Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Ostroeuropa]

The working class, if they bother getting political, are typically either led by Intelligentsia working class individuals (Who are as likely to be transhumanist as not) or by the middle class

Intelligentsia =/= in favour of transhumanism. Many religious people, particularly religious intellectuals or community leaders may be violently opposed to many transhumanists on very clear religious grounds (a good freind of mine for instance is the most moderate muslim I know, and yet he is opposed to transhumanism on the beleif that the body is Sacred to Allah). Unless we are on different worlds, whilst atheism is certainly on the rise there is still an overwhelming amount of even the moderatly religious who are going to be opposed to the idea.
The working class may be led by intelligentsia, but that doesnt mean the intelligentsia always has to be moderate, reasonable or open for debate.

The point is, they are not united on any issue.
If they were, the working class would dominate every election. The idea of "The working class" coming out against transhumanism goes against reality.
They'll be split roughly down the middle, like always.

[Athylon Prime]

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

I'm buying the Google Glass when it comes out.

It should be an interesting experience.

As am I. I'm more that a little excited.

[AETEN II]

A man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes.

Best way to really explain it, no different than minor brain damage, or the difference between a teenager and a fully matured adult. So long as it wasn't as severe as Phineas Gage's incident I would see no problem from it. Thought patterns change naturally or by outside causes, and so long as it wasn't severe alteration (you become a nut incapable of any social interaction) or completely removed emotional capability I'd be fine.

I don't think we should trivialize the level of change by comparing it just to maturing. And I say this as someone who'd be willing to cast off this human form and become a digital sapient once the risk came down to an acceptable level. Difference isn't so much the problem, which you correctly argue. It's what the difference is.

In science fiction, it's probably been the Halo series that best explored this. Strong AIs are made from the template of a person's brain, but the process of uploading requires radical alterations. They still have, on some level, the memories and some personality traits of their human template, but they are radically different persons.

Halo has lost all credibility as of late with the new wave of books n' stuff following Halo 4. Not laughing at you, just that Halo is no longer moderate Sci Fi.

Also, I know. That's why I'm speaking of moderate assimilation chunk by chunk and not transferring.

[Olivaero]

The working class, if they bother getting political, are typically either led by Intelligentsia working class individuals (Who are as likely to be transhumanist as not) or by the middle class

Intelligentsia =/= in favour of transhumanism. Many religious people, particularly religious intellectuals or community leaders may be violently opposed to many transhumanists on very clear religious grounds (a good freind of mine for instance is the most moderate muslim I know, and yet he is opposed to transhumanism on the beleif that the body is Sacred to Allah). Unless we are on different worlds, whilst atheism is certainly on the rise there is still an overwhelming amount of even the moderatly religious who are going to be opposed to the idea.
The working class may be led by intelligentsia, but that doesnt mean the intelligentsia always has to be moderate, reasonable or open for debate.

Religion is frequently over looked by the mainstream right wing party in the UK so i think for all intents and purposes of this point we may as well be living in different worlds... see the legalization of gay marriage by said party recently...

[Napkiraly]

I'm buying the Google Glass when it comes out.

It should be an interesting experience.

As am I. I'm more that a little excited.

Same. And it be waterproof.

Which is a bonus in a country with lots of rain.

[The USOT]

Intelligentsia =/= in favour of transhumanism. Many religious people, particularly religious intellectuals or community leaders may be violently opposed to many transhumanists on very clear religious grounds (a good freind of mine for instance is the most moderate muslim I know, and yet he is opposed to transhumanism on the beleif that the body is Sacred to Allah). Unless we are on different worlds, whilst atheism is certainly on the rise there is still an overwhelming amount of even the moderatly religious who are going to be opposed to the idea.
The working class may be led by intelligentsia, but that doesnt mean the intelligentsia always has to be moderate, reasonable or open for debate.

The point is, they are not united on any issue.
If they were, the working class would dominate every election. The idea of "The working class" coming out against transhumanism goes against reality.
They'll be split roughly down the middle, like always.

Im not sure "like always" is the case. Even in the UK we have a history of mass strikes and protests, and this is over trivial things. This is perhaps the most fundamentally giant change in human history. Its not just something which challenges people economically or socially, it challenges the nature of our existance and to many the nature of reality. Going back to the religious issue (and specifically Islam) I dont think there could ever be any greater fuel for extremists in the middle east than to point to the west and show how they are not just defying Allah, but they are laughing in the face of his creation and ability to judge them after life. If not in the first world, there will be a violent lash somewhere in the world over this.

[Trotskylvania]

I don't think we should trivialize the level of change by comparing it just to maturing. And I say this as someone who'd be willing to cast off this human form and become a digital sapient once the risk came down to an acceptable level. Difference isn't so much the problem, which you correctly argue. It's what the difference is.

In science fiction, it's probably been the Halo series that best explored this. Strong AIs are made from the template of a person's brain, but the process of uploading requires radical alterations. They still have, on some level, the memories and some personality traits of their human template, but they are radically different persons.

Halo has lost all credibility as of late with the new wave of books n' stuff following Halo 4. Not laughing at you, just that Halo is no longer moderate Sci Fi.

Also, I know. That's why I'm speaking of moderate assimilation chunk by chunk and not transferring.

I like some of where it is going, but Halo has the same problems of anything that is designed by committee. There is very clearly no set plan, so things go in a thousand different directions, and the series as a whole have no common themes anymore. The Forerunner Saga is high space opera like Banks' Culture series. The first trilogy of games were a more refined version of old-fashioned Doom fps in a military science fiction setting, with Master Chief being a slightly more vocal Doomguy. The expanded universe books were military science fiction.

Halo Reach was Band of Brothers meets Come and See in space. Halo 4 is a love story masquerading as military sci-fi. The prequel/tie-in books are sci-fi morality tales. The only continuity is a continuously retconned shared universe.

[Antares XII]

A man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes.

Best way to really explain it, no different than minor brain damage, or the difference between a teenager and a fully matured adult. So long as it wasn't as severe as Phineas Gage's incident I would see no problem from it. Thought patterns change naturally or by outside causes, and so long as it wasn't severe alteration (you become a nut incapable of any social interaction) or completely removed emotional capability I'd be fine.

I don't think we should trivialize the level of change by comparing it just to maturing. And I say this as someone who'd be willing to cast off this human form and become a digital sapient once the risk came down to an acceptable level. Difference isn't so much the problem, which you correctly argue. It's what the difference is.

In science fiction, it's probably been the Halo series that best explored this. Strong AIs are made from the template of a person's brain, but the process of uploading requires radical alterations. They still have, on some level, the memories and some personality traits of their human template, but they are radically different persons.

Again, you are a radically different person from who you were at the age of one. I don't see the problem here.

[The USOT]

Intelligentsia =/= in favour of transhumanism. Many religious people, particularly religious intellectuals or community leaders may be violently opposed to many transhumanists on very clear religious grounds (a good freind of mine for instance is the most moderate muslim I know, and yet he is opposed to transhumanism on the beleif that the body is Sacred to Allah). Unless we are on different worlds, whilst atheism is certainly on the rise there is still an overwhelming amount of even the moderatly religious who are going to be opposed to the idea.
The working class may be led by intelligentsia, but that doesnt mean the intelligentsia always has to be moderate, reasonable or open for debate.

Religion is frequently over looked by the mainstream right wing party in the UK so i think for all intents and purposes of this point we may as well be living in different worlds... see the legalization of gay marriage by said party recently...

Im not talking nationally, im talking globally. Albeit I do see potential for radicalisation here in the UK. It may become something impossible to overlook for the UK government when such a large portion of its population may find the technology abhorrant. I can genuinly see such a fundamental change in the history of the human species and the position a politician takes on the issue as a serious vote swayer.

[Ostroeuropa]

We're not going to see any governments ban it.
All it takes is one, then the floodgates are open and competition will force the others.
First world governments will have this explained to them.
Third world governments are power hungry enough not to care and just shove the upgrades down peoples throats.

[Trotskylvania]

I don't think we should trivialize the level of change by comparing it just to maturing. And I say this as someone who'd be willing to cast off this human form and become a digital sapient once the risk came down to an acceptable level. Difference isn't so much the problem, which you correctly argue. It's what the difference is.

In science fiction, it's probably been the Halo series that best explored this. Strong AIs are made from the template of a person's brain, but the process of uploading requires radical alterations. They still have, on some level, the memories and some personality traits of their human template, but they are radically different persons.

Again, you are a radically different person from who you were at the age of one. I don't see the problem here.

If you had read the post, you'd have seen exactly what the problem is. I said as much. The point is that we don't know how we'll change. Growing up, we become a mature version of the person we were, barring mishaps that fuck us up. But right now, we really don't know the pitfalls of how people might change.

If brain uploading or assimilation makes me the Ubermensch, then I am cool with it. But if it turns out that I might become a sociopath, or a manic-depressive android, then I'm out.

[Natapoc]

If using a tool to make calculations or tasks more easy is all transhuminists are talking about then it introduces nothing new. The humans of several thousand years ago were no less "transhuminists" for discovering how to improve upon their tools and indeed some other animal species are also transhuman for discovering tools that better their lives.

If that's all transhumanism is, then a better name for it is: Human.

What new ideas are transhuminists introducing if that's all they believe?

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

Yes it's very unreasonable because the way the technology works is just totally different from the optic nerve implant you are proposing. This is not a step in the direction of sending "visual signals" directly to the optic nerve without the eye.

This is only slightly different than what you're doing right now by staring at your computer.

One of the things that frustrates me about transhumanists is their frequent inability to distinguish between some incremental improvements and refinements and an incredible leap in technology.

Just because Google glass is physically close to your eye does not mean it's a path to artificial eye replacement (that would require a totally different technology, rather than a refinement or clever use of existing technology)

[The USOT]

We're not going to see any governments ban it.
All it takes is one, then the floodgates are open and competition will force the others.
First world governments will have this explained to them.
Third world governments are power hungry enough not to care and just shove the upgrades down peoples throats.

Im not saying it wont ever become mainstream, what im saying is that it will cause violence inevitably. And I really dont think thats an accurate representation of third world countries at all. They tend to have a habit of adopting the more efficient social trends (e.g. the whole "liberty is generally good for the economy" thing. If used by dictators well, indeed it could be the ultimate legitimacy in the eyes of their people to be opposed to the technologies.

[AETEN II]

Halo has lost all credibility as of late with the new wave of books n' stuff following Halo 4. Not laughing at you, just that Halo is no longer moderate Sci Fi.

Also, I know. That's why I'm speaking of moderate assimilation chunk by chunk and not transferring.

I like some of where it is going, but Halo has the same problems of anything that is designed by committee. There is very clearly no set plan, so things go in a thousand different directions, and the series as a whole have no common themes anymore. The Forerunner Saga is high space opera like Banks' Culture series. The first trilogy of games were a more refined version of old-fashioned Doom fps in a military science fiction setting, with Master Chief being a slightly more vocal Doomguy. The expanded universe books were military science fiction.

Halo Reach was Band of Brothers meets Come and See in space. Halo 4 is a love story masquerading as military sci-fi. The prequel/tie-in books are sci-fi morality tales. The only continuity is a continuously retconned shared universe.

The Culture is awesome. The Forerunners however suffer from severe technobabble and severe stupidity to the point that they only reason why they lost against the flood was due to their Prime Minister trying to powergame while he already held the most power in their civilization, and their continued existence as a species was threatened. And then you have Travissty portraying Halsey as a villain. While in fact she's the reason why humans still exist.

So yeah, it now suffers from being absurdly stupid.

[Luveria]

We're not going to see any governments ban it.
All it takes is one, then the floodgates are open and competition will force the others.
First world governments will have this explained to them.
Third world governments are power hungry enough not to care and just shove the upgrades down peoples throats.

Im not saying it wont ever become mainstream, what im saying is that it will cause violence inevitably. And I really dont think thats an accurate representation of third world countries at all. They tend to have a habit of adopting the more efficient social trends (e.g. the whole "liberty is generally good for the economy" thing. If used by dictators well, indeed it could be the ultimate legitimacy in the eyes of their people to be opposed to the technologies.

I can see a strong possibility of Islamic governments banning the technology.

[Ostroeuropa]

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

Yes it's very unreasonable because the way the technology works is just totally different from the optic nerve implant you are proposing. This is not a step in the direction of sending "visual signals" directly to the optic nerve without the eye.

This is only slightly different than what you're doing right now by staring at your computer.

One of the things that frustrates me about transhumanists is their frequent inability to distinguish between some incremental improvements and refinements and an incredible leap in technology.

Just because Google glass is physically close to your eye does not mean it's a path to artificial eye replacement (that would require a totally different technology, rather than a refinement or clever use of existing technology)

I think we're going to see it getting in by the back door with VR, if i'm honest.
Once there is a single improvement in the body, it's a lot easier to expand it.

"Why don't we let people access the internet with their VR set-up (So i dunno, roll your eyes back of the head, tongue lolls out, you see google, everyone mildly disturbed ) provided they are within reach of wi-fi?"
etc.

[Natapoc]

Again, you are a radically different person from who you were at the age of one. I don't see the problem here.

If you had read the post, you'd have seen exactly what the problem is. I said as much. The point is that we don't know how we'll change. Growing up, we become a mature version of the person we were, barring mishaps that fuck us up. But right now, we really don't know the pitfalls of how people might change.

If brain uploading or assimilation makes me the Ubermensch, then I am cool with it. But if it turns out that I might become a sociopath, or a manic-depressive android, then I'm out.

It's just as likely attempts at assimilation would result in retardation at best, or a boost in intelligence for a year or so followed by irreversible failure and death or disability.

[The USOT]

Im not saying it wont ever become mainstream, what im saying is that it will cause violence inevitably. And I really dont think thats an accurate representation of third world countries at all. They tend to have a habit of adopting the more efficient social trends (e.g. the whole "liberty is generally good for the economy" thing. If used by dictators well, indeed it could be the ultimate legitimacy in the eyes of their people to be opposed to the technologies.

I can see a strong possibility of Islamic governments banning the technology.

Agreed. Which is one of the concerning implications of the technology (note I am in favour of it, but wish to bring to light socio-economic issues that could stem from it). If moderates can consider the tech evil, I dont want to know how extremists may react to it.

[Athylon Prime]

As am I. I'm more that a little excited.

Same. And it be waterproof.

Which is a bonus in a country with lots of rain.

One of the wettest states in the U.S. here. They're sounding better and better.

[Natapoc]

I can see a strong possibility of Islamic governments banning the technology.

Agreed. Which is one of the concerning implications of the technology (note I am in favour of it, but wish to bring to light socio-economic issues that could stem from it). If moderates can consider the tech evil, I dont want to know how extremists may react to it.

Think about how easy some of the ideas in this thread would be to weaponized? If we have the technology to design custom viruses that can manipulate and enhance the human mind, what's stopping us from creating mind controlling technology by using the same methods that totally replace individual's brains with artificial versions under the control of an extremist? Who'd stop you?

Ugh I'm starting to talk like a transhuminist by entertaining the idea.

[Alekera]

trans-humanism, at least to me is a double edged blade. It can be both good and bad...

[The USOT]

Agreed. Which is one of the concerning implications of the technology (note I am in favour of it, but wish to bring to light socio-economic issues that could stem from it). If moderates can consider the tech evil, I dont want to know how extremists may react to it.

Think about how easy some of the ideas in this thread would be to weaponized? If we have the technology to design custom viruses that can manipulate and enhance the human mind, what's stopping us from creating mind controlling technology by using the same methods that totally replace individual's brains with artificial versions under the control of an extremist? Who'd stop you?

Ugh I'm starting to talk like a transhuminist by entertaining the idea.

See its interesting to see you say that last little bit because I found what you just said to sound silly. There is no inherrant link between an updated brain and a custom virus either working or being desirable. My television for instance can be enhanced by adding a computer to it, but without the computer it cannot be hacked, and furthermore I can fix/repair the computer without the tv being damadged.

[Natapoc]

Think about how easy some of the ideas in this thread would be to weaponized? If we have the technology to design custom viruses that can manipulate and enhance the human mind, what's stopping us from creating mind controlling technology by using the same methods that totally replace individual's brains with artificial versions under the control of an extremist? Who'd stop you?

Ugh I'm starting to talk like a transhuminist by entertaining the idea.

See its interesting to see you say that last little bit because I found what you just said to sound silly. There is no inherrant link between an updated brain and a custom virus either working or being desirable. My television for instance can be enhanced by adding a computer to it, but without the computer it cannot be hacked, and furthermore I can fix/repair the computer without the tv being damadged.

You will be assimilated, Resistance is futile.

[Olivaero]

The computer is a tool that increases your total intelligence, biological integration of information technology IE computers with your biology is seen as the rational conclusion by transhumanists because that is the trend that has been occuring for the last 50 years, information has been getting easier and more immediate to access, the step after mobile phones looks something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass why is it so unreasonable to go from that to a implant along your optical nerve which sends visual inputs straight to the brain, by passing the eye all together? Things like this are the basis of transhumanism.

Yes it's very unreasonable because the way the technology works is just totally different from the optic nerve implant you are proposing. This is not a step in the direction of sending "visual signals" directly to the optic nerve without the eye.

This is only slightly different than what you're doing right now by staring at your computer.

One of the things that frustrates me about transhumanists is their frequent inability to distinguish between some incremental improvements and refinements and an incredible leap in technology.

Just because Google glass is physically close to your eye does not mean it's a path to artificial eye replacement (that would require a totally different technology, rather than a refinement or clever use of existing technology)

EDIT: never mind that was a dumb point. a more general question then, why do you consider it unlikely we will be able to understand how our brains work in the near future?

[Athylon Prime]

See its interesting to see you say that last little bit because I found what you just said to sound silly. There is no inherrant link between an updated brain and a custom virus either working or being desirable. My television for instance can be enhanced by adding a computer to it, but without the computer it cannot be hacked, and furthermore I can fix/repair the computer without the tv being damadged.

You will be assimilated, Resistance is futile.

Oh, the Borg.