Transhumanism

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

It'll be A human condition.
I deny there is such a singular condition as it is. Only variants.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Being human is a greater purpose.

Source?

[Ostroeuropa]

Being human is a greater purpose.

Source?

People define their own purpose in my opinion.
Being human is his.
Our entire shtick is that we should be allowed to not include that in ours.

[AETEN II]

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.

Except that we'll soon possess the tech (century or so) to beat it and permanently avoid it. Well, so long as you don't get hit by a car. Immortality is extremely realistic. Invincibility isn't.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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...

Hmmmm.

- Life is meaningless is we don't suffer and die
- Lol, Transhumanists are just scared of death and need to get a life so they'll be happy to die
- Non-science, questionable history, techno-pessamism from people on computers, possibly in a heated home, possible close to a hospital that could one day put an artificial heart (that'll work better than the original for the rest of their lives) in them if they have a heart attack.

Yes - nothing there to argue passionately against. I'm curious though - how wouldn't it dishearten you? If the transhumanists present just said "ok, you're right?" I mean, you seem to be down on them arguing against something, you make no mention in regards to the validity or non validity of their arguments, or those they are arguing with.

[Ostroeuropa]

It just occured to me that the typical:

"The process of transcendence, it's just a copy, it might not be you."

is largely irrelevant in terms of ethicality.
It's certainly a reason for self-interest to dictate you shouldn't undergo say, a mind upload process, but in terms of ethicality, for one sentient creature to lay down it's life so that another can live is usually seen as a good act.
Especially if that sentient creature views the one it is granting life to as being it's superior in some way. Any transhumanist worth their salt should probably accept this conclusion.

If transcendence involved the death of "You" and the birth of "You+" then that is irrelevant.
It is still good to undergo the process.
It's simply permissable to decide not to. You aren't required to lay down your life.

[Conserative Morality]

Source?

Irrational values have no source, and yet, they are the foundation for all views.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Immortality is extremely realistic. Invincibility isn't.

Depends on whether you believe that mind backups are possible/constitute continuation of life, I suppose. If you can save a copy of yourself and consider that copy's survival as being your own survival, then you can increase your survivability.

[Ostroeuropa]

Immortality is extremely realistic. Invincibility isn't.

Depends on whether you believe that mind backups are possible/constitute continuation of life, I suppose. If you can save a copy of yourself and consider that copy's survival as being your own survival, then you can increase your survivability.

That would just change the manner of our vulnerability.
I'd hate to see what computer viruses could wreak on such a society, given that coding would control the entire perception of reality.

[Conserative Morality]

It just occured to me that the typical:

"The process of transcendence, it's just a copy, it might not be you."

is largely irrelevant in terms of ethicality.
It's certainly a reason for self-interest to dictate you shouldn't undergo say, a mind upload process, but in terms of ethicality, for one sentient creature to lay down it's life so that another can live is usually seen as a good act.
Especially if that sentient creature views the one it is granting life to as being it's superior in some way. Any transhumanist worth their salt should probably accept this conclusion.

If transcendence involved the death of "You" and the birth of "You+" then that is irrelevant.
It is still good to undergo the process.
It's simply permissable to decide not to. You aren't required to lay down your life.

You said I was making the same noise as theists who believe in the afterlife, and you come up with this?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Source?

Irrational values have no source, and yet, they are the foundation for all views.

Fine. Just wanted to be sure we're down to a priori assumptions.

Personally, I find irrational value in thinking, not as Thomas Jefferson, but as a version of myself with a brain that's capable of higher processing power.

[Ostroeuropa]

It just occured to me that the typical:

"The process of transcendence, it's just a copy, it might not be you."

is largely irrelevant in terms of ethicality.
It's certainly a reason for self-interest to dictate you shouldn't undergo say, a mind upload process, but in terms of ethicality, for one sentient creature to lay down it's life so that another can live is usually seen as a good act.
Especially if that sentient creature views the one it is granting life to as being it's superior in some way. Any transhumanist worth their salt should probably accept this conclusion.

If transcendence involved the death of "You" and the birth of "You+" then that is irrelevant.
It is still good to undergo the process.
It's simply permissable to decide not to. You aren't required to lay down your life.

You said I was making the same noise as theists who believe in the afterlife, and you come up with this?

Do you deny that if you view both forms as life as valid, that this argument is inherently true?
It's the equivalent of throwing yourself in front of a bus to shove someone out of the way.
Except in this circumstance it's more... someone deciding to give birth knowing they will die in the process.
It's an admirable act. But in no way required. Refusal to do it is morally neutral.

[AETEN II]

Immortality is extremely realistic. Invincibility isn't.

Depends on whether you believe that mind backups are possible/constitute continuation of life, I suppose. If you can save a copy of yourself and consider that copy's survival as being your own survival, then you can increase your survivability.

Consciousness is more or not the result of a functioning brain. Assimilating your brain and personality? It's you, it'd be controlling the same body. But then again though, consciousness and what it really is, is completely up in the air and a goddamned confusing subject.

[Conserative Morality]

Fine. Just wanted to be sure we're down to a priori assumptions.

Personally, I find irrational value in thinking, not as Thomas Jefferson, but as a version of myself with a brain that's capable of higher processing power.

I think most people do.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fine. Just wanted to be sure we're down to a priori assumptions.

Personally, I find irrational value in thinking, not as Thomas Jefferson, but as a version of myself with a brain that's capable of higher processing power.

I think most people do.

Would you reject a mind-improvement that allowed you to think quicker.
That's all it'd do.
The same thoughts, at a faster rate.

[Conserative Morality]

Do you deny that if you view both forms as life as valid, that this argument is inherently true?
It's the equivalent of throwing yourself in front of a bus to shove someone out of the way.

The action isn't killing oneself. It's accepting the possibility of death

Facing uncertainty is braver than facing certainty, and it isn't suicide besides. It implies both an acceptance of death and maintenance of the fight against it.

Except in this circumstance it's more... someone deciding to give birth knowing they will die in the process.
It's an admirable act. But in no way required. Refusal to do it is morally neutral.

More like Jesus up on the cross.

It's not an admirable act. It's giving up.

[Conserative Morality]

Would you reject a mind-improvement that allowed you to think quicker.
That's all it'd do.
The same thoughts, at a faster rate.

Probably. At a faster rate would certainly change how I thought, even if just by virtue of going through my thoughts faster. Losing thoughts, dwelling on them, mulling over them, etc, are all important in the formation of ideas.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Fine. Just wanted to be sure we're down to a priori assumptions.

Personally, I find irrational value in thinking, not as Thomas Jefferson, but as a version of myself with a brain that's capable of higher processing power.

I think most people do.

Well then what's the problem if I take steps to increase my brain's processing power once the technology becomes available?

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you deny that if you view both forms as life as valid, that this argument is inherently true?
It's the equivalent of throwing yourself in front of a bus to shove someone out of the way.

The action isn't killing oneself. It's accepting the possibility of death

Facing uncertainty is braver than facing certainty, and it isn't suicide besides. It implies both an acceptance of death and maintenance of the fight against it.

Except in this circumstance it's more... someone deciding to give birth knowing they will die in the process.
It's an admirable act. But in no way required. Refusal to do it is morally neutral.

More like Jesus up on the cross.

It's not an admirable act. It's giving up.

That's the reverse.
The entity that resulted doesn't owe me anything, as an example.
And no, it really is like deciding to give birth knowing you'll die in the process.

[Conserative Morality]

Well then what's the problem if I take steps to increase my brain's processing power once the technology becomes available?

Because I would find it a violation of humanity.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well then what's the problem if I take steps to increase my brain's processing power once the technology becomes available?

Because I would find it a violation of humanity.

Would you legislate against it or argue for such legislation?

[AETEN II]

Do you deny that if you view both forms as life as valid, that this argument is inherently true?
It's the equivalent of throwing yourself in front of a bus to shove someone out of the way.

The action isn't killing oneself. It's accepting the possibility of death

Facing uncertainty is braver than facing certainty, and it isn't suicide besides. It implies both an acceptance of death and maintenance of the fight against it.

Except in this circumstance it's more... someone deciding to give birth knowing they will die in the process.
It's an admirable act. But in no way required. Refusal to do it is morally neutral.

More like Jesus up on the cross.

It's not an admirable act. It's giving up.

It wouldn't be fucking giving up, it'd be the advancement, or even evolution into a species, superior to man, virtually immune to extinction, and would ensure our survival. It's not weakness, it's the ultimate achievable form of life. Turning yourself into a creature that is immune to disease, age, infection, and most injuries would make you superior to basic Homo sapiens.

[Conserative Morality]

That's the reverse.
The entity that resulted doesn't owe me anything, as an example.
And no, it really is like deciding to give birth knowing you'll die in the process.

It's deciding to get pregnant and give birth, knowing you'll die in the process. You'd be fucked from the moment you were fucked. It's stupid, it's futile, it calls into question your common sense and sense of self-preservation.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's the reverse.
The entity that resulted doesn't owe me anything, as an example.
And no, it really is like deciding to give birth knowing you'll die in the process.

It's deciding to get pregnant and give birth, knowing you'll die in the process. You'd be fucked from the moment you were fucked. It's stupid, it's futile, it calls into question your common sense and sense of self-preservation.

Ofcourse. But none of that makes it unethical.

[Norstal]

Every cosmetics commercial ever. Or if you want the efficiency part car commercials showing glamorous life that you can't even afford, which essentially says "your life sucks, get a new life by buying this car and you can be a cool yuppie like us."

Not an actual physical replacement, true, but the psychological replacement is certainly there.

No, perhaps not, but even if it's a nose you're chopping off or modifying and not whole limbs, it would still have the same psychological impact, imo.

I don't agree. It's a petty matter of aesthetics, at no point does one meaningfully change the human experience. What one does it change one's own life as a human to what they perceive as a more desirable life as another human. That's just not being true to oneself, which is still pretty terrible if you ask me. But it's not transhumanism.

Then wanting a shiny metal ass can be just a matter of aesthetics. It's not necessary for one wanting a shiny metal ass to think "gee, I want to be a tiger today." Conversely, someone who wants to bodypaint themselves with tiger stripes can think "I really want to be a tiger and I will act like one". What is the difference then? Why is the first worst than the latter?

Just because they don't look like human, doesn't mean they stopped being humans. Moreover, someone who looks human may not be human on the inside (although we would still consider them a person by default).