/philosophy/ - Philosophy

I rather like the current human aesthetics so I'd like it if that didnt change but the internals improved, biological immortality isnt too much of an impossibility.

For me it's all about human optimization. Particularly stuff like Nootropics and/or tDCS.

Eventually backing myself up to a server farm would be cool, but I'm more interested in what's practical right now.

>>84
Hmm, I will have to look Nootropics and tDCS up.

Yeah, I would also like to see practial thinks. Especially the post scarcity.

Can we make a transhuman political movement to achieve our goals? What has to be done for success os such a mission?

>>81
>btw, is this a sfw board?
Yes. Let's try and keep it sfw so more people are able to join the discussion.

>>87
It is just one little tit… but ok, I shall keep that in mind

Not trying to be inflammatory, I just want to post a differing opinion.

For me, there are too many assumptions in regards to transhumanism for me to consider it a strong possibility within our own lifetimes, let alone a good thing.

For example, in regards to digitizing our consciousness, what evidence is there that neuroscience will be advanced enough for us to reduce ourselves into algorithms within our lifetimes? Given the fact that we don't currently understand what it would take to replicate our minds in computers, why should I believe that computing technology will be advanced enough within our lifetimes? I know Moore's law is very real, but there is an upper limit to the number of silicon based transistors you can put into a microchip, and when that limit is reached, classical computers will become a mature technology. Why should I believe that the computers that will replace them will become not only sufficient, but available for public use?

In regards to achieving biological immortality, why should I assume that not only will the technology be created within our lifetimes, but also available for public use and cheap enough for the average person?

Not to sound like Alex Jones, but even if all of these conditions are met, why should I assume that uploading my consciousness would be a good thing? When data is being harvested by governments the way it is, wouldn't they want to copy and take your digitized consciousness?

In addition, how could a political movement be made now when the integration of many fields of science is required and when these possibilities are decades into the future at minimum? It seems a bit farfetched.

Again, not trying to be inflammatory, but there seems to be an underlying element of faith in transhumanism, and until questions are answered, I'm not willing to accept that it will give us utopia.

Read a paper the other day in the Journal of Medicine and philosophy that argued since a lot of morality was genetically based, the first thing we would need to do to achieve transhumanism is upgrade our morality.

>>99
>thanks for opinion
No problem. Even though I'm more skeptical, I'm always happy to have civilized discussion.

>If you know that you will face a problem, you should start preparing for it, right?

Technological progress is of course both inevitable and exponential, and it's only logical to assume that as it advances we will integrate it into ourselves more and more. But in your opinion, how exactly will the merging of man and machine stave off problems like nuclear war, global warming, a possible machine take over during the singularity, etc? Just wondering what you think.

>>104
Not that anon, but different problems require different solutions.

Transhumanism is for easing or even stopping the symptoms of the human condition, and perhaps if the universe has laid the cards just right, even allowing us to (At least partially) free ourselves of the human condition itself.

Have an European Parliament document on Human Enhancement:

https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf

A highly recommended reading for anyone not wishing to talk out of his ass on the subject of transhumanism.

As I see it, transhumanism aims to liberate mankind from its biological constrains. I would like to support that.

But there are two kinds of transhumanists: the naive scifi fan who believes that technology will fix all our problems, and the young billionaire who spends money on actual research. As new technology is quite expensive, only the second group will have the opportunity to actually change their bodies, and I don't think they will want to share with us. The rich already tend to think that the poor is worthless, and with their new, superior bodies, they will actually have a reason to claim that. I would like to think that they will give up their new competitive advantages, but according to history a new aristocracy or caste system is much more likely.

What do you see under the term?

The mix of biology and technology with the goal of going beyond human nature and even nature itself by eventually avoiding death.

What is transhumanism for you?

The future of humanity.

Can humanity ascend above istself with the help of technology?

The fear of death being the root of many of man's decision, going beyond it would change drastically our nature. But will we ascend ? Or descend ?

Can we achieve biological immortality, post-scarcity and colonize the space and what can be done to achieve those?

I believe it is possible to achieve immortality through technology, but when it comes to colonize space, I doubt mankind will ever reach that point of evolution of civilizations.

are you guys contributing to the basilisk?

>>157
whats the basilisk? link?

It is a very naive view because the problems of humanity are not solvable by technology.
We can make our lives more bearable but our never ending search for meaning and the struggle with crushing loneliness and anxiety cannot be solved in a convenient way, likely not even a rational way.
if anything has become clear to me thanks to the wide spread of information and easy-access entertainment, it's that they do not bring happiness at the end of the day.

>>171
I see it as future because it's an evidence, some people already gave robotic arms after they lost their real ones in an accident, it won't take long until it becomes a normal procedure for richer people ? With the advancement of technology it'll be easier and cheaper to replace lost limbs with machines. Then, what will stop men from replacing limbs that are still working perfectly ? Many will not accept that, but some are ready right now.

>>171
>If we bring about a change in society, we can have transhumanism for all.
Yes, but most transhumanists seem to ignore this. Or at least I've never seen anyone except "anarcho-transhumanists" talking about it.

>>171
You faggots are going to have the same problem Marxism had, which is that you fundamentally fail to grasp human nature and you're not even willing to admit it.
Enjoy your techno-AIDS and computational cancer.

So what is you guys oppinion on this article for example?
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.hu/2010/10/why-we-dont-need-transhumanism.html

I tend to agree with it especially on that most of the time it is just way too much naive sentiments involved with it and that true immortality would be way too fucking boring past a certain point.
I know that during my lifetime I can only experiance a finite number of things, therefore my decisions have value to me on a personal level.

Still I have nothing againts having extra ways for humans to replace organs and limbs, it is inevitable either way.

For what purpose?

>>387
>true immortality is boring
I agree anon, true immortality is more of a curse than a blessing. However, biological immortality is hardly such a horrible thing. Those who want simple BIOLOGICAL immortality are those who wish not to have their bodies and minds decay. They can certainly be claimed by sudden illness, human hostility and/or negligence, and general tragedy that befalls many people every day. Asking for such is not asking to deny fate, it is asking to force fate to take action to finally strike us down for good.

And I agree that, in multiple views of it, transhumanism is an unneeded thing. We already strive to improve ourselves in every way we can, transhumanism or not, and those stuck in their science fantasy delusions filled with flying cars aren't going to snap out of it any time soon.



And since I'm posting, I wanna bring something up. It was only barely mentioned about in the article but I want to bring up one of the most common arguments (often applied because of "just like in my cyberpunk stories!" transhumanists), which is that of de-humanization. I understand the issues people have with it, as they're afraid that when you take away the human aspect, you take away the person aspect. But are we really? Lets take the term of person and explore it for a bit. If I asked you what a person was, you would say a human being. You and I are human beings, we are sapient. I cannot point to a human being that is not sapient and ask you if that's a person, nor can I find a sapient non-human to ask you if it's a person. But what about when we start altering ourselves to the point where we are no longer human, yet are still sapient? The idea of a person will have to adapt. If you redefine a person as a sapient human being, what do you call a non-human sapient? Are they lumped together with the non-sapients and called an animal? Will you make a brand new term for it? What's different if you call them a robo-person or a furry-person or whatever bullshit happens to come first? What if we bring the intelligence of an animal up to the sapient level, like say dolphins? We start having conversations and even give them a special computer with internet access for them to use, so they can shitpost and call people faggots like the rest of us. Do they include other dolphins when they call people faggots? The dolphin would certainly think so, as people are something you talk to, and he talks to dolphins (and through his flipper-slapping on his underwater keyboard, he talks to humans too). If you can tell that dolphin shitposter that they are not a person, then I can certainly tell YOU that you aren't a person. And really, how would you tell that they were a dolphin if they posted on here, right now, in English. You wouldn't, you would see a person posting about other people being stupid faggots. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and there are some crazy assholes who will become just that once technology allows. Transhumanism for me is prepping for a world of people, not just humans.

You're gonna die anyway, sooner or later, and it's all the same when that moment comes, whether you lived for ten, 100, or 1000 years. Try looking for a bearable life now instead of trying to extend your life, like the answer will somehow come naturally, or like transhumanism, which you really know nothing at all about, will magically solve anything important.

I get annoyed by the presupposed ultimate value of the human specie. Humanity is the new Christianity for the modern age. We need to see what we really are form an evolutionary perspective and accept that we are an animal with very slight variations in genetical code from sibling species. Technology should be used for the sake of the alleviation of suffering in all sentient beings imo. Transhumanism's sole focus is Humanity and mostly towards first world population that would benefit from this techno-bio changes simply for esthetically and selfish reasons. They dont have in mind the ongoing tortures, pains and real suffering taht is going on on Earth in this very moment. They are in their little bubble of futuristic fantasy that would potentially help humans. So yeah I think we ought to reconsidering what is the real value in this existance and its the reduction of suffering not to live 100000 to satisfy psycho-evolutionary needs like
eating macdonalds and having bondage sex. sry for rant

>>70
What do you see under the term?
The presumption that machines are gonna fix men's problems. The idea that changing the form of humanity will change it's essence. The presumption that changing the nature of humans will necessarily make it better.

I see a presumptuous word.

What is transhumanism for you?
A presumptuous ideology. A logical extension of the capitalist mindset where the body of men will eventually be something that can be obsolete, and will therefore need to be replaced with newer material, material that some people are gonna be able to buy where others won't.

In a way transhumanism is a very selfish idea.
>I'll reach immortality (presumption) therefore all problems will be solved.

Can humanity ascend above itself with the help of technology?
Define ascension first. Humanity can change with the "help" of technology. But ascending would mean getting above something else, what is the else? Have you found the true essence of the human nature?

Can we achieve biological immortality, post-scarcity and colonize the space and what can be done to achieve those?
>post-scarcity
That is really more of a political and economical issue. There is no real scarcity in the world it's all a matter of what we want not what really exists.

>colonize the space
We've already been in space. Not far but far enough to say that in due time we'll be able to travel in space more easily and as history teaches us whenever there is open space, humans go in and colonize.

>biological immortality
Is it really desirable? Sure prolonging your life seems like a dream, but never dying seems much more like a nightmare to me. I guess it depends on the goal… But if your goal is the object of life, won't you condemn yourself to an eternity of subjectivity?

>>171
> I would be rather lonely demigod then a lonely corporate slave
Epictetus would disagree. A slave can still be free. Can a demigod, elevated by technology, be free as well if that very elevation is a spiteful strife against his very being? By all means, do science to improve the world, to ease the life of human beings, but a naive dream of one day being above everything else is doomed to fail.

I fail to see how transhumanism belongs on a board about philosophy.

Now, we can presuppose that the ideals of transhumanism are a logical progression in the evolution of humanity, and frankly I think that's just obvious.

Whether or not the ideals of transhumanism are scientifically possible or at least likely to be achieved in our lifetimes, however, is a practical matter than depends on scientific evidence. Transhumanism is largely a faith-based movement. There just isn't any fucking hard scientific evidence right now that any of the technological advancements transhumanism is speculating about will happen.

>>556
You have to understand that a lot of the time when someone talks about transhumanism, they're really talking about the fancy implants/robot arms in cyberpunk movies/games/stories.

>>561
I realize that. Hence my not-so-subtle point that transhumanism doesn't belong in serious discourse. It is a "movement" and therefore more political and faith-based than something which has been accepted as objective fact.

I agree with transhumanism's ideals on principle and don't think there needs to be any sort of movement for it - especially not when a lot of its projected technological advancements aren't certain to exist within our lifetimes - but that's not to say I'm not excited about the possibilities of cybernetic augmentations and being /cyber/ IRL. But the only real interesting intellectual content subsumed in transhumanism's ideals are the scientific ones - since only the most ignorant of people would deny that cybernetic augmentation is the logical progression of human evolution, and therefore not needing of philosophical discourse.

But as I've already said, even the scientific features of transhumanism are currently dubious pending further research and technological progression.

I'm just confused as to why this was posted on /philosophy/ in the first place. It seems like the people who have been posting about transhumanism have a shallow understanding of what philosophy is.

Humans aren't necessary. Transhumanism is a joke, sentient technology doesn't need us.

>>70
I think it's a can of worms humanity isn't ready to open yet. I see the benefits in at least bionics; giving sight to the blind, hearing to the def, and cripples like Hotwheels the ability to walk. But are civilization can't even talk about gender politics or religion without a black eye, bloody nose, and someone crashing a plane into a building. What makes one think the "Bionic vs Purest" argument would fare any better?