Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Trotskylvania]

The "law" of accelerating returns is not a law. There is no reason to extrapolate beyond our current circumstances, nor assume that more intelligent beings could research, hypothesize and experiment significantly faster. Kurzweill is an engineer, not a scientist, and in his ignorance he blindly assumes that intelligence is a major factor in scientific advancement. It really isn't. More scientific advancements have been made by blithering idiots going through the motions, and paying attention to rigor, peer review, etc., then have been made by geniuses.

A source for intelligence not being a factor in scientific advances? Do you refute that we have been getting progressively more intelligent at least throughout recent history?

Science advances not because of innate intelligence, but because of long hours of careful, hard work by scientists, engineers and technicians. Being smarter isn't going to make your experiment complete any faster, nor is it going to make the process of replication and peer review any faster.

[AETEN II]

I generally agree, but if it comes to fruition...its horrifying.

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Not to mention advance them and give them a considerable advantage in being able to avoid the destruction of their planet when the Sun blows up.

The idea that Transhumanism is evil is silly, senseless, and simply illogical. There is no reason behind it besides ignorant hatred of advancement and fear of the Status Quo changing.

[Olivaero]

So, why do you think integration of technology into human biology is "magical thinking"?

Because when you go from Could to WILL and then ask for not one amazing breakthrough but several thousand incredible advancements and scientific breakthroughs and assume you know what they will look like you go from making a plausible statement into something as fictional as any other story.

When you ask me what the next generation in computer technology may look like, I have some ideas.

When you ask me what it will look like 20 or 30 generations out, I can't really say and I don't believe anyone who thinks they can.

This is like a weak induction fallacy.

I dont understand the Could-to-Will problem. We have a good idea of what human thought processes look like already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography the "jump" you think transhumanism needs to go through is a simple refinement of those interpretations what scientific "breakthroughs" do you think needs to happen?

[Bottle]

The "law" of accelerating returns is not a law. There is no reason to extrapolate beyond our current circumstances, nor assume that more intelligent beings could research, hypothesize and experiment significantly faster. Kurzweill is an engineer, not a scientist, and in his ignorance he blindly assumes that intelligence is a major factor in scientific advancement. It really isn't. More scientific advancements have been made by blithering idiots going through the motions, and paying attention to rigor, peer review, etc., then have been made by geniuses.

A source for intelligence not being a factor in scientific advances? Do you refute that we have been getting progressively more intelligent at least throughout recent history?

Just to interject some neuroscience here:

Humanity is, on the whole, smarter now than we have ever been in history, if only due to the improved sanitation and nutrition which allow a far larger number of us to survive to adulthood (thus increasing the odds that a given genius will make it out of diapers and go on to be brilliant), and to do so in vastly greater health than previous generations could hope for.

Malnutrition and parasite infection in infants commonly results in permanent cognitive deficits. You can literally raise a population's IQ by providing ringworm treatment and fresh veggies.

Note that none of this means our "genes" are better, or that we are innately smarter, it just means that most of our species' history has been one of privation and high infant mortality. By reducing these factors we are allowing more individuals to develop to their full potential.

[Trollgaard]

I generally agree, but if it comes to fruition...its horrifying.

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

[Olivaero]

A source for intelligence not being a factor in scientific advances? Do you refute that we have been getting progressively more intelligent at least throughout recent history?

Science advances not because of innate intelligence, but because of long hours of careful, hard work by scientists, engineers and technicians. Being smarter isn't going to make your experiment complete any faster, nor is it going to make the process of replication and peer review any faster.

Access to information is a major factor of peer review, and as a matter of fact peer review through electronic transmission of ideas has gotten faster in the last 20 years through the medium of the internet. I don't understand what you mean "innate intelligence" having access to more knowledge and better computational software makes you more able to process data and accurately assess the truth of information received thus more intelligent.

[Natapoc]

Because when you go from Could to WILL and then ask for not one amazing breakthrough but several thousand incredible advancements and scientific breakthroughs and assume you know what they will look like you go from making a plausible statement into something as fictional as any other story.

When you ask me what the next generation in computer technology may look like, I have some ideas.

When you ask me what it will look like 20 or 30 generations out, I can't really say and I don't believe anyone who thinks they can.

This is like a weak induction fallacy.

I dont understand the Could-to-Will problem. We have a good idea of what human thought processes look like already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography the "jump" you think transhumanism needs to go through is a simple refinement of those interpretations what scientific "breakthroughs" do you think needs to happen?

It's a simple refinement huh? Well if you can solve the problem you are going to be the richest person in the world. Go do it!

Figure out what simple refinement is necessary, Go grab some investors together and don't come back till you do.

Or if you prefer, simply discover the needed "simple refinement" and publish it on the web free for all humans for collective benefit (Obviously I prefer you do this option)

Anyway, what are you waiting for? If you think it's just a simple refinement go do it!

ps. There is a huge difference between measuring electrical activity and actually understanding and recreating it in a context that is usable for what you want.

[Trotskylvania]

Because when you go from Could to WILL and then ask for not one amazing breakthrough but several thousand incredible advancements and scientific breakthroughs and assume you know what they will look like you go from making a plausible statement into something as fictional as any other story.

When you ask me what the next generation in computer technology may look like, I have some ideas.

When you ask me what it will look like 20 or 30 generations out, I can't really say and I don't believe anyone who thinks they can.

This is like a weak induction fallacy.

I dont understand the Could-to-Will problem. We have a good idea of what human thought processes look like already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography the "jump" you think transhumanism needs to go through is a simple refinement of those interpretations what scientific "breakthroughs" do you think needs to happen?

We have only the foggiest idea what any of the signals in the brain mean. We don't know how the neurons interact to send the signals except in the most general terms. The basic biomechanics are understood, but how to even read the content of the signals, let alone simulate it, is something we haven't the foggiest idea of how to do.

Basic case-in-point: transhumanism's biggest proponent are all computer engineers, who treat all other problems, particularly neurology, as a special case of computer engineering. Neurologists, on the other hand, are far more skeptical of our ability to fully understand the human brain in basic theory, let alone develop practical application, in the near future.

[Greater Pokarnia]

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

I think the point of transhumanism is to use it on every human. There wouldn't be normal humans to be rendered obsolete- we'd all be partof the process.

[Bottle]

A source for intelligence not being a factor in scientific advances? Do you refute that we have been getting progressively more intelligent at least throughout recent history?

Science advances not because of innate intelligence, but because of long hours of careful, hard work by scientists, engineers and technicians. Being smarter isn't going to make your experiment complete any faster, nor is it going to make the process of replication and peer review any faster.

This is like saying that innate ability is not a factor in Olympic athletes.

Yes, training is major factor, and arguably may be a bigger factor than any innate trait. But innate traits DO factor in.

The brain is just another body part. Some people's brains are better at certain tasks, just like some people's legs are longer, or some people's skin is less vulnerable to sunburn, or anything else.

As someone of average intelligence who spent about a decade working in science surrounded by profoundly brilliant people, let me assure you: intelligence matters.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

well i think my solution, which i shall refer to as "digitization" is a good solution. with the ability to 'reproduce' in the form of copying code from two participants and the addition of an AI maybe (as combining the AI with the code segments would be like a sperm with the egg.)

it would eliminate the need for food (though we can have it as a luxury) as well as allowing humanity to focus more on the scientific expansion of humanity as well as anything else required.

the only major expenses would be the constant construction of computer's (maybe even Quantum computers.) for storage of people and military for all the xeno who will think we are evil AI

[AETEN II]

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

[Napkiraly]

How is it horrifying? All you said was it would threaten humanities apex predator status. How would it? Explain how, if humans are the ones being altered, that they could threaten the status of THEIR OWN SPECIES?

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

Compared to our ancestors of tens of thousands of years ago, we already are transhumans.

[Regnum Dominae]

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

I think the point of transhumanism is to use it on every human. There wouldn't be normal humans to be rendered obsolete- we'd all be partof the process.

No one would be forced to participate.

[Trotskylvania]

Science advances not because of innate intelligence, but because of long hours of careful, hard work by scientists, engineers and technicians. Being smarter isn't going to make your experiment complete any faster, nor is it going to make the process of replication and peer review any faster.

Access to information is a major factor of peer review, and as a matter of fact peer review through electronic transmission of ideas has gotten faster in the last 20 years through the medium of the internet. I don't understand what you mean "innate intelligence" having access to more knowledge and better computational software makes you more able to process data and accurately assess the truth of information received thus more intelligent.

There are incremental improvements, not the radical changes predicted by you singulatarians. Perhaps we'll have more incremental improvements in the future, but perhaps not. And such improvements are likely going to have diminishing returns.

[Olivaero]

A source for intelligence not being a factor in scientific advances? Do you refute that we have been getting progressively more intelligent at least throughout recent history?

Just to interject some neuroscience here:

Humanity is, on the whole, smarter now than we have ever been in history, if only due to the improved sanitation and nutrition which allow a far larger number of us to survive to adulthood (thus increasing the odds that a given genius will make it out of diapers and go on to be brilliant), and to do so in vastly greater health than previous generations could hope for.

Malnutrition and parasite infection in infants commonly results in permanent cognitive deficits. You can literally raise a population's IQ by providing ringworm treatment and fresh veggies.

Note that none of this means our "genes" are better, or that we are innately smarter, it just means that most of our species' history has been one of privation and high infant mortality. By reducing these factors we are allowing more individuals to develop to their full potential.

That was not quite the argument I was aiming for but it is certainly another angle. I was making a connection between our ability process and compute data and intelligence, but this has been a factor also.

[AETEN II]

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

Compared to our ancestors of tens of thousands of years ago, we already are transhumans.

We're not even 'pure human' anymore by the technical sense, as we interbred with the other hominids in Africa, Europe, and Asia. Defining human as the species is retarded. We have Homo sapiens for that. 'Human' is a philosophical concept, a state of being that can be lost.

[The Emerald Legion]

Access to information is a major factor of peer review, and as a matter of fact peer review through electronic transmission of ideas has gotten faster in the last 20 years through the medium of the internet. I don't understand what you mean "innate intelligence" having access to more knowledge and better computational software makes you more able to process data and accurately assess the truth of information received thus more intelligent.

There are incremental improvements, not the radical changes predicted by you singulatarians. Perhaps we'll have more incremental improvements in the future, but perhaps not. And such improvements are likely going to have diminishing returns.

Transhumanism=/= Singulatarians.

[Natapoc]

Access to information is a major factor of peer review, and as a matter of fact peer review through electronic transmission of ideas has gotten faster in the last 20 years through the medium of the internet. I don't understand what you mean "innate intelligence" having access to more knowledge and better computational software makes you more able to process data and accurately assess the truth of information received thus more intelligent.

There are incremental improvements, not the radical changes predicted by you singulatarians. Perhaps we'll have more incremental improvements in the future, but perhaps not. And such improvements are likely going to have diminishing returns.

Technological improvement is also not predictable past a couple years with any degree of accuracy at all. We may be able to say: Science will probably advance. But we can't really confidently how or when or what area.

[Trotskylvania]

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

Compared to our ancestors of tens of thousands of years ago, we already are transhumans.

Only in the most meaningless, trivial sense. All species are "transitional" species, so the bare definition of transhuman as "transitional human" is entirely vacuous. We need something more to make a transhuman have any meaning.

[Natapoc]

No one would be forced to participate.

Putting aside for a moment everything else, How can you make statements about what future people may or may not force each-other to do with fictional yet to be invented technology.

[Trotskylvania]

There are incremental improvements, not the radical changes predicted by you singulatarians. Perhaps we'll have more incremental improvements in the future, but perhaps not. And such improvements are likely going to have diminishing returns.

Transhumanism=/= Singulatarians.

The person I am talking to is a singulatarian. Don't butt in and presume to instruct me on something I am already more than aware of.

Also, don't capitalize them, it gives more gravitas to these ideas than they deserve, and puts them on the same level as religion.

[Bottle]

Because they wouldn't really be human anymore, they being radically altered transhumans. They would render normal humans obsolete, and obsolete species go extinct.

We, we being normals, would be creodonts in a carnivores world. Now, creodonts were badass and did very well, and competed against carnivores for millions of years, but over that time they gradually diminished until eventually vanishing.

I would not see humanity go that rout over by our own choice.

Hey. There's this really cool thing called EVOLUTION.

That's the whole point of it genius, or are you completely missing the point of transhumanism? We must evolve and advance past our current condition if we wish to survive for simply a couple million more years, let alone a billion years. That's the point of life. Those that stay behind and stagnate die, only those that advance and adapt continue to live, albeit as a new species. We'd however remain just as 'human' before in the philosophical sense, only superior.

That's not how evolution works.

There are countless species which have remained fundamentally unchanged for tens of millions of years. If an organism is well suited for its niche, then it doesn't particularly "need" to change. One might argue that humans have even less need to change than most species on this planet, due to our habit of adapting our environments to us.

There's no particular reason we "must" change in any particular way. We will evolve, because evolution simply refers to the change in life over time (regardless of how big or how small), but the way in which we evolve may or may not be "toward" any particular end.

[Chinese Regions]

EVIL WACKJOBS

Get kindly leave your PC.

[Krazakistan]

Evolution has given us brains, brains that can think, we are not discarding evolution we are using its gift to us; innovation.

Pretty much this.