Transhumanism

[Britannic Realms]

Having several thousand of them would devalue them. Therefore, it would be not worth going to see it because the Hagia Sofia would be so common, it would just be like visiting a generic church.

Yes, but if someone wants to go out and build a duplicate of Hagia Sofia right now, no one will stop them. Nor should they.

That's not the point. You know when you print more money, it devalues it. The same applies to building more Hagia Sofias, it devalues it.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

No, some people in here have certainly been arguing for immortality.

You know what? I find your argument for value of life through artificial scarcity to be totally irrelevant in the face of the value of having real, living people who are alive right now continue to be alive for as long as they want to.

[Conserative Morality]

Except that we all are impressed by Skyscrapers.

I haven't been impressed by skyscrapers since my second visit to Chicago.

[Talonis]

Then each Portrait would be as pleasing, each Canyon as grand (think about it- in PA, we have tons of state parks. But each forest is still impressive), and each Hagia Sofia as religious.
IMO, Every church should look like Hagia Sofia, or at least be gothic.

Not nearly so. When there were but a handful of cities with 20,000 people in them, all were impressive. Now that they're a dime a dozen, we don't look twice at them.

You simply fail to see the true complexity here. They all have fantastically impressive aspects that follow certain ratios, and THAT is impressive (cities are all following one set of "rules" in math).
They have diverse economies, foods, each is distinct (following the same pattern, but with deviation on smaller scales), and impressive in it's own right.

[Conserative Morality]

And is the difference particularly meaningful if I could do both? having so much time on ones hands of course.

I would say yes. Ambition is driven by limits and the desire to surpass them.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Indeed, but no reason to treat it like a sacred artifact we need to build little shrines to. If we one day escape the solar system I'd be bemused at people wasting resources and life making pilgrimages back here. Much like I know my families tree and where I come from, but I don't feel a special attachment to the particular plot of land that housed my great, great, great, great, great grand pappy.

Now I'm something of an environmentalist, but that would apply to any planet or ecosystem. I'd like earth preserved, like any potentially habitable planet.

I place great value on history and sentimentality.

Some people don't. A lot in fact. You know, different ways of thinking and all that.

So - "they way things are are the only way things can be"? I'm still not seeing why a potentially very long lived philosopher wont be able to philosophize. The philosophy might well be different, but still philosophy.

And there's the problem. Not that philosophy wouldn't exist, but that philosophy would lack that which has driven so much of philosophy up 'til now: a sense of the human condition.

Because the human condition is carved in a stone that was there at the big bang and will be there at heat death or bubble death or whatever? A lot of your arguments appear to be appeals to tradition - it should be like it has always been (all few thousand year of it in which period we've changed significantly), and if it isn't that is bad. Why is it a problem? The things we need to think about and ponder will be different, ergo the philosophy will change accordingly.

I mean, I'd be interested to see the absolutely definitive guide to the human condition you are drawing on.

I still don't know why we are on this "true immortality" spiel, since even a lot of Transhumanists don't buy into us finding a way to be truly ever living with no risk of death. Something to in some sense to achieve a continuation of consciousness, but not "I'm here for infinity now".

[/quote]]

So does a shorter life have more meaning or poignancy? How much shorter?

No. A shorter life has less meaning as it holds less potential for experience of life.[/quote]

Ah, so a life to short is bad, a life to long is bad. The life we have now is just right for some reason.

It does, since body alone is not solely responsible for how we think or perceive things, it is an interplay between our hardware, and the software built by our experiences.

Our hardware creates limits through which the software can work. I worry less about the software we can get now and more about what changing the hardware will allow our software to change to.

Except our hardware has almost certainly changed a bit via natural evolutionary processes, much like our height has. Overall functions much the same as it always has, but a comparison of our brains to a first dynasty Egyptian would likely show some differences. And of course further back to our 50,000 year old hunter gatherer kin.

Never mind that even with identical hardware there is potential for significant alien thought. Read the individuals who were raised like/with dogs who despite have the same brain as you or I think vastly differently. Not like a dog, but not like a human. You put far to much stock in this notion of static brains.

To think as a human being is all that is worthwhile. You speak continually as though there is a greater purpose; there is not. It's like asking me "Well, why do you think like you? Wouldn't you want to think like Thomas Jefferson?"

Because it is all there is now, not necessarily because that is all there will ever be. There is no greater purpose, ergo simply staying human is not a greater purpose. There is great potential and value in different experiences, different mindsets, different bodies that might or might not be worth experience. There is nothing so special about humans that it is unfathomable that people might like to gradually move their branch of the species to something new that they see as having great potential if it were possible. I'm glad our ape like ancestors evolved into us, because I'm glad I exist. I could understand some alien distant descendant of us having a similar thought.

And no - there has already been a Thomas Jefferson. I'm happy being me, and I'd be happy being me experiencing new and different things, including thought potentially.

Of course you are arguing posthumanism there, as opposed to transhumanism, but still.

To which I respond "No, I am who I am. I would not want to be any other, as my being is intrinsic to who I am. I have no desire to lack who I am, no deep-seated hatred of myself so great that I want to reject who I am."

At a microlevel you aren't the you you were 10, 20 etc years ago (no idea how old you are). In terms of body or mind. At a macrolevel there has been a continuation of conscious through so you are, even though you are different (assuming you didn't wake up one day with no memory of anything before).

And I am who I am as well. I'll still be me even if I'm a brain in a jar. The experiences I go through might change me drastically, but as long as there is a continuation of consciousness then the potentially unimaginable mean 50 years from now will still be me. I'll have evolved to that throughout life.

[Britannic Realms]

Not nearly so. When there were but a handful of cities with 20,000 people in them, all were impressive. Now that they're a dime a dozen, we don't look twice at them.

They have diverse economies, foods, each is distinct (following the same pattern, but with deviation on smaller scales), and impressive in it's own right.

Whether or not one finds that impressive is subjective. I don't really think that some German town is more impressive then, say, Hull, just because it has a German culture.

[Ostroeuropa]

I should point out death be not proud is my favorite poem, despite not being religious.

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more, death, thou shalt die.

Also previous page:

Assuming we were immortal, it would lead just as much poignancy to point out quite rightly, that the ultimate fate of the universe is to die, and nothing can last forever etc.
The know that your death will come with the end of all things etc, and that you and your comrades will be there at the end fighting in vain against a foe you know you won't beat for just a few more moments as the last lights go out is incredibly poignant.
It's in our battle against death that we find poignancy, and you're proposing to let it off easy.
No.
Make it struggle to get us.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

And is the difference particularly meaningful if I could do both? having so much time on ones hands of course.

I would say yes. Ambition is driven by limits and the desire to surpass them.

Who cares as long as the same things get done either way?

That's not the point. You know when you print more money, it devalues it. The same applies to building more Hagia Sofias, it devalues it.

This matters because we use money as a store of value. When it comes to every other product, we generally strive to create more of it.

[Phocidaea]

This thread is vaguely disheartening, the way the transhumanists are tearing a new one in all the people who dare oppose them.

This does not shine well on your visions of the future...

[AETEN II]

They have diverse economies, foods, each is distinct (following the same pattern, but with deviation on smaller scales), and impressive in it's own right.

Whether or not one finds that impressive is subjective. I don't really think that some German town is more impressive then, say, Hull, just because it has a German culture.

A human with an understanding of history and all events leading up to it should see every skyscraper as a monument to humanity and its use of technology. The Haga Sophia would be even MORE impressive if it was mass-produced, as it would further prove our power.

[Conserative Morality]

Assuming we were immortal, it would lead just as much poignancy to point out quite rightly, that the ultimate fate of the universe is to die, and nothing can last forever etc.
The know that your death will come with the end of all things etc, and that you and your comrades will be there at the end fighting in vain against a foe you know you won't beat for just a few more moments as the last lights go out is incredibly poignant.

I find it more likely that people will panic, having experienced very little death (And, if the posts of some people here are correct, remembering even less) and go out without a scrap of dignity.

It's in our battle against death that we find poignancy, and you're proposing to let it off easy.
No.
Make it struggle to get us.

Not at all. We're both men caught at a bridge in front of our ancestral home. You want to run off and gather reinforcements, knowing full well that our home will burn in the time you're gone. I want to stand and fight, even though it's a doomed effort, as I'd sooner go out fighting for what I've always had and what I've always been a part of than sacrifice it and live.

[Britannic Realms]

That's not the point. You know when you print more money, it devalues it. The same applies to building more Hagia Sofias, it devalues it.

This matters because we use money as a store of value. When it comes to every other product, we generally strive to create more of it.

But it still devalues it. If I had one strawberry and then I picked another, the first one would be worth less.

[Talonis]

They have diverse economies, foods, each is distinct (following the same pattern, but with deviation on smaller scales), and impressive in it's own right.

Whether or not one finds that impressive is subjective. I don't really think that some German town is more impressive then, say, Hull, just because it has a German culture.

True, and I find quite a bit more impressive than most...
Aaanywho, I've got to get some sleep.
Go Singularity!
~Hexidecimark

[Rainbows and Rivers]

This thread is vaguely disheartening, the way the transhumanists are tearing a new one in all the people who dare oppose them.

This does not shine well on your visions of the future...

When someone tells me that my life would be worthless if I didn't die, it makes me less than happy.

My life is worth something through the fact of its mere existence. I refuse to die one second before I absolutely have to just to give it some sort of poetic purpose.

[Britannic Realms]

Whether or not one finds that impressive is subjective. I don't really think that some German town is more impressive then, say, Hull, just because it has a German culture.

A human with an understanding of history and all events leading up to it should see every skyscraper as a monument to humanity and its use of technology. The Haga Sophia would be even MORE impressive if it was mass-produced, as it would further prove our power.

Again, that is subjective. I have a perfectly good grasp of history and, yes, the first skyscrapers to be built were a testament to human engineering and perseverance, but it started to get a bit old after a while and, nowadays, it's common. Likewise, the Hagia Sofia was a testament to humanity when it was built, but to mass-produce it would be to devalue the merit of the original creation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Assuming we were immortal, it would lead just as much poignancy to point out quite rightly, that the ultimate fate of the universe is to die, and nothing can last forever etc.
The know that your death will come with the end of all things etc, and that you and your comrades will be there at the end fighting in vain against a foe you know you won't beat for just a few more moments as the last lights go out is incredibly poignant.

I find it more likely that people will panic, having experienced very little death (And, if the posts of some people here are correct, remembering even less) and go out without a scrap of dignity.

It's in our battle against death that we find poignancy, and you're proposing to let it off easy.
No.
Make it struggle to get us.

Not at all. We're both men caught at a bridge in front of our ancestral home. You want to run off and gather reinforcements, knowing full well that our home will burn in the time you're gone. I want to stand and fight, even though it's a doomed effort, as I'd sooner go out fighting for what I've always had and what I've always been a part of than sacrifice it and live.

Then let them panic. It's just as much an exploration of the human condition.
Doubtless some will panic. Others will turn to some new fangled religion. Some still will go down with the ship playing the violin.

And a house isn't a home. They couldn't take the home.

[AETEN II]

A human with an understanding of history and all events leading up to it should see every skyscraper as a monument to humanity and its use of technology. The Haga Sophia would be even MORE impressive if it was mass-produced, as it would further prove our power.

Again, that is subjective. I have a perfectly good grasp of history and, yes, the first skyscrapers to be built were a testament to human engineering and perseverance, but it started to get a bit old after a while and, nowadays, it's common. Likewise, the Hagia Sofia was a testament to humanity when it was built, but to mass-produce it would be to devalue the merit of the original creation.

It wouldn't, the fact that we are even able to mass-produce such towers of metal and brick simply reinforces the glory of our history and triumph against nature. The fact that we even can mass produce anything is impressive.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

This matters because we use money as a store of value. When it comes to every other product, we generally strive to create more of it.

But it still devalues it. If I had one strawberry and then I picked another, the first one would be worth less.

Which is exactly why we develop new fertilizers and strawberry plants with bigger yields.

We want most things to be worth less, since that means more people will have access to them.

[Britannic Realms]

But it still devalues it. If I had one strawberry and then I picked another, the first one would be worth less.

Which is exactly why we develop new fertilizers and strawberry plants with bigger yields.

We want most things to be worth less, since that means more people will have access to them.

But if life were worth less, then there would be no point in living.

Again, that is subjective. I have a perfectly good grasp of history and, yes, the first skyscrapers to be built were a testament to human engineering and perseverance, but it started to get a bit old after a while and, nowadays, it's common. Likewise, the Hagia Sofia was a testament to humanity when it was built, but to mass-produce it would be to devalue the merit of the original creation.

It wouldn't, the fact that we are even able to mass-produce such towers of metal and brick simply reinforces the glory of our history and triumph against nature. The fact that we even can mass produce anything is impressive.

All it shows it that we have the ability to copy what enterprising pioneers have already done. A toddler can copy the letter 'a' on to a piece of paper and it would be no more amazing than building a skyscraper in today's world.


And now, regrettably, I must retire, for it is approaching a quarter past one in the morning. But fear not, I shall be back.

[Transhuman Proteus]

And is the difference particularly meaningful if I could do both? having so much time on ones hands of course.

I would say yes. Ambition is driven by limits and the desire to surpass them.

And there will always be limits. Virtually no transhumanist says "we can be perfect, soon we can stop reaching", rather "we can think of tools that'll allow us to reach further if we wish to embrace them. Oh, and potentially suffer less".

Then your argument seems woefully incoherent and inconsistent.
We're not arguing for immortality, just massively increased lifespan

No, some people in here have certainly been arguing for immortality.

Most have argued for increased longevity or as much life as they want (so if someone wants to be 5 million good for them, if someone only wants to live to be 150 good for them). The true immortality spiel really seems to have kicked of when I, a transhumanist, said eternal life is pretty fantastical. As in fantasy. And someone took that to mean I said it was fantastic.

That is how it is for every living thing on this planet. They are born, grow up, and die. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can give up your fantasies and start living.

What is the fantasy? I mean they double life spans in mice etc, even the most anti-transhumanist scientists agree there is no physical law that states it is impossible for us to live significantly longer - nothing like "nothing faster than the speed of light".

Likewise augmentation, genetic engineering, cybernetics - sci-fi blows a lot of their potential into the realms of fantasy, but a lot of them have genuine potential applications for the improvement of the human body. Are you denying this? If you are you seem to be wasting a lot of energy with your shrill "I'll destroy transhumanism to save humanity!"

This is the key point. Transhumanists are scared of death, which to be fair is fine, but they let that fear ruin their lives and make them miserable by making them incapable enjoying life because they are afraid of live ending. They are too afraid and bitter, and ungrateful, I suppose, to enjoy their time living.

Let me guess, you have no evidence to support your bulshit claims? And again, you're probably the most fearful person in this thread, with your apparent fear of transhumanist succeeding and the future being different to what you'd like.

Relax, have a cig, drink a beer, and get a date. Go out with friends and family. That is what life is about, as life is finite, enjoy it while is here.

Funny, I do all that already. Weird, it's almost like you don't know what your talking about in relation to the motivations and the aspirations in regards to transhumanists.

This is my sense of all the various transhumanism bs I've looked at online.

You clearly haven't looked very closely. And it goes against most of what has been said in this thread. And seems to buy into the pretty inaccurate "all transhumanists are immortality seekers" stereotypes.

[Conserative Morality]

Some people don't. A lot in fact. You know, different ways of thinking and all that.

A crying shame.

Because the human condition is carved in a stone that was there at the big bang and will be there at heat death or bubble death or whatever? A lot of your arguments appear to be appeals to tradition - it should be like it has always been (all few thousand year of it in which period we've changed significantly), and if it isn't that is bad. Why is it a problem? The things we need to think about and ponder will be different, ergo the philosophy will change accordingly.

I mean, I'd be interested to see the absolutely definitive guide to the human condition you are drawing on.

It was formed when Homo Sapiens came into being some fifty thousand years ago.

I still don't know why we are on this "true immortality" spiel, since even a lot of Transhumanists don't buy into us finding a way to be truly ever living with no risk of death. Something to in some sense to achieve a continuation of consciousness, but not "I'm here for infinity now".

It's been floating around in this thread, if you'll take a look.

Ah, so a life to short is bad, a life to long is bad. The life we have now is just right for some reason.

Of course.

Except our hardware has almost certainly changed a bit via natural evolutionary processes, much like our height has. Overall functions much the same as it always has, but a comparison of our brains to a first dynasty Egyptian would likely show some differences. And of course further back to our 50,000 year old hunter gatherer kin.

Doubtful. Homo sapiens was recognizably human 200,000 years ago and achieved behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago.

Never mind that even with identical hardware there is potential for significant alien thought. Read the individuals who were raised like/with dogs who despite have the same brain as you or I think vastly differently. Not like a dog, but not like a human. You put far to much stock in this notion of static brains.

Just because there is the capacity for alien thought with identical hardware does not mean that encouraging alien thought with alien hardware is the path to go.

Because it is all there is now, not necessarily because that is all there will ever be. There is no greater purpose, ergo simply staying human is not a greater purpose.

Being human is a greater purpose.

There is great potential and value in different experiences, different mindsets, different bodies that might or might not be worth experience.

No, there really isn't.

There is nothing so special about humans that it is unfathomable that people might like to gradually move their branch of the species to something new that they see as having great potential if it were possible.

Those who think that moving their branch of the species is a worthwhile goal lack appreciation of the human condition.

I'm glad our ape like ancestors evolved into us, because I'm glad I exist. I could understand some alien distant descendant of us having a similar thought.

I'm happy I exist as well. I have no desire to be an ape, however, nor do I have any desire to be some distant, human-descended alien. Do you?

At a microlevel you aren't the you you were 10, 20 etc years ago (no idea how old you are). In terms of body or mind. At a macrolevel there has been a continuation of conscious through so you are, even though you are different (assuming you didn't wake up one day with no memory of anything before).

Human life is made up of the whole set of traits, not one or two. Any examination of any singular trait is pointless, as is examination of human beings on the microlevel.

And I am who I am as well. I'll still be me even if I'm a brain in a jar. The experiences I go through might change me drastically, but as long as there is a continuation of consciousness then the potentially unimaginable mean 50 years from now will still be me. I'll have evolved to that throughout life.

You'll be someone different. Your consciousness may remain (Though I might not bet on it), but one does not change what one is and still maintain the same paths of experience.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

But if life were worth less, then there would be no point in living.

There is no 'point' in living right now. It's all just combinations of atoms moving around, and in a hundred trillion years those will all be gone.

One of the basic foundations of transhumanism is that life is good. Having life is good. Having intelligence is good. Those things are good in and of themselves, not because of scarcity or because they might lead to some purpose.

[Atnae]

Assuming we were immortal, it would lead just as much poignancy to point out quite rightly, that the ultimate fate of the universe is to die, and nothing can last forever etc.
The know that your death will come with the end of all things etc, and that you and your comrades will be there at the end fighting in vain against a foe you know you won't beat for just a few more moments as the last lights go out is incredibly poignant.
It's in our battle against death that we find poignancy, and you're proposing to let it off easy.
No.
Make it struggle to get us.

Death is often given a number of human traits, to such a degree that an anthropomorphic design of him is instantly recognisable. Personally, I don't see the point in fighting something that can't know it's beaten.

[Conserative Morality]

Then let them panic. It's just as much an exploration of the human condition.
Doubtless some will panic. Others will turn to some new fangled religion. Some still will go down with the ship playing the violin.

Again, is it really the human condition once one has changed it so much?

And a house isn't a home. They couldn't take the home.

Home and house are one and the same. The home is not only the area surrounding, but the structure of the house, the furniture, the rooms; all the things that call up the memories of home.