-out on behalf of those who make that argument. Disease "is natural," rivers "are natural," pain "is natural," yet we take steps to conquer all these. Why not go the step further? It comes as a natural progression of our ability to affect our environment.

I would now like to address the second part, about our replacement with other, possibly non-biological, organisms. I believe that technology will play a fundamental role in allowing us to achieve the goals implied by the first part. I also feel (like many of you) that the lines between organic and "artificial" will blur in the decades to come. I have not significantly researched these ideas of Transhumanism, however I have had the opportunity to discuss them with various knowledgeable people. It seems apparent that computers could, in principle, replicate the entirety of human behavior (whether or not you believe they could duplicate consciousness represents a separate issue). If such events do occur, I believe that, indeed, computers/machinery could become the dominant form of activity on the planet. My own beliefs on philosophy of mind lead me to the conclusion that such machinery can possess consciousness, and I would not mind such a "takeover." In fact, I would see it as still, an extension of human capability, to produce such machines. They would, hopefully, carry on the knowledge of/from our existence far beyond what our own bodies and memories could reach, both in terms of time and space.

[Insignificant Deifaction]

I don't take that platonic sass.

If you're going to use philosophy against me, use your own, not modern/ancient philosophies. I don't agree with them, and I've thought long and hard about it, so there's really no point in just depositing that in front of me. Give me a fresh challenge.

Why do you say that the value of things should (or could) be intrinsic?

How can you justify that something is valuable for its own sake, doesn't everything need something else to be appreciable?

------------------------------------

On an unrelated note to what I just said, I find merit in Gnophilist's point of naturality.

Everything is natural, as nothing exists outside of nature. Tampering with it is something we do on a daily basis, simply by existing. Saying that we shouldn't disturb things in a fashion we like is only applicable to environmentalism, and only then because we don't yet have the knowledge and technology to effectively control things.

[Belial]

I guess I've just been dodging to ask what I really want to ask: if you think that immortality is a valid and worthy end, why don't you defend the its value? Since it's not self-evident in its value, I think it's only fair

I rather thought it was.

We already consider life to be good and death to be bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't take measures to preserve our own lives, and most of us would be dead due to walking in front of buses or poking bears or refusing to take vaccines and dying of something entirely preventable.

Therefore, since, in our every day lives, we've collectively decided on the arbitrary criteria that life is good and death is bad, the logical assumption would be that the only reason we accept aging and age-death is because we can't, as yet, do anything about it.

So I would argue that it's up to you to explain why age-death is a *good* thing rather than a bad thing that we simply can't avoid as yet.

[Amicitia]

I don't take that platonic sass.

If you're going to use philosophy against me, use your own, not modern/ancient philosophies. I don't agree with them, and I've thought long and hard about it, so there's really no point in just depositing that in front of me. Give me a fresh challenge.

Why do you say that the value of things should (or could) be intrinsic?

How can you justify that something is valuable for its own sake, doesn't everything need something else to be appreciable?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value ... extrinsic/
Read up on your philosophy?

Belial, unless you're positing that death is a disease, you confuse death to disease to death of old age. The fact that the belief is little more of a cult phenomena is proof enough that it's not within the limits of status quo.

Gnophilist posits that immortality is valuable in that it maximizes the "opportunity to discover and construct knowledge" (I can live with that argument, if not that reality). He also agreed that there would need to be a "paradigm shift" in order for society to move away from the current naturalistic paradigm (seeing as transhumanism is seen as a cult-like belief, it's definitely not status quo).

[Belial]

Belial, unless you're positing that death is a disease, you confuse death to disease to death of old age

I'm not sure I follow you. Old age is a cause (if, sometimes, an indirect one) of death, is it not? We try to mitigate all the *other* ways we die (Accidents, violence, disease). Why is age sacrosanct, unless it's simply because we haven't had the means to do anything about it?

[Insignificant Deifaction]

@Amicita:

Apologies.

At one point in my post did I say I hadn't read the page?

Because I did.

I wasn't impressed.

[Gadren]

@Amicita:
I'm confused ... why does anything need to be similar to the status quo?

[Jc1991]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value ... extrinsic/

I've never seen a logical reason to give anything intrinsic value, including this.

All systems of morals must, ultimately, be based on a set of axioms: Things that are simply taken to be. I base mine on logic and science (because they work, certainly more so than anything else, though I would argue that only logic is fully rooted in axioms) and my personal values. This mostly boils down to "life is better than death, and knowledge is better than ignorance." From this/these axioms, I derive my disposition towards transhumanism (among other things).

There is no apparent distinctions (to me, at least) between death by old age and any other kind of death; they are all the result of the accumulation of physical damage to the point that the body can no longer sustain itself. Transhumanism is simply the natural extension of (most of) humanity's drive to fix things in the body when they are damaged. (Which is why modern medicine exists, after all.)

[Amicitia]

@Amicita:

Apologies.

At one point in my post did I say I hadn't read the page?

Because I did.

I wasn't impressed.

I don't see you redefining philosophy, that's all, and until you do so, I see no reason to listen to your dismissal of intrinsic value without basis. Besides, move it to another thread, if you decide to--defining value structures is strictly non-topical here. For the purposes of debate, logic--as opposed to ethos or pathos--is often a pretty good way to go.

There's no reason to debate what is, but what isn't.

And if you might sum it up shortly, Belial, why is life sacrosanct (since you ask the same for death)?

[Insignificant Deifaction]

I gave you my view, and I asked you to do the same, not provide someone else's.

My view? You can find it right at the first time I mentioned value.

I apologize if I seem uncooperative, but this premise is definitely at the heart of our arguments.

[Jc1991]

I don't see you redefining philosophy, that's all, and until you do so, I see no reason to listen to your dismissal of intrinsic value without basis. Besides, move it to another thread, if you decide to--defining value structures is strictly non-topical here. For the purposes of debate, logic--as opposed to ethos or pathos--is often a pretty good way to go.

Philosophy != Logic, just so you know. Philosophy is supposed to be based on the application of logic, but it isn't always. That article doesn't present a logical reason to give anything intrinsic value, so it isn't useful for the purposes of this argument. (Intrinsic value doesn't need to be challenged, as there doesn't seem to be any good reason to create it in the first place.)

[Belial]

And if you might sum it up shortly, Belial, why is life sacrosanct (since you ask the same for death)?

It isn't. You're free to kill yourself any time you like. Just like, if there were a cure for aging, you would be free to turn it down for whatever reason.

To use logic, you need presuppositions, or you can't go anywhere. I'm working from the presupposition that we like being alive, and we don't like dying. I've derived this, not logically (because deriving your presuppositions logically would necessitate a new set of presuppositions behind them), but from observation: Most people don't intentionally kill themselves or allow themselves to die, if they can reasonably avoid it. Only under extreme duress (emotional suffering, or the suffering of loved ones) or when the method of saving oneself is severely morally or physically unpalatable (eating schoolchildren, for example, or sawing one's own arm off), are people inclined to allow themselves to die, or to seek out death actively.

Therefore, given that observation, I can assume that if a human is ready and willing to give themselves over to death, as you seem to think we should to age, that one of three things is true:

a) They are under extreme duress. Perhaps life is such torture that death is their escape? Why then would they not commit suicide before aging even became a factor? And why would they try to stop anyone insane enough to want to endure that torture any longer? This can pretty much be ruled out.

b) The method of avoiding death is severely morally unpalatable. As we don't know of any morally unpalatable aspects of the cure itself, this would have to take the form of living forever in and of itself being morally unpalatable for some reason. I don't know that reason. Perhaps I am waiting for you to supply it.

c) Some other axiom unrevealed by my observation and the logic leading from it. Perhaps god doesn't like it? Or maybe aging is some extra special different case from all those other causes of death we avoid? Who knows. Again, if there is another axiom at work here, I don't have it, and I am assuming it doesn't exist unless you can show me otherwise.

So. I've laid out my logic in several different forms, and you've yet to offer even a scrap of your logic for the idea that we just *shouldn't* cure aging.

And if you find some fault with that, consider another perspective: I want to. So do a number of other people. That is reason enough, in itself, unless you have a more compelling reason why they shouldn't.

Do you?

[Amicitia]

I guess it probably would have been better to read the official article. After doing so, some flaws were evident.

I was under the impression that this was purely a thought experiment.

Since it's obviously not being construed in any such fashion, there are several problems with such an idea.

You assume human agents to be self-determinable in that we can approach such an existence, or whether such an existence exists or is possible. You first must become a god to know perfection, Belial. Not the other way around.

P.S. When I meant short, I didn't mean half a page.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Our goals may not be feasible, but that doesn't mean we should aim for anything less.

[Belial]

P.S. When I meant short, I didn't mean half a page.

I use as much text as I feel I need to make my point clearly. That point had several parts. It needed more text.

I will admit several of the parentheticals were not strictly necessary, but I figured they would save us several extra posts of clarification and such.

[Nyarlathotep]

You first must become a god to know perfection

Says who?

Besides, are there gods?

Define perfection. Define, for that matter, god.

[Pyrotix]

Transhumanism isn't "unnatural" or "opposed to the natural order of things" at all.

Someone has a disease, we find that giving them a certain plant helps cure them.

We isolate the chemical from the plant, and chemically synthesize it improving the quality of life for millions

We find injecting a gimped version of the sickness makes the body capable of fighting it in the future so they never get the disease, further improving quality of life and our ability to survive.

And it's perfectly natural; humans are naturally generated by the environment, and it's natural for us to seek to adapt ourselves and our environment to each other.

Vaccines, hearing aids, laser eye surgery (can give better the 20/20!), bionic eyes for people who are blind, are all examples of medicines that could be considered early "transhumanist." Transhumanism isn't about destroying the human condition, it is about increasing our capabilities to raise our quality of life.

Honestly I would prefer if I didn't have irregular astigmatism which makes 20/20 vision currently impossible for me even with specially made contact lenses, if I never had to get old (its just a matter of being able to A) keep hormone levels high B) lengthening cell telomeres/making sure all undifferentiated cells have telomerase C) preventing genetic errors from building and being able to eliminate cancer when it occurs D) being able to clean the veins E) preventing degradation of sensory organs (this one we've already got covered a bit with laser eye surgery and hearing aids)), and I didn't have to die not of my own will. Not dying is just a matter of keeping the body's organs functioning properly.

Alexander the Great once asked 7 philosopher 7 questions, saying he would decide their fate on the quality of their answers. To one of them he asked, how long should a man live? The philosopher replied "Until death is more desirable than life." I'm pretty sure the people here who said they wouldn't want to live forever would possibly like to live longer then they can.

Life is short. The world is big and complex, I could spend many more than one lifetime trying to explore and understand it. I will probably get jaded eventually, but transhumanism is about allowing people to live longer fuller lives. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Those who say "transhumanism is about eliminating the human condition" obviously don't understanding the very beginning of transhumanism: transhumanism is about prolonging and enriching the human condition, because for those of us who don't believe in religion, it is all we have.

[Belial]

I'm still waiting on:

-Amicitia's definition of "the human condition"
-How transhumanism conflicts with it, and why that's "bad"
-A reason why curing aging is "bad"

Preferably that don't involve bizarre, semi-relevant, and entirely unqualified aphorisms about gods.

[Gadren]

Whee! Still waiting...

Nah, just messin' with ya... there's a new Wellington Grey comic that relates:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellan ... nough.html

And I admit that at times I've fallen trap to this kind of thinking, although for me it was more of a "just wait until the Singularity" instead of fearing everything out of concern that I might not live long enough to live forever.

But even Kurzweil has said that there's a danger in being passive Singularitarians, and it may in fact hurt things in a sort of Tragedy of the Commons of inaction.

[apotheosis]

It is indeed tempting to settle into "waiting for the Singularity," but truth be told I have been waiting for it since I was seven. Not being an active participant in any of the GNR disciplines there seems to be little else I can do save wait, at least in terms of helping bring it about.

There is something lay or near-lay people can do, though. Kurzweil makes the point several times in The Singularity is Near that although the marvels of technology are racing toward us at exponentially increasing speed, we as a species appear to be nowhere near ready to accept, benefit fully, or even participate when it arrives. While he seems to count on both economies of scale and the egalitarianism of successful early adopters to drive wide access and acceptance of our post-Singularity possibilities (moving to a non-biological substrate, heretofore unimagined control of physical reality, the end of want, etc.), he essentially has to hope that neo-Luddites, multiple and varied religious convictions, and basic commerce do not prevent the event from happening.

So... I have become a sort of evangelist. Starting small, my whiskey-fueled late-night bar harangues with friends and patient strangers gave way to first suggesting the book and then actually buying copies for what I took to be interested listeners. So far I have bought and given away four. A small start but a start nonetheless.

Many interesting points have been raised in the discussion here. It is good to know there are like-minded people in the world (by which I mean "people who think about this idea" not just "people who agree with me"). It is easy to feel alone, and easy to be marginalized by ill-informed kneejerks. Easy, that is, unless one is prepared and willing to push back.

One idea I haven't seen in this thread so far is Ray's notion that what matters most is information, whether it be the data encoded in your DNA or the words that make up a novel, or for that matter an exhaustive record of the interactions among the atoms that make up that printed novel. If all data can be preserved, anything can be conjured back into physical (or virtual, but perhaps that's another thread) existence on demand. Think about all the times in your life you have upgraded your computer. What did you desperately try to migrate to the new machine? Ever change platforms? Ever lose something precious? Imagine being able to make a back-up of yourself, of your self--intellect, soul, all of it. I would do it a damn sight more often than I do back-ups now.

So really, the path to becoming ultimately transhuman (or "unnatural," as they said on DS9, or "homo superior," as they said in the X-men) is a path of reduction rather than augmentation. You must be reduced to your most basic form--your data, your central ones and zeroes--in order to migrate to a new body, or a new plane of existence.

Failing that as long as I get a few decades living as some approximation of Motoko Kusanagi I'll be happy.

[Amicitia]

I'm still waiting on:

-Amicitia's definition of "the human condition"
-How transhumanism conflicts with it, and why that's "bad"
-A reason why curing aging is "bad"

Preferably that don't involve bizarre, semi-relevant, and entirely unqualified aphorisms about gods.

You haven't presented any value or case, and I'm not doing a "bad/good" debate, because the two aren't precise terminology; thus it is impossible for me to address anything you say until you do so.

In the absence of any value stated, I'll just assume by your posts that you're going by maximization of utility--if this is true, you should have explicitly stated it.

In your case, I expect to see a definition of transhumanism, advocacy for transhumanism, justification for violating status quo, and a justification for any steps toward transhumanism.

On a related note, you must really spread a ton if you debate like this in real life. I hate spreaders.

But to answer your questions.

1,2,3. Topicality to your overlying case?

[Edit] Also, sleepy.

[Goplat]

Amicitia: You want a case for transhumanism? Here you go. I happen to think (Sorry, no justification; feel free to contradict me on this point) that killing innocent people who don't want to be killed is wrong. Banning technology that would enable immortality would mean millions - billions if you could do it for long enough - of such people would die when they would not have otherwise; i.e. killing them. Conclusion: Banning immortality is wrong. Corollary: Allowing immortality is right.

Oh, and by the way: You shouldn't need a justification to "violate" the status quo in regards to technology. In a capitalist country, private enterprise can do whatever they want that's not explicitly banned. If you think everything should be banned by default maybe you'd be more comfortable in North Korea.

[Maurog]

Uh, no, not prolonging people's life is not the same as killing them.

Otherwise, you're guilty of murder for not adopting poor children. In fact, you're guilty of murder for not *making* as many children as you can. Unless you go and make babies with every person of the other sex you've seen, you a murderer! Murderer! Listen to the cries of your unborn children! All they wanted is being born, dammit, poor innocent souls.

Right.

I do happen to think banning immortality is wrong, but for the more mundane reason of not seeing anything bad about it.

[Goplat]

Uh, no, not prolonging people's life is not the same as killing them.

Right. It's not the same. But banning others from prolonging people's lives is the same as killing, since that involves an actual action deviating from just doing the default of leaving the laws as they are.

In fact, you're guilty of murder for not *making* as many children as you can.

Nope. I don't care about "potential life", only existing life. Your argument would only hold water if I opposed abortion (which I don't).

[KevorkianKat]

Removing the immortality argument would make this discussion a lot easier.

How about if I just want to extend my life for a hideously long period of time?

Has the Kardashev scale been brought up yet? It's more about extending our survivability beyond new challenges. Our basic 'cyberpunk' understanding of transhumanism would simply extend our lifespan to that of our biological needs. Beyond that, the next extension would provide us immunity to the extinction of our sun. The next step would be our small nebula, then galaxy and so on.

There's quite a bit we don't know about our own solar system, much less our galaxy or the universe itself. Given the idea that we could explore them face to face in enhanced H+ form some day gives me hope that there will not be any possible way to be "bored" with our universe for QUITE some time.

[Amicitia]

Transhumanism is officially defined as:

"The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."
(WTA FAQ)

Those who disagree either negate the possibility or desirability of such measures. One of the motions I'm debating is the possibility of such measures, a.k.a, skepticism towards the efficacy of transhumanism on benefiting the human race.

The human condition is deeply involved with the unique aspects of humanity--anyone advocating the transhumanist cause is under the burden of identifying every aspect of the human condition precisely, as they seek to improve it.

[Belial]

Don't know what a "spreader" is, and don't muchly care. Getting back to the point, essentially, you've said that it's fine for you to belittle an idea, and imply that it should be avoided, without offering reasons, defining your terms, or justifying yourself in the slightest.

Productive.

[Amicitia]

Don't know what a "spreader" is, and don't muchly care. Getting back to the point, essentially, you've said that it's fine for you to belittle an idea, and imply that it should be avoided, without offering reasons, defining your terms, or justifying yourself in the slightest.

Productive.

Without referencing to what I've actually said, you insult me, and invective has no place here.

Which is odd, since you're a mod. Course, if one can't really address any of the points I've brought up, and you can't be reprimanded, ad hominem is probably the best way to go. I've presented them numerous times, and you have ignored them numerous times.

[Jc1991]

-Amicitia's definition of "the human condition"
-How transhumanism conflicts with it, and why that's "bad"
-A reason why curing aging is "bad"

1,2,3. Topicality to your overlying case?

I would imagine that:
1. You keep on talking about "the human condition." You need to define this, as taken generally the human condition includes A. having two arms and B. being sentient, and those two things are on vastly different scales.

2. You also keep on insisting that transhumanism conflicts with this "human condition." Again, how so? And why is this bad? Remember, the status quo isn't a magical source of logical justification. If you think that violating the status quo is bad, tell us why. If you can't, it isn't a valid defense.

3. That's fairly self explanatory. You insist that curing aging is bad. Why?

You also obviously know why these three points are topical, as you keep on mentioning them in relation to transhumanism. If you don't want to talk about them, don't bring them up.

In your case, I expect to see a definition of transhumanism, advocacy for transhumanism, justification for violating status quo, and a justification for any steps toward transhumanism.

You've already found a definition of transhumanism, so I won't go over it again.
As for advocacy/justification, we think that life is better than death, and that increasing productivity, efficiency, and overall ability is a good thing. These two points are generally agreed upon (by most of the world, really. The entire point of technology is increasing ability, and modern medicine only exists because we don't like people dieing unless we happen to be in a war), so you're going to have to come up with a reason that they are either not good or actively bad. We need no justification for violating the status quo, as violation of the status quo is the basis for modern civilization. (Also, see above.)

[Owijad]

I just read through the whole thread looking for what you say you've presented, and I couldn't find it. Would you mind repeating yourself just one more time?

[Belial]

Without referencing to what I've actually said, you insult me, and invective has no place here.

Which is odd, since you're a mod. Course, if one can't really address any of the points I've brought up, and you can't be reprimanded, ad hominem is probably the best way to go. I've presented them numerous times, and you have ignored them numerous times.

No. Ad hominem is when I insult you for something unrelated, and then imply, for example, that because you're the type of idiot who doesn't know what "ad hominem" means but likes to use big, complicated words in places that only sound appropriate to people even more idiotic than yourself, then therefore your points (should we ever discover any) about transhumanism are invalid.

Before ^that paragraph, the only case of ad hominem I can locate was when you started calling me bizarre names.

When I point out the deficiencies in your rather confrontational style of argument (which seems to consist mostly of explaining why you don't have to argue, you just get to assert that you're right), I'm insulting your argument on the basis of your argument. What you *wanted* to say was that I didn't source it properly. I assumed we both knew what I was talking about.

My bad.

[Maurog]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that transhumanism is bad for you, because once you improve yourself to have four arms, you're no longer human.

[Okita]

I have this sort of secret idea/mini-fear that when the singularity/ trans-humanism occurs, no one will recognize it as such.

Anyway, there are a bunch of TED talks about the subject, one of which is Aubrey deGrey talking about aging. Pretty interesting although his beard is a bit distracting.

[Nyarlathotep]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that transhumanism is bad for you, because once you improve yourself to have four arms, you're no longer human.

Meh. I'm tired of being human anyway.

[Dark Ragnarok]

I have this sort of secret idea/mini-fear that when the singularity/ trans-humanism occurs, no one will recognize it as such.

Anyway, there are a bunch of TED talks about the subject, one of which is Aubrey deGrey talking about aging. Pretty interesting although his beard is a bit distracting.[/url]

We're evolving ^-^;

[Mr. Samsa]

@Amicita:

Holy mindfuck, Batman! I don't mean to sound offensive or rude, but I'm having a lot of trouble trying to figure out what exactly it is that you're on about.. If it's okay I'd like to just run through some of your points, as briefly as I can, with my understanding below..

First argument against Transhumanism:

But how does one stop the decay of creativity?

- I'm not sure if this was a reason against transhumanism, or just a general question that is somewhat related. I can kind of see where your intial questioning came from, you believe that with age our creativity decreases and you argue that if we were to live significantly longer/ forever through transhumanism, then we would essentially lose our creativity. This was rebutted by Belial, who made the point that even if this were to be the case then our creativity would decay at the same rate, regardless of how long we live. In other words, extending our lifespan from 80-500 years would not change the fact that our creativity (and other cognitive functions) begins to decay at around 30 years of age. And I'm sure that someone else commented saying that this decay is almost certainly a physiological effect (I can't seem to find the post though..) and so this would mean that Transhumanism would not only be 'immune' to the decay of creativity (since, in theory, the technology would be able to slow down or fix the degradation of cells in the brain) but it would also increase creativity since we would live longer.

Second argument against Transhumanism:

Okay, I just read an article on transhumanism, and they're just idiots who think that the human condition is purely bad and must be remedied. Right?

So what's valuable about transhumanism?

- (i) I can't say for certain what is or isn't implied with transhumanism, but I think I would definitely have to agree that they believe suffering, disease and dying involuntarily are all bad things, and so logically it follows that they would like to stop all these things. Your definition of the 'human condition' here is obviously directed at the disease/suffering/dying aspect of being human, as it is impossible to 'remedy' (read as: remove aspects of) the human condition since the human condition is anything a human experiences, so the 'remedy' (created by humans) would become part of the human condition which would fuel it further rather than 'remedy' it, and so forth. And in that case, then yes, they are trying to remove negative aspects of the human body, and I think most people are okay with that since most people are okay with doctors remedying it all the time.

(ii) I think most people agree that the value of transhumanism is the removal of most of the things that make people's lives suck and an almost boundless possibility of knowledge and life and experience ahead of them. I mean.. uh.. did I miss your point completely because the answer seems far too simplistic?... And as Belial pointed out, value is subjective so the point is essentially pointless in a public debate.

And then you present a link which argues that extrinsic value is dependent upon intrinsic values. I'm assuming that your reason for linking this was that even if values are subjective (extrinsic to transhumanism), the subjective values are ultimately derived from these intrinsic values. This is an interesting idea, and quite possibly true, but I don't understand what your point is? Are you suggesting that for us to have extrinsic value attached to transhumanism (or anything for that matter) that these must stem from it's own value? I think I'm missing something, because to me that doesn't really change anything? Of course, we could never know what transhumanism's actual intrinsic value is, but the closest we can get is by examining our extrinsic values placed upon it - which say transhumanism is good (assuming that suffering, disease and dying have negative intrinsic and extrinsic values). Jc1991 presents better arguments than I do..

Third argument against Transhumanism:

Belial, unless you're positing that death is a disease, you confuse death to disease to death of old age. The fact that the belief is little more of a cult phenomena is proof enough that it's not within the limits of status quo.

Gnophilist posits that immortality is valuable in that it maximizes the "opportunity to discover and construct knowledge" (I can live with that argument, if not that reality). He also agreed that there would need to be a "paradigm shift" in order for society to move away from the current naturalistic paradigm (seeing as transhumanism is seen as a cult-like belief, it's definitely not status quo).

- I think you missed Belial's point that death from age can be cured similar to that of death by disease, so the two become analogous. And then you state that because it's only a belief then it's not within the limits of the status quo, which I'm guessing is a reference to Belial's argument that most people see death as bad since they avoid it? I don't really see the problem or objection here. People will need to think differently when presented with the opportunity to live forever without pain and suffering - that goes without saying though doesn't it? I mean, I'm sure putting a couple of guys in a big metal ship and firing them out of the blue sky wasn't the status quo before the 60s.. Status quo literally means the state of things at present, so obviously something in the future isn't status quo. Unless you were referring to the british rock band Status Quo, and then your post seems a little random but, funnily enough, it makes more sense.

Fourth argument against Transhumanism:

And if you might sum it up shortly, Belial, why is life sacrosanct (since you ask the same for death)?

-As he put it, it isn't. Nobody has argued that life should be treated any differently from anything else despite logical contradictions. Death appears to have been put on a pedestal, so that even though it holds no purpose any more, people seem to cling on to it as if it's the last natural thing about being human. When, in reality, it hasn't been natural since we stepped out of the ocean and started bandaging wounds etc. Belial argues that life isn't sacrosanct, it's just preferred to death. (This is argued for much better in his post).

Fifth argument against Transhumanism:

You assume human agents to be self-determinable in that we can approach such an existence, or whether such an existence exists or is possible. You first must become a god to know perfection, Belial. Not the other way around.

- The first sentence seems like a very awkward sentence, but I think you were saying that people aren't able to decide on what to improve and what to leave human, correct? I, uh.. I think that transhumanists want to get rid of all the stuff that has been quoted a million times in this thread alone, not to mention in the all the links and the definition of transhumanism itself. I don't know if that's considered perfection, it's definitely an improvement to life though. As for the whole God comment... [citation needed]...

Sixth argument against Transhumanism:

In the absence of any value stated, I'll just assume by your posts that you're going by maximization of utility--if this is true, you should have explicitly stated it.

In your case, I expect to see a definition of transhumanism, advocacy for transhumanism, justification for violating status quo, and a justification for any steps toward transhumanism.

- (i) By maximisation of utility, you're referring to 'live longer, do more, suffer less' right? I think you are correct in your assumption that Belial is going by maximisation of utility, or rather, the essential definition of transhumanism.

(ii) There is a definition in the link in the first post of the thread.

(iii) As stated earlier, the status quo is just the current state of affairs. The fact that there aren't protest groups set up to 'Ban the Tran[humans]' would be sufficient to assume that it does not violate the status quo, but rather it just simply hasn't become a part of it yet.

(iv) Uh.. This is the point where my head feels like it's going to explode. Justification for any steps toward transhumanism? You mean apart from all of the ones noted in this thread? Or did you just want Belial to personally sift through them all for you? I'm not trying to come across as a dick here, I'm honestly just trying to get my head around your point.

I apologise for uh, spreading, and this huge post, I understand if I've made no valid point what-so-ever and it has to be deleted, but I am just so curious as to what Amicitia's point is. You've made a number of posts on this thread so far, and I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about at all. And I want to know, because you seem so adamant that everybody else is wrong and you know something nobody else does. Again, I'm not trying to sound like a patronising dick, but can you please just post one simple, logical reason for your viewpoint? (Maybe preceded by what your viewpoint actually is).