Transhumanism: What's your take on it?

[Transhuman Proteus]

If you really want transhumanism:

1. Get a phd in neurology or a related field (Getting experience in surgery would be helpful so try to get an MD also), and the equivalent of a 4 years in computer science (focus on computational intelligence techniques, algorithms, and the theory of computation).
2. Spend years in research labs studying the state of the art.
3. Disregard everything you ever learned and think of every totally insane and crazy theory you could every imagine and test them out methodically. You will probably have no funding so being rich, or being willing to live in poverty is probably going to help. Think of the most creative thing you ever have done and put yourself in the mindset where you could do something 1000X more creative while also being accurate. (By this time you will know HOW to be creative in a way that produces real science (not just sifi)).

If you do all these things and are extremely lucky you could have a very very small chance of wining a Nobel and moving your goal of a transhumanist future forward by perhaps as much as 0.0001% But that's what you and all other transhumanists need to do if there is to be any hope of getting what you want within your lifetime.

You will only be able to test a few of your hypothesis in your lifetime so be sure you make good guesses.

Reading your posts I find myself wondering what your definition of transhumanist is, and where exactly you got it from.

Because the impression I get is that you apparently think it is "Transhumanists are a unified group who have a single common vision for the future and predict a linear progression towards it requiring X, then Y, then Z". Which isn't all that accurate, really the wikipedia summery is a surprising good one:

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies

Hell, Transhimanist really don't have a singular vision of the future. They don't have a communist manifesto they are wanting to model society on.

So I look at that, and then I look at your really fairly gross generalities and see you are kind of mocking and arguing against your own concept of what it is, as opposed to what it actually is. Tell me what my "goal of a transhumanist future" is. List all of these "totally insane and crazy theories" you apparently imagine is all every transhumanist is interested in. Because I reckon I can list the research being done into prosthetic, increasing longevity, genetic research and all that - these are things that actually interest transhumanists and futurists, they are producing results, they are receiving a lot of funding - they are mainstream.

Because I can tell you - I, who follow the literature, attended the talks and conferences, have not found mind uploads and singularities really to be the life blood of the movement. They are a popularized image of it, pushed because news organizations have latched onto Kurzweil and his promises and predictions. They are something more then a few say "can't rule it out" but hardly this obsession you apparently imagine supporters are having constant fangasms over, as opposed to the real developments being studied and being followed now.

So I'd ask you to back it up with evidence - what is your transhumanist experience? We're exactly does your concept of it come from?

Yeah, see, this is my problem with transhumanism. The cult-mentality. This and this will happen, as the prophet X have said it will.

Which is stupid. Nostradamus could've predicted a tower would fall in 2001. They wouldn't know which and what the name of the tower is. It's like cold reading.

So all transhumanists are like that?

There's no mention of Jesus so how would it be the same?

Because you're predicting something that is so far-fetched, making this sound more like a religion than a philosophy? That's why?

Which is why the stance IN is expressing is something most serious Transhumanists roll their eyes at.

It's not really. It's commonly called the Rapture of the Nerds.

That's the irony I love.

I see people denouncing religious predictions, and then going to another thread and talking about the singularity as if you can prove it any better than Jesus coming to save they day.

I find both equally improbable, and I'm not inclined to change my thoughts.

As do I. With friends like Kurzweil Transhumanism hardly needs enemies since he has perpetuated such stereotypes and shoddy scientific standards. It's unfortunate the number of people's whose experiences with the transhumanist movement apparently consist of people who have played Deus Ex and just read Kurzweil.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Not all transhumanism is based on computers or the brain, Jesus F Christ not all transhumanists are Kurzweil fan boys. Cybernetics, genetics, for some mechanical prosthesis, nanotechnology, etc. can all be transhumanistic. And we have seen some advancements within the past decade and a bit. By mid-century who knows where we will be.

All transhumanist ideas I've heard of first require radical and unprecedented advancements in the understanding of the brain and human neurological system.

I'm curious as to what these "transhumanist" ideas are. You make it sound like transhumanism is its own little field. Transhumanist, as per that definition of what the movement is about, have a really very broad set of interests that cover almost every field of science, and includes many things that interest people who wouldn't consider them transhumanists. Again I mention the research going on into understanding aging, ways of combating its effects etc. Not being studied exclusively by transhumanists you'll notice, despite being something plenty of transhumanists and interested in.

You apparently think it solely consists of robots and mind uploads.

So many trans humanists lack the depth of scientific background to even begin to comprehend what they are saying. And most transhumanists actually ARE just fanboys. Perhaps not Kurzweil ones but fanboys non the less.

I keep hearing this, I remain curious as to what you are basing it on.

Most are not making real contributions to the technology and the basic science that must first be accomplished for their technology to even be possible. So I'm challenging them:

You're challenging them? I was unaware to be a supporter of something one had to actually be a very specific thing. Can't support a political ideology advocating something unless you become a politician eh? Can't consider yourself a member of a certain philosophy unless you're a philosopher?

Dreaming is great but if all you're doing is dreaming you'll never get what you want. Getting what you want requires tremendous work, effort, and motivation.

Like someone else said in this thread: The problem with transhumanists is they tend to take for granted and not comprehend the seriously intensive work that real scientists have done to get the technology we have today and the pretty much impossible amount of effort that it would take to get the technology they describe as: "Trivial modifications" or "Simple progression" or "a couple steps" or " a matter of time" or "inevitable".

It's not any of those things, especially if you don't work on it. So I challenge you transhumanists: Try it! I dare you

Except it really doesn't work like that.

Do the basic science. Do the actual work. Don't stand on the sidelines and pretend you're accomplishing anything at all. And don't pretend the universe will just gift you what you want. If you really want that future, go build it.

And the easiest way to win an argument is to completely misrepresent those you are arguing about until they are just straw men. Transhumanists pretend the universe is just going to give them what they want? Wow, can't remember ever believing that, but I guess you must be right.

[Natapoc]

Reading your posts I find myself wondering what your definition of transhumanist is, and where exactly you got it from.

Because the impression I get is that you apparently think it is "Transhumanists are a unified group who have a single common vision for the future and predict a linear progression towards it requiring X, then Y, then Z". Which isn't all that accurate, really the wikipedia summery is a surprising good one:

If transhumanism means anything at all, if there is a common belief system that differentiates them from others what is it?

You're trying to escape being associated with the "singulatarians" and the "I wanna be a cyborg (or date an android)!" types but really those types make up the vast majority of self described transhumanists that I've heard from.

Basically when you try to figure out what's different about transhumanists from the non transhumanists what you're left with is Deus Ex and Kurzweil.

I mean, in this very thread I've had self described transhumanists tell me that it's only a "simple refinement" to go from an EEG to some kind of mind reading device. Seriously!

And that google glass is only a small step away from some type of implant that can directly communicate with your optic nerve to give your brain whatever images one desires directly bypassing the eye.

Go back a few pages. I'm not straw manning. I'm looking at what specific self described transhumanists are telling me about themselves.

I see endless strings of absurd claims and people using words they don't even understand.

Perhaps you're not like them. But what do you believe then? If you don't side with those other transhumanists what do you feel transhumanism is and how is it unique? How it differentiates itself from the normal idea of continued scientific progress being a good thing?

[Antares XII]

I said



To which you replied



and proceeded to use your chair as an example. You claim that your chair exists ontologically. I claim that you cannot ontologically prove this, thus negating its ontologically factual nature. Thus the only provable way your chair exists is conceptually. Thus it is philosophy. Or, extended for clarity, if you will: your chair is philosophy [demonstrated using science, which is also philosophy]. Your argument is reminiscent of the religious argument "it just is!", even though it isn't because you have no way of backing your claim aside from using - surprise! - philosophy.

The chair exists philosophically alone. Any claims to ontological existence are baseless without ontological proof, and as we all know, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. So prove your chair exists ontologically, and I will gladly cede the point to you that not everything is "just philosophy".

No you are confused. I never said my chair exists ontologically. I said that the ontological concept of a chair (philosophy) exists separate from the physical reality of an actual chair (not philosophy).

You say physical reality, I say petitio principii. Stop your sophistry.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Reading your posts I find myself wondering what your definition of transhumanist is, and where exactly you got it from.

Because the impression I get is that you apparently think it is "Transhumanists are a unified group who have a single common vision for the future and predict a linear progression towards it requiring X, then Y, then Z". Which isn't all that accurate, really the wikipedia summery is a surprising good one:

If transhumanism means anything at all, if there is a common belief system that differentiates them from others what is it?

The definition I posted adequately sums up what the unifying belief behind the Transhumanist movement is. There is a great deal of variety in it (ethical, the best paths to go down, etc), and then there is further variety as we get all the *political movement* transhumanists, your techno socialists and democratic transhumanists and extropians and your posthumanists (which seems to be closer to what you are talking about), and your futurist transhumanists and technogaians and abolitionists....

What unites them all is that "affirmation of the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities". That's the primary part. Are you saying that is a general thing everyone supports anyway and is a guiding force for scientific development?

Hence my asking what your definition of transhumanism is that seems to mostly limit it to the very easy to beat on close followers of Kurzweil's predictions.

You're trying to escape being associated with the "singulatarians" and the "I wanna be a cyborg (or date an android)!" types but really those types make up the vast majority of self described transhumanists that I've heard from.

No, I accept they exist and fall under the umbrella. I'm pointing out that it is intellectually dishonest to act like they are the Tranhumanist movement and only them, as you seem quite determined to do. Or that they are the guiding forces etc

It's similar to categorizing all feminists as radical man haters based upon the certain segments of the movement or all Muslims being terrorists.

Basically when you try to figure out what's different about transhumanists from the non transhumanists what you're left with is Deus Ex and Kurzweil.

I mean, in this very thread I've had self described transhumanists tell me that it's only a "simple refinement" to go from an EEG to some kind of mind reading device. Seriously!

Quite. And you've had other self described transhumanists, including myself, dismiss that kind of thinking. The movement is big enough for the supremely techno-optimistic (you should talk to some techno-utopianists) and the more pragmatic ones such as myself.

And that google glass is only a small step away from some type of implant that can directly communicate with your optic nerve to give your brain whatever images one desires directly bypassing the eye.

And I read and felt similar to you.

Go back a few pages. I'm not straw manning. I'm looking at what specific self described transhumanists are telling me about themselves.

Did I say they weren't transhumanists? My question to you is your definition that leads you to conclude and base such generalizing arguments on them being the only transhumanists, or even the majority of serious transhumanists.

Debates on an internet forum - not the best sample to characterize a moderately sized global movement whose self proclaimed supporters range from scientists, to philosophers, to non-scientists/philosophers, to gamers etc. Especially when even that sample isn't a homogenous blob.

I see endless strings of absurd claims and people using words they don't even understand.

Perhaps you're not like them. But what do you believe then? If you don't side with those other transhumanists what do you feel transhumanism is and how is it unique? How it differentiates itself from the normal idea of continued scientific progress being a good thing?

I'm a democratic transhumanist and I cleave very closely to the definition I posted - I support measured, sensible, research into (and making widely available) technologies, techniques etc that can potentially enhance and/or alter human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities and quality of life* I hope to one day be involved in such research and progress myself. I think it is desirable and we should be seeking it to the best of our abilities. I think the species as a whole, and on the individual level, should benefit from the means to control their development and future, and have the right to that (plus going back to that concept of morphological freedom and the like).

As to the radical ideas you keep bringing up? I see all the possibilities, maybes, theoretically achievable like mind uploading, immortality etc etc etc some people bring up and say sure - they are possibilities no one is ruling out. But they're not realities, they're not on the immediate horizon and nothing is certain. My focus is on one foot in front of the other with certain transhumanist themed aims, as opposed to the overly optimistic leaps and bounds that interest some of my fellow transhumanists.

*Which differentiates from the "the normal idea of continued scientific progress being a good thing", overall, by:

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

[Trolling Hajj]

Okay first of all, not all transhumanists are followers of Kurzweil, that's a shoddy hit at a very liberating and exciting worldview with the potential to change the world.

I for one am a transhumanist who does not believe in the singularity arising anytime soon( i.e the next two-three hundred years), but yet you cannot deny the rapid technological change that our world is going to experience over the next century, you cannot deny the medical advances, the energy revolution set to be unleashed, the prospects of faster transportation, the threats climate change will release and our proper response to it.

With all those things in mind, many of the wishes of transhumanists will come to pass, singularity or no singularity. Mark my words. The technological base is there, and barring a freakish late 19th century esqe solar storm, we will reach it.

Yeah, see, this is my problem with transhumanism. The cult-mentality. This and this will happen, as the prophet X have said it will.

Which is stupid. Nostradamus could've predicted a tower would fall in 2001. They wouldn't know which and what the name of the tower is. It's like cold reading.

The crux of transhumanism is the belief that mankind will use technology to better himself and his society, and through the application of this technology help to improve the nature of humanity and the world, don't see what's exactly cultish about that mission statement, every ideology phrases itself as a battering agent for humanity. Secondly, where on earth did I say anything was going to exactly happen by a particular date or in a specific manner? All I am asserting is that if current technological, sociological, and climate trends continue at their current pace, we will see transhumanist motifs emerge as the decades of the 21st century pass us by. Thirdly, what prophet am I referencing? I just argued that I am no follower of Kurzweil or any other major transhumanist thinkers, I am an individual thinking for himself with the material and information I have at hand.

[Phocidaea]

Because you're predicting something that is so far-fetched, making this sound more like a religion than a philosophy? That's why?

When the singularity comes, such trivialities like religion will be scoffed at.

Then presumably you'll look back at yourself and scoff.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

When the singularity comes, such trivialities like religion will be scoffed at.

Then presumably you'll look back at yourself and scoff.

I will recommend you see the documentary "A Transcendent Man." If you have an amazon account you can watch it for like 2 dollars.

It's really thought provoking and shows you that this belief in the Singularity goes far deeper then just Kurzweil's personal struggle to not die and resurrect his father (tho it does include that)
Many other prominent thinkers are in the film as well, like the founder of Space-X and Hugo de Garis.
They don't all agree with Kurzweil on everything, but nonetheless the trend towards a merger between computer and the human mind is clear. Immortality and limitless opportunities in the virtual world will soon exist.

[Phocidaea]

Then presumably you'll look back at yourself and scoff.

I will recommend you see the documentary "A Transcendent Man." If you have an amazon account you can watch it for like 2 dollars.

It's really thought provoking and shows you that this belief in the Singularity goes far deeper then just Kurzweil's personal struggle to not die and resurrect his father (tho it does include that)
Many other prominent thinkers are in the film as well, like the founder of Space-X and Hugo de Garis.
They don't all agree with Kurzweil on everything, but nonetheless the trend towards a merger between computer and the human mind is clear. Immortality and limitless opportunities in the virtual world will soon exist.

I meant to insinuate that Transhumanism, and even moreso Singularity-ism (whatever) is basically a religion, at least as you seem to believe in it.

[Napkiraly]

I will recommend you see the documentary "A Transcendent Man." If you have an amazon account you can watch it for like 2 dollars.

It's really thought provoking and shows you that this belief in the Singularity goes far deeper then just Kurzweil's personal struggle to not die and resurrect his father (tho it does include that)
Many other prominent thinkers are in the film as well, like the founder of Space-X and Hugo de Garis.
They don't all agree with Kurzweil on everything, but nonetheless the trend towards a merger between computer and the human mind is clear. Immortality and limitless opportunities in the virtual world will soon exist.

I meant to insinuate that Transhumanism, and even moreso Singularity-ism (whatever) is basically a religion, at least as you seem to believe in it.

Singularityism possibly, but transhumanism itself isn't the whole cult like mentality thing your painting it with.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

I will recommend you see the documentary "A Transcendent Man." If you have an amazon account you can watch it for like 2 dollars.

It's really thought provoking and shows you that this belief in the Singularity goes far deeper then just Kurzweil's personal struggle to not die and resurrect his father (tho it does include that)
Many other prominent thinkers are in the film as well, like the founder of Space-X and Hugo de Garis.
They don't all agree with Kurzweil on everything, but nonetheless the trend towards a merger between computer and the human mind is clear. Immortality and limitless opportunities in the virtual world will soon exist.

I meant to insinuate that Transhumanism, and even moreso Singularity-ism (whatever) is basically a religion, at least as you seem to believe in it.

If it is a religion then it is the only true one. But I prefer to think of it as a philosophy.

[Napkiraly]

I meant to insinuate that Transhumanism, and even moreso Singularity-ism (whatever) is basically a religion, at least as you seem to believe in it.

If it is a religion then it is the only true one. But I prefer to think of it as a philosophy.

And a lot of religions believe that about themselves as well.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

If it is a religion then it is the only true one. But I prefer to think of it as a philosophy.

And a lot of religions believe that about themselves as well.

Yes, but all the rest blindly follow ancient texts and prophets whom claim to know the word of God.
The Singularity is based on data and evidence, something all other schools of thought lack.