Will you side with the Transhumanists?

[HOlY Christus Krieger]

Its a disturbing ideology

[Ostroeuropa]

Sounds like ludditism.
Thats all your brain is. (Underlined.)
Your computer does often think for you. Most peoples computers do.

Well, what do you mean "Think." It isn't the conscious part of your brain, but would you likewise say your subconscious parts of the internal brain aren't really your brain?

Things your brain can do that your computer can't:

1. Develop systems of ethics.
2. Understand speech.
3. Start up on its own.
4. Naturally work to power itself (by driving the body to seek nutrition).
5. Automatically make connections between abstract ideas.
6. Acquire and speak languages.

Things your computer can do that your brain can't:

1. Do complex mathematics near-instantly.
2. Transmit information electronically.

Wow...

If you were to take parts of the brain they also fail those things.
You are making the mistake of regarding the brain as a whole as opposed to a collective of parts, which is the correct way to view it.
Your brain doesn't aquire and speak languages, the Broca's area does.
Your computer is just another part.
To demonstrate this, if you do brain surgery on someone or someone suffers brain damage to a particular area, they may fail some or all of those qualities you listed. That doesn't mean they no longer have a brain, it means they are lacking or have damaged a part.

[Yankee Empire]

Depnds on what you mean by Transhumanist, I support the concept of becoming Neo-sapiens but thats for future generations yet to be conceived.

Not Technology worshipping, Cyborg loving, singulariy hoping, Pysichal immortality desiring, utopian pipedreams...

But if I had to make a choice i'd support biological modifications over mechanical.

[Hallistar]

I strongly support trans-humanism, but I'm not oblivious to potential problems down the road.

I don't believe the human body, as it stands, is some kind of 'divine beautiful expression of creation'.

Any new developments will need to be carefully regulated, and the potential risks known.

Like the poster above me, I also prefer biological modifications compared to mechanical, although a mix of the two wouldn't be that bad imo.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Also what needs improving is our society, are bodies have maintained this form because it knows that this is suited to our needs.

Also this. If people needed to change so much, they would have.

Eh? Until recently, we didn't have any technology to deliberately change our biology, and what little we do have now is not really up to the task.

[Phocidaea]

Things your brain can do that your computer can't:

1. Develop systems of ethics.
2. Understand speech.
3. Start up on its own.
4. Naturally work to power itself (by driving the body to seek nutrition).
5. Automatically make connections between abstract ideas.
6. Acquire and speak languages.

Things your computer can do that your brain can't:

1. Do complex mathematics near-instantly.
2. Transmit information electronically.

Wow...

If you were to take parts of the brain they also fail those things.
You are making the mistake of regarding the brain as a whole as opposed to a collective of parts, which is the correct way to view it.
Your brain doesn't aquire and speak languages, the Broca's area does.
Your computer is just another part.

The different parts of the human brain are all in communication. My computer cannot be part of my brain unless it can directly communicate with the rest.

Direct communication would be "think these words -> computer converts words into electrical impulses -> computer converts electrical impulses into writing". The way it is is "think these words -> move fingers on keys -> computer receives electrical impulses from depressed keys -> computer converts electrical impulses into bits of data -> computer converts bits of data into writing."

You cannot create a fully-functional human brain as you can a computer. That should be a natural sign that it is more complex.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

"Transhumanism", in the sense of enhancing the body by technological means, is already here. A couple of my family members have cybernetics wired directly to their nervous systems; lots more, including myself, have highly complex technological implements as integral parts of their self-image.

Transhumanism is not about replacing humanity. It is about expanding it.

[Hallistar]

If you were to take parts of the brain they also fail those things.
You are making the mistake of regarding the brain as a whole as opposed to a collective of parts, which is the correct way to view it.
Your brain doesn't aquire and speak languages, the Broca's area does.
Your computer is just another part.

The different parts of the human brain are all in communication. My computer cannot be part of my brain unless it can directly communicate with the rest.

Direct communication would be "think these words -> computer converts words into electrical impulses -> computer converts electrical impulses into writing". The way it is is "think these words -> move fingers on keys -> computer receives electrical impulses from depressed keys -> computer converts electrical impulses into bits of data -> computer converts bits of data into writing."

You cannot create a fully-functional human brain as you can a computer. That should be a natural sign that it is more complex.

Once we can get Quantum computers working, with up to (256 states I believe? As compared to the two that are 1 & 0), I wouldn't be surprised if they can perform alot more advanced, even similar to the heuristic functioning of the human brain.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

As a Technological Utopian, I agree with most of Transhumanism's aims, aside from the abolition of death. In my opinion, humans must be able to die, not just because we're a planetary specie, but because of brutes, I'll let Charlie Chaplin explain, skip to 1:27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo

[Pravengria]

What an interesting rant.

I am against transhumanism. I believe humans are good already, and don't need to be fundamentally improved. Transhumanism cheapens life- I see no moral purpose to forcing a species to an impossible standard through the application of invasive techniques. There would be no point in living without dying, no point in creating without destroying, no point in enjoyment without struggles.

All the positive aspects of human life are defined by their opposites. Transhumanism as an ideology wants to modify people so these opposites no longer exist.

Agreed, I'm against transhumanism

[Phocidaea]

Also this. If people needed to change so much, they would have.

Eh? Until recently, we didn't have any technology to deliberately change our biology, and what little we do have now is not really up to the task.

It's called evolution.

Are you telling me that you're denying one of the central theories of modern biology?

Humans have developed the way they have over millions of years of evolution because that path of development was the best-suited for them.

[Phocidaea]

"Transhumanism", in the sense of enhancing the body by technological means, is already here. A couple of my family members have cybernetics wired directly to their nervous systems; lots more, including myself, have highly complex technological implements as integral parts of their self-image.

Transhumanism is not about replacing humanity. It is about expanding it.

How does transhumanism expand humanity? I'm curious what your reasoning is.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you were to take parts of the brain they also fail those things.
You are making the mistake of regarding the brain as a whole as opposed to a collective of parts, which is the correct way to view it.
Your brain doesn't aquire and speak languages, the Broca's area does.
Your computer is just another part.

The different parts of the human brain are all in communication. My computer cannot be part of my brain unless it can directly communicate with the rest.

Direct communication would be "think these words -> computer converts words into electrical impulses -> computer converts electrical impulses into writing". The way it is is "think these words -> move fingers on keys -> computer receives electrical impulses from depressed keys -> computer converts electrical impulses into bits of data -> computer converts bits of data into writing."

You cannot create a fully-functional human brain as you can a computer. That should be a natural sign that it is more complex.

A computer is in communication with the brain, and it does communicate with it.
Parts of your brain are entirely autonomous and unrelated to the consciousness, so would you say your hypothalamus is not a part of your brain? Since "think these words" is not a part of it's function?
Again, you are confusing the whole for a part. The computer is more complex than some parts of the brain, which we could feasibly recreate but would be largely pointless to do so except perhaps as an experiment.

[Phocidaea]

The different parts of the human brain are all in communication. My computer cannot be part of my brain unless it can directly communicate with the rest.

Direct communication would be "think these words -> computer converts words into electrical impulses -> computer converts electrical impulses into writing". The way it is is "think these words -> move fingers on keys -> computer receives electrical impulses from depressed keys -> computer converts electrical impulses into bits of data -> computer converts bits of data into writing."

You cannot create a fully-functional human brain as you can a computer. That should be a natural sign that it is more complex.

A computer is in communication with the brain, and it does communicate with it.
Parts of your brain are entirely autonomous and unrelated to the consciousness, so would you say your hypothalamus is not a part of your brain? Since "think these words" is not a part of it's function?
Again, you are confusing the whole for a part. The computer is more complex than some parts of the brain, which we could feasibly recreate but would be largely pointless to do so except perhaps as an experiment.

A computer does not communicate with the brain. The computer would only be communicating with the brain if they were literally wired together.

[East Williamsburg]

What kind of benevolent God would create someone in His image with exposed arteries and pain nodules hanging in a protruding sac between your legs?

[Ostroeuropa]

A computer is in communication with the brain, and it does communicate with it.
Parts of your brain are entirely autonomous and unrelated to the consciousness, so would you say your hypothalamus is not a part of your brain? Since "think these words" is not a part of it's function?
Again, you are confusing the whole for a part. The computer is more complex than some parts of the brain, which we could feasibly recreate but would be largely pointless to do so except perhaps as an experiment.

A computer does not communicate with the brain. The computer would only be communicating with the brain if they were literally wired together.

Different sections of the brain communicate across gaps. using chemicals or electrical activity.
The computer does so by electrical activity, and across a larger space. It's a machine that performs calculations, receives orders from the consciousness, etc. Thats like other parts of the brain.

[Phocidaea]

What kind of benevolent God would create someone in His image with exposed arteries and pain nodules hanging in a protruding sac between your legs?

It's not about God. From an atheist POV you've backed yourself into a corner here. If we assume humans just evolved like any other species, and recognize that evolution tends to select those most fit to reproduce, and recognize that those most fit to reproduce tend to be the most fit overall, then we realize that human testicles have evolved because they are the most fit for the species overall.

[Phocidaea]

A computer does not communicate with the brain. The computer would only be communicating with the brain if they were literally wired together.

Different sections of the brain communicate across gaps. using chemicals or electrical activity.
The computer does so by electrical activity, and across a larger space. It's a machine that performs calculations, receives orders from the consciousness, etc. Thats like other parts of the brain.

It recieves orders from my fingers. If I took my fingers off the keyboard, I could think up the design of a whole universe in my spare time and my computer wouldn't know one bit of it.

[Ostroeuropa]

What kind of benevolent God would create someone in His image with exposed arteries and pain nodules hanging in a protruding sac between your legs?

It's not about God. From an atheist POV you've backed yourself into a corner here. If we assume humans just evolved like any other species, and recognize that evolution tends to select those most fit to reproduce, and recognize that those most fit to reproduce tend to be the most fit overall, then we realize that human testicles have evolved because they are the most fit for the species overall.

This ignores a lot of the flaws inherent in the process of evolution. It's very easy to conceive of a better method for humans, it's just we inherited our junk from lesser creatures.

[Phocidaea]

It's not about God. From an atheist POV you've backed yourself into a corner here. If we assume humans just evolved like any other species, and recognize that evolution tends to select those most fit to reproduce, and recognize that those most fit to reproduce tend to be the most fit overall, then we realize that human testicles have evolved because they are the most fit for the species overall.

This ignores a lot of the flaws inherent in the process of evolution. It's very easy to conceive of a better method for humans, it's just we inherited our junk from lesser creatures.

If that "junk" was so bad, it wouldn't have lasted so long to begin with.

[Ostroeuropa]

This ignores a lot of the flaws inherent in the process of evolution. It's very easy to conceive of a better method for humans, it's just we inherited our junk from lesser creatures.

If that "junk" was so bad, it wouldn't have lasted so long to begin with.

It's not the worst. It's just possible to conceive of a better one.
Evolution only gets you as far as "Good enough." it does not deliver optimal.

[The Emerald Legion]

That was a very long-winded an unhelpful OP. But your belief in the singularity is the same belief of Christians believing in the return of Jesus.

And as to the question:

No, I won't side with transhumanists.

Very long winded, But no. The singularity is pretty much a proven concept. I mean take someone from the dark ages and show him almost any aspect of modern life and they'd be going... "Wait... what the hell? Everyone is magic?"

[Renegade Babylonian Kings]

Some examples, yes, on ways the Big Brother / God necklace of dead water-fowl might rear its head?

Anything that marginalizes mankind is not worthy of existence. No matter what form you think any theoretical technological singularity may take, it is not worthy of existence, and unable to prevent itself from being destroyed should we wish to do so. If it is a fetus, as you say, then it is high time for an abortion.

Explain more about the way it marginalizes mankind. What of its existence pushes us to the margin, and to what conceptual margins?

The thing in the future listening to us likes specificity with this language, where possible. One of the meta-anayltic substations on Wittgenstein IV is quite insistent on the point. Our apologies.

[Renegade Babylonian Kings]

It's not the worst. It's just possible to conceive of a better one.
Evolution only gets you as far as "Good enough." it does not deliver optimal.

If transhumanism can give us what evolution will not (at least not for a long long time), what wars shall we fight over what to deem optimal?

Suppose a few of the master cogno-physicists claim, with some merit of rigor, that it is not optimal to some purpose or other that we maintain independent cognition?

Will you join the NPA (National Psychics Association) today, and help James Woods preserve your right to explode other people's head's telekinetically like in Scanners, detailed in the Majority Decision penned by Anton Scalia Clone XXIII?

Also, anyone too young to get that reference, I hate you a great deal. Bastards.

[East Williamsburg]

What kind of benevolent God would create someone in His image with exposed arteries and pain nodules hanging in a protruding sac between your legs?

It's not about God. From an atheist POV you've backed yourself into a corner here. If we assume humans just evolved like any other species, and recognize that evolution tends to select those most fit to reproduce, and recognize that those most fit to reproduce tend to be the most fit overall, then we realize that human testicles have evolved because they are the most fit for the species overall.

And that's why I support the transhumanism.