Regarding consciousness, transhumanism, and existence

[Antares XII]

Before I start, I would like to make the following clear:

This is a thread for intelligent, coherent debate concerning transhumanism and the nature of consciousness and existence. If you can't back up your argument using logic and reason, I will ignore your posts. This means arguments such as "Your beliefs are bullshit / that's stupid" which are not accompanied by some sort of link to scientific or philosophical material explaining your reason for saying so. I can't tell you to GTFO, but I don't have to acknowledge your presence. Other than that, I welcome constructive criticism and counterarguments.

I am starting this thread as a result of discussions in several other threads, in which my posts were either partly off topic, or the threads were not comprehensive enough. Links to the first post of each discussion, respectively:

Transhumanism
Transhumanism-related sexual affiliations and self-identification
Consciousness
Existence

Relevant external links for ease of access:

Blue Brain project
Modal realism
Transhumanism
FM-2030*

Please read through these (or at least read the posts I myself have made in each thread) before posting, as they are entirely relevant and helpful in understanding my stance on the topic(s).

* While I do not agree with everything FM-2030 said or did, I do believe he had some good ideas, and that quote is damn good.

[Dyakovo]

Before I start, I would like to make the following clear:

This is a thread for intelligent, coherent debate concerning transhumanism and the nature of consciousness and existence. If you can't back up your argument using logic and reason, I will ignore your posts. This means arguments such as "Your beliefs are bullshit / that's stupid" which are not accompanied by some sort of link to scientific or philosophical material explaining your reason for saying so. I can't tell you to GTFO, but I don't have to acknowledge your presence. Other than that, I welcome constructive criticism and counterarguments.

Why do I have the feeling that that means you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you?

[Antares XII]

Before I start, I would like to make the following clear:

This is a thread for intelligent, coherent debate concerning transhumanism and the nature of consciousness and existence. If you can't back up your argument using logic and reason, I will ignore your posts. This means arguments such as "Your beliefs are bullshit / that's stupid" which are not accompanied by some sort of link to scientific or philosophical material explaining your reason for saying so. I can't tell you to GTFO, but I don't have to acknowledge your presence. Other than that, I welcome constructive criticism and counterarguments.

Why do I have the feeling that that means you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you?

I do not know. Feel free to disagree with me. Just provide at least one scientific or philosophical reason for doing so, instead of "that is a stupid idea" followed by no support or reason for your claim whatsoever aside from "because I say so".

[Cameroi]

intelligent, coherent, debate. i'm not certain all three of those belong together. i'm pretty sure they're unlikely to be found together here on nation states.

[Zottistan]

intelligent, coherent, debate. i'm not certain all three of those belong together. i'm pretty sure they're unlikely to be found together here on nation states.

Or... anywhere.

[Antares XII]

intelligent, coherent, debate. i'm not certain all three of those belong together. i'm pretty sure they're unlikely to be found together here on nation states.

Or... anywhere.

Perhaps. I believe that one should still seek it out, however. A lack of likelihood should not convince one that an endeavour is hopeless or not worth pursuing.

Thoughts on the topic(s) at hand, anyone?

[Esternial]

It took me awhile to find this.

Well, I find the entire concept related to what you want to achieve to be quite interesting. The Blue Brain Project in particular seems quite promising.

I'm sure there will be a day when we can artificially construct (or store) a consciousness, though I think we still lack the hardware for this to be possible.

[Antares XII]

It took me awhile to find this.

Well, I find the entire concept related to what you want to achieve to be quite interesting. The Blue Brain Project in particular seems quite promising.

I'm sure there will be a day when we can artificially construct (or store) a consciousness, though I think we still lack the hardware for this to be possible.

Yes, I will admit that at the moment we do not have the capability to do so, although we are making promising breakthroughs and headway. I seem to recall reading somewhere that IBM has managed to map 5% of the brain so far... I'll try to find a source and link it.

Also, good to see you! I was wondering if you'd make it. c:

[Conserative Morality]

Transhumanism is the attempt to become something more than human.

Naturally, I view such attempts to be deeply immoral.

[Antares XII]

Transhumanism is the attempt to become something more than human.

Naturally, I view such attempts to be deeply immoral.

Please read the OP. Edit: Yes, the OP applies here as well. Okay, so you view such attempts to be deeply immoral. Why? What is your reasoning for this?

Esternial, I was wrong - it's 4.5%, not 5%. Still very impressive, though. Also, seems that IBM received a grant from DARPA to continue their work. That's promising.

Following are some other links of interest and relevance:

PM's version of the same article
Same thing, via c|net: tentative goal completion date set for 2019
Macaque brain mapping

[Conserative Morality]

Please read the OP. Edit: Yes, the OP applies here as well. Okay, so you view such attempts to be deeply immoral. Why? What is your reasoning for this?

Why wouldn't an attempt to abandon one's humanity be immoral? I see nothing about it that isn't immoral. All those who would hate their own humanity deserve to be hated by humanity.

[Meryuma]

I don't like (at least most forms of) transhumanism because they're based around an oversimplified and uncritical concept of technology as a linear progression, as well as a distaste and disregard for the biosphere and sometimes also for indigenous peoples with simple technologies. If you're a transhumanist and don't buy into any of these ideas I'll regard you with open-minded skepticism, but if you fall into this dominant transhumanist narrative I'll be more annoyed then anything.

[Antares XII]

I don't like (at least most forms of) transhumanism because they're based around an oversimplified and uncritical concept of technology as a linear progression, as well as a distaste and disregard for the biosphere and sometimes also for indigenous peoples with simple technologies. If you're a transhumanist and don't buy into any of these ideas I'll regard you with open-minded skepticism, but if you fall into this dominant transhumanist narrative I'll be more annoyed then anything.

That's fair enough, in the same way I dislike luddites for their irrational technophobia. I'll be honest and say I mostly want it for my own personal betterment - I have physical flaws I want to correct that cannot be corrected even with modern medicine, but future prosthetics and inorganic replacements theoretically should be able to make them a nonissue. I don't think it should be forced on anyone, but it definitely should be made universally accessible so as to prevent applicable abuse. As for the biosphere, I must ask you what exactly you mean by that - I find the idea of haphazardly destroying the environment to further selfish goals to be distasteful, and I think that in all things, moderation is important. Still, I think the potential benefits of technological advance can be reverse-applied to repair or undo what minimal damage is required to advance it in the first place, and when it comes down to it my well-being is quite frankly more important to me than plants in general (so long as it doesn't come at too unrealistic a cost, such as extinction or irreversible damage to species volume - if that were the requirement for bettering myself, I don't know what I would choose). Animals are a different story - I have an extremely soft spot for cats in particular and will punch a baby if I see it abuse a cat. (Kidding. Probably.) That being said, I don't buy Kurzweil's views and claims - they are unrealistic, even if there is going to be a technological singularity one day I seriously doubt it is anytime soon, and Moore's law is mostly bogus - and I don't hold any great hope for most of my dreams coming to fruition in my lifetime with the exception of computerised whole brain emulation and somewhat nicer cybernetic prosthetics (Cyberthetics? Prosnetics?). So I'll more than likely end up donating my body (what bits of it are useful anyway) to science for research, and hope that I can at least do my part to help pioneer the field and bring the transhumanist dream one step closer to becoming a reality.

Please read the OP. Edit: Yes, the OP applies here as well. Okay, so you view such attempts to be deeply immoral. Why? What is your reasoning for this?

Why wouldn't an attempt to abandon one's humanity be immoral? I see nothing about it that isn't immoral. All those who would hate their own humanity deserve to be hated by humanity.

I don't hate humanity in general at all, although it certainly makes me upset at times. As stated above, I just want to better myself, and I don't think that's a bad goal to have, even if it is selfish. Is it immoral to want to improve? What is complacency, then? I don't see why hate has to come into the equation at all.



On a side note, I really dislike the trend in media today to portray AI (should be SI anyway) and selfaware androids as mindless, bloodthirsty machines bent on human domination or eradication. I really, really dislike it. If they end up like that, it's only because their creators set the example for them to follow.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't hate humanity in general at all, although it certainly makes me upset at times. As stated above, I just want to better myself, and I don't think that's a bad goal to have, even if it is selfish. Is it immoral to want to improve? What is complacency, then? I don't see why hate has to come into the equation at all.

You want to improve by abandoning your humanity. Such 'Improvement' is backwards, and, yes, immoral. Humanity is nothing more than the sum of its parts; reject those parts, and you reject humanity.

[Meryuma]

As for the biosphere, I must ask you what exactly you mean by that - I find the idea of haphazardly destroying the environment to further selfish goals to be distasteful, and I think that in all things, moderation is important. Still, I think the potential benefits of technological advance can be reverse-applied to repair or undo what minimal damage is required to advance it in the first place, and when it comes down to it my well-being is quite frankly more important to me than plants in general (so long as it doesn't come at too unrealistic a cost, such as extinction or irreversible damage to species volume - if that were the requirement for bettering myself, I don't know what I would choose).

My questions are "what technologies would you be advancing" and "how will you produce these technologies".

[Esternial]

I don't hate humanity in general at all, although it certainly makes me upset at times. As stated above, I just want to better myself, and I don't think that's a bad goal to have, even if it is selfish. Is it immoral to want to improve? What is complacency, then? I don't see why hate has to come into the equation at all.

You want to improve by abandoning your humanity. Such 'Improvement' is backwards, and, yes, immoral. Humanity is nothing more than the sum of its parts; reject those parts, and you reject humanity.

I'm somewhat reluctant to agree with what I call "mechanical" transhumanism, mainly for the reason you just mentioned. By integrating ourselves with machinery we lose parts of our own humanity, and I consider it to be a step backwards as well, as the complexity of biological life is so wonderful, to have been created by millions of years of evolution, that discarding it and replacing it by something artificial that we made ourselves seems like we're squandering it.

However, I don't oppose any form of transhumanism that are related to improving our biological processes via human intervention. Modifying our genetic code to prevent disease or to allow our offspring to have the best chances in life seems like something to aspire to.

If we could modify one's genetic code so that he/she will grow up to be smart individual - if at all possible - it would prove to be an incredible step forwards in science. With all this increased thinking strength, brilliant minds that we create ourselves.

Rather than wait for a revolutionary idea from an enlightened individual, we *create* the enlightened individuals, potentially giving science a tremendous boost.

Of course, some would argue that this means these people get these gifts from birth, without having to do hard work. I honestly don't care, as the end result is not focused on this person, but on progress in science itself.

[Antares XII]

I don't hate humanity in general at all, although it certainly makes me upset at times. As stated above, I just want to better myself, and I don't think that's a bad goal to have, even if it is selfish. Is it immoral to want to improve? What is complacency, then? I don't see why hate has to come into the equation at all.

You want to improve by abandoning your humanity. Such 'Improvement' is backwards, and, yes, immoral. Humanity is nothing more than the sum of its parts; reject those parts, and you reject humanity.

By that logic, amputees, whether they have prosthetic replacements or not, are subhuman and immoral. One could even take this to the logical extreme and say that cataract surgery, appendix / tonsil / adenoid removal, LASIK, metal plates and joints, glass eyes, and tooth removal / crowns / fillings / bridges make a person subhuman and immoral. I think there are a great many non-transhumanists who would find this to be in bad taste. There is nothing wrong with replacing faulty parts, removing potentially harmful parts, or upgrading parts that function at less than optimal efficiency.

This is partly why I assert that I am not my body - I am the idea within, the consciousness, the 'soul'.

As for the biosphere, I must ask you what exactly you mean by that - I find the idea of haphazardly destroying the environment to further selfish goals to be distasteful, and I think that in all things, moderation is important. Still, I think the potential benefits of technological advance can be reverse-applied to repair or undo what minimal damage is required to advance it in the first place, and when it comes down to it my well-being is quite frankly more important to me than plants in general (so long as it doesn't come at too unrealistic a cost, such as extinction or irreversible damage to species volume - if that were the requirement for bettering myself, I don't know what I would choose).

My questions are "what technologies would you be advancing" and "how will you produce these technologies".

Oh. Robotics, cybernetics, and computer technology, primarily. Computers can be used to further research smarter, more efficient and more effective environmentally beneficial courses of action, and robots can be used to repair environmental damage in places too dangerous or hard to reach for normal people. I personally won't be producing them until / unless I can start a garage, in which case I would use the cleanest and safest methods I could, within reason.

[Meryuma]

Oh. Robotics, cybernetics, and computer technology, primarily. Computers can be used to further research smarter, more efficient and more effective environmentally beneficial courses of action, and robots can be used to repair environmental damage in places too dangerous or hard to reach for normal people. I personally won't be producing them until / unless I can start a garage, in which case I would use the cleanest and safest methods I could, within reason.

I'm not ask how you, personally, will produce these technologies. I'm asking what methods of resource extraction, transportation, assembly, etc. can be used that will not require petroleum, strip mining and deforestation.

[The USOT]

I don't hate humanity in general at all, although it certainly makes me upset at times. As stated above, I just want to better myself, and I don't think that's a bad goal to have, even if it is selfish. Is it immoral to want to improve? What is complacency, then? I don't see why hate has to come into the equation at all.

You want to improve by abandoning your humanity. Such 'Improvement' is backwards, and, yes, immoral. Humanity is nothing more than the sum of its parts; reject those parts, and you reject humanity.

That is dumb. If I want to exercise to improve my condition that doesnt mean I hate myself. It merely means that I acknowledge there are flaws and I want to improve upon them.
In the same vein, wanting to live forever doesnt mean I hate my life. It merely means I wish I had more of it.

[Antares XII]

Oh. Robotics, cybernetics, and computer technology, primarily. Computers can be used to further research smarter, more efficient and more effective environmentally beneficial courses of action, and robots can be used to repair environmental damage in places too dangerous or hard to reach for normal people. I personally won't be producing them until / unless I can start a garage, in which case I would use the cleanest and safest methods I could, within reason.

I'm not ask how you, personally, will produce these technologies. I'm asking what methods of resource extraction, transportation, assembly, etc. can be used that will not require petroleum, strip mining and deforestation.

Personally, I'm for space mining. Deuterium is a good fuel replacement and can be found on the moon and other locations, as is photovoltaic, photothermal, and nuclear. As for oil for lubricants, what about growing extra plants for the sole purpose of processing them into oil artificially, or even use synthetic materials? We can make artificial diamonds in a lab, I don't see why we can't do the same for oil. Hell, one could even borrow a page from Esternial's book and use genetic modification to accelerate the growth of said plants, make them more efficient fuel sources, hardier to survive more easily in harsh space conditions so they can be grown on the moon / Mars / space stations, etc.

Edit: All of which can and should be done in space as well because gravity and magnetic fields will have less of an impact there.

[The Emerald Legion]

Oh. Robotics, cybernetics, and computer technology, primarily. Computers can be used to further research smarter, more efficient and more effective environmentally beneficial courses of action, and robots can be used to repair environmental damage in places too dangerous or hard to reach for normal people. I personally won't be producing them until / unless I can start a garage, in which case I would use the cleanest and safest methods I could, within reason.

I'm not ask how you, personally, will produce these technologies. I'm asking what methods of resource extraction, transportation, assembly, etc. can be used that will not require petroleum, strip mining and deforestation.

Why would they require that?

Not that I'm against any of those, but why would they be requirements at all? Aside from gas, which you just sorta need to get over until nuclear power and electric engines become more commonplace.

[Conserative Morality]

By that logic, amputees, whether they have prosthetic replacements or not, are subhuman and immoral. One could even take this to the logical extreme and say that cataract surgery, appendix / tonsil / adenoid removal, LASIK, metal plates and joints, glass eyes, and tooth removal / crowns / fillings / bridges make a person subhuman and immoral. I think there are a great many non-transhumanists who would find this to be in bad taste. There is nothing wrong with replacing faulty parts, removing potentially harmful parts, or upgrading parts that function at less than optimal efficiency.

Please. Humanity is all about intention. I have nothing against prosthetics, because they aspire to the human standard, and by aspiring to it, achieve it.

This is partly why I assert that I am not my body - I am the idea within, the consciousness, the 'soul'.

Dualism is a bunch of unscientific bullshit. Body, mind, soul, will - all of these things are one and the same.

[Conserative Morality]

That is dumb. If I want to exercise to improve my condition that doesnt mean I hate myself. It merely means that I acknowledge there are flaws and I want to improve upon them.

It means that you view your own humanity as fundamentally flawed. It would be one thing if you wished to improve yourself - another to replace yourself under the guise of the former.

In the same vein, wanting to live forever doesnt mean I hate my life. It merely means I wish I had more of it.

Oh, I quite disagree - those that desire immortality are those who hate life the most.

[The Emerald Legion]

By that logic, amputees, whether they have prosthetic replacements or not, are subhuman and immoral. One could even take this to the logical extreme and say that cataract surgery, appendix / tonsil / adenoid removal, LASIK, metal plates and joints, glass eyes, and tooth removal / crowns / fillings / bridges make a person subhuman and immoral. I think there are a great many non-transhumanists who would find this to be in bad taste. There is nothing wrong with replacing faulty parts, removing potentially harmful parts, or upgrading parts that function at less than optimal efficiency.

Please. Humanity is all about intention. I have nothing against prosthetics, because they aspire to the human standard, and by aspiring to it, achieve it.

This is partly why I assert that I am not my body - I am the idea within, the consciousness, the 'soul'.

Dualism is a bunch of unscientific bullshit. Body, mind, soul, will - all of these things are one and the same.

Humanity is an ideal. It just so happens that no humans live up to my ideal of humanity.

[Meryuma]

I'm not ask how you, personally, will produce these technologies. I'm asking what methods of resource extraction, transportation, assembly, etc. can be used that will not require petroleum, strip mining and deforestation.

Personally, I'm for space mining. Deuterium is a good fuel replacement and can be found on the moon and other locations, as is photovoltaic, photothermal, and nuclear. As for oil for lubricants, what about growing extra plants for the sole purpose of processing them into oil artificially, or even use synthetic materials? We can make artificial diamonds in a lab, I don't see why we can't do the same for oil. Hell, one could even borrow a page from Esternial's book and use genetic modification to accelerate the growth of said plants, make them more efficient fuel sources, hardier to survive more easily in harsh space conditions so they can be grown on the moon / Mars / space stations, etc.

Asteroid mining is definitely better than Earth mining but it could be very environmentally destructive making all the infrastructure etc. to start the asteroid mining program. Industrial agriculture is innately wasteful and unsustainable and such vastly increased use of any particular plant would require further expansion of that system.

I'm not ask how you, personally, will produce these technologies. I'm asking what methods of resource extraction, transportation, assembly, etc. can be used that will not require petroleum, strip mining and deforestation.

Why would they require that?

Not that I'm against any of those, but why would they be requirements at all? Aside from gas, which you just sorta need to get over until nuclear power and electric engines become more commonplace.

extraction, transportation, assembly, etc.

You're asking for greatly increased industry, which means greatly increased resource consumption.