Transhumanism

[MrFlibble]

I've heard about studies the results of which suggested that current substitutes for natural breastfeeding are insufficient, and checked Wikipedia on the subject right now. I'm no specialist in this, and substitutes are sure of some help when natural breastfeeding is unavailable, but following the natural pattern seems kinda right to me. In any case, the existence of substitutes has not eliminated the natural ability to breastfeed, or the demand for breast milk in infants anyway, so I don't know how much of change this should be regarded as.

[ErasOmnius]

Fellow human Dante. I am simply talking about my point of view.

I cannot understand why you go so ballistic, almost all of the time -- when I write down how I feel about society.

Children:

I am not simply talking about people's own children supporting them, I am talking about society in general. How do we support all of the seniors, if there are no tax-paying, productive just-grown-into-adulthood adults to pay for their non-work? This is a dilemma the entire West finds itself in. My solution is that people need to start having more children. Urban Planners in Japan are thinking the same, as tax credits are given out by the government for young couples to have a child. As far as child-rearing goes. No one is saying that anyone has the right to control anyone's children till death -- but the bonds of familial love are strong. Family members do in general, want to help other family members. It is simple math. The less young people, the less a society is able to grow, to afford new things, to take care of the elderly and the frail.

As far as a working example. My father lives with my family. It's very good for everyone. It keeps his mind nimble as he inter-acts with the children, playing sports and Board games.

But I do not want to digress to far off of Topic. I am simply saying that if we could grow new limbs for people, or replace those limbs with cybernetics -- sure that would be great. But with 1/5 of the US & Canadian budget going towards the Pension/Social Security, will there be any money for research towards these goals?

The World and the Environment

The world still has lot of potential.The largest natural gas find in the USA took place in the last 5 years. A huge reserve was discovered in the norther part of Arabia's Empty Quarter. Brazil has made some major finds lately. Some of the shock and horror from the radical environmental movement has been a lot of hype and gripe.

Me

Troll, conceited...Those names do not describe me. Not trolling...just typing a more traditional view of the world. I am sorry if you cannot handle it. Back to the beginning as to why some of us are here, have read Dune, etc. Some people like the technology aspect of Dune, some like the good writing, some like the grandiose view of humanity's history.There are a multitude of reasons. Some of us like the "family feel" of the Atreides, their nobility and willingness to sacrifice for themselves, contrasted with, perhaps the Harkonnens.

There are many reasons why people read Dune, migrate to Dune2k, post here. It's not just the so-called self-proclaimed progressive evolutionary-believing people who like to do so. You should, as a long-time posting person, try to be above it all...and welcome diverse views. This view of yours: "You are not welcome here." "You are not a part..." Why so exclusionary? From the number of posting this Forum has had in the past 2 months, I should think everyone with a non-racist, non-ethnicist view-point should be welcome to Post.

Our world views may be opposite, but I have never wanted you to be censored -- ever -- on this Forum.

[MrFlibble]

How do we support all of the seniors, if there are no tax-paying, productive just-grown-into-adulthood adults to pay for their non-work? This is a dilemma the entire West finds itself in. My solution is that people need to start having more children. Urban Planners in Japan are thinking the same, as tax credits are given out by the government for young couples to have a child.

That's because in Japan, there's a serious situation with demographics in this respect, as the birth rate was steadily decreasing over the past decades. As a consequence, Japan today faces the problem of population ageing on an unprecedented scale. Read more here. This situation is not typical for all of the world, you know.

The "have more children" solution you seem to be fond of feels like an oversimplification of the problem that fails to take into account quite a few important factors. First, children do not grow up into machines that automatically pay taxes in pre-set intervals. (Captain Obvious Mode On, eh?) You gotta get a job to be able to sustain at least yourself and to pay taxes, and to get a decent job you need some education in the first place. Now, the higher-paid the job you're aiming at, the better the education you need, ergo the more you (or your parents if they support you) will have to spend to acquire it. That's quite a lot of money to be earned and spent. Now, another aspect: the number of vacant jobs is not unlimited in a society, and if you have too many workers, a proportion of them will inevitably face unemployment. And if the government steps in to create new jobs for the unemployed, there's a pretty big chance it'll be something to put more strain on the environment, like building construction or something of that kind - and that in addition to the fact that a large population already tends to strain the environment and natural resource supplies.

Now, to sum up:

1. The parents will have to invest a lot into making their children effective tax-payers.

2. Increasing the number of workers (and tax payers) doesn't work indefinitely. At some point it's going to start producing the opposite of the desired results.

3. Uncontrolled population growth is likely to topple the already fragile (well, already failing TBH) balance within the environment.

4. Your social model seems to exclude from consideration most of the inner workings of a society, such as what roles different citizens are going to fulfil, what vectors of development a society or a community is going to take etc. etc. The unspecified "tax-payers" in your view just seem to be able to generate money from the air.

5. External relations (economical, political etc.) with other societies (countries) are also not taken into account.

And finally, are you talking about the US here, the "West" (Western Europe I suppose), or the world on the whole (since you've mentioned Japan)?

[Wolf]

I cannot understand why you go so ballistic, almost all of the time -- when I write down how I feel about society.

That's because you're criminally insane, and monstrous. If you could understand why Dante feels that way, you would recoil in horror, and probably do bad things to yourself in the moment of pitiful self-loathing that followed.

Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that Liar thinks that people who don't have children should not be entitled to social services. As far as I understand things, the last modern state to require child-rearing as a core duty of the citizen was, well, a rather familiar one. The reason we entitle people to social services is because we value their inherent humanity, not whatever service they provide "to the state" or "to the people." Quite honestly, this makes me think that the largest question looming on the issue of transhumanism is how such transformations of the understanding of "human" might lead to barbarism resulting from the same kind of dehumanization that Liar exhibits in every one of his posts!

[Dante]

I am hostile, Eracist, because you are the most weasel-worded, passive aggressive, slime-speaking abberation ever to worm your way onto the internet. Also you're an idiot, and I can't stand idiocy. Also you don't take hints, or even direct instructions. I told you to stop implying some sort of companionship between us, and "fellow human" covers that. You are not my fellow and you are - behaviourly speaking - about as human as a jackal. So to reiterate for your tiny-brained benefit: if you must talk to me, and I'd prefer you didn't, refer to me by name. No descriptors, no adjectives, no preceeding terms, no qualifiers. Trying to establish some sort of camaraderie with me is a fruitless exercise as long as you keep spouting the same tired old bullshit, so knock it off.

Also, it's not that our views are dissimilar. Wolf and I have argued in the past, and because we're both adults with brains we were able to work out our differences maturely and to a reasonable compromise. Or at least I think so. The difference between that situation and this is that you're an unreasonable troglodyte with your head so far up your own arse that you can lick your tonsils from the back. You might, in the hilarious alternative reality that you inhabit, think that you're trying to structure a calm, sensible debate, and the laughably tragic thing about that is that you might actually believe it. Take it from someone who knows: your arguments cross the line from unreasonable to ridiculous.

You're right about one thing though, racism and similar ilk are not welcome here. Which is precisely why you should get out and take your stupid with you. You're already banned from one forum, one can only hope it's the first of many.

You know nothing about the environment, you know nothing about oil supplies. Peak production has passed, it's gone. We've already extracted half of the planet's oil supplies, and it was the easy half. What's left is impure, sulphuric, locked in sands or otherwise expensive and difficult to obtain. I'd suggest you actually try to know what you're talking about before making statements, but then you'd never say anything at all.

Actually, that sounds like a good idea. Stop talking about anything you know nothing about (ie. everything).

The world needs fewer children, not more. Granted there will be a difficult time as a huge aging population finds itself lacking young people to support it, but better that than an underclass of young adults enslaved to the last generation. And sooner or later the old people will die, and the next generation of old people will be smaller.

We live in a finite world, Eracist. The delusion that we can just keep growing and growing forever is just false.

Athanasios, whether you like it or not, breastfeeding is no longer vital in raising a child. I happen to be aware that artificial alternatives are not as good as the real thing, however. Breastmilk isn't just nutrients in fluid form, it also contains things to help boost immune responses, for example, very useful in protecting the baby against disease. But, even though it is superior, mothers today can choose not to breastfeed, and no negative stigma attaches to that decision. It's a choice. An option.

Care for your mother if you want, that's your decision. But it should be just that: a decision, not an obligation.

Flibble, I think perhaps we are working with different definitions of what it means to be human. I'll try to summarise my position as best I can, with the proviso that my definition of "human" in this particular argument is much broader than it might be in others (using the Bene Gesserit definition from time to time could be interesting).

Transhumanism: changing what it means to be human through application of technology.

What does it mean to be human? It means genetics, sure, but that's just the beginning. It's how we act, how we think, our perspective on ourselves and our surroundings.

An example. Time was when people saw life as mysterious and fantastical, explicable only by otherworldy, divine intervention. The process of generating new life was poorly understood and often treated as a matter of spontaneous generation: grain begets mice, fleas arise from dirt, eels emerge from morning dew. Over time, however, men (and they were usually men) of science took it upon themselves to examine these "truths" and one by one debunked them. Leave grain in a sealed jar for long enough and no mice will emerge. Watch dew for hours, you will not see an eel slide out. Sooner or later it became accepted that life does not spontaneously generate (anymore), that it arises from life. And that, I argue, has changed us. A society that believed in spontaneous generation also believed in men who took their skin off to become wolves. Today, life is no longer so mysterious to us that we may make things up to fill in the gaps or provide flights of fancy.

So in short, to "be human" formerly meant ignorance of the origins of life. It also meant superstition, gullibility, even naivety. And I hasten to point out that this is from our perspective, a modern point of view. That we can look back on 'alchemists' (tricksters) turning lead into gold and wonder that people ever believed them is a sign that we have changed. We no longer look at deep forests with fear, because we know that the most dangerous things in the world do not lurk in there. More than simply dying of war, plague or famine before we hit twenty five or being expected to work as soon as we can walk, the way we think has changed because of technology.

Technology has allowed us the free time to think, to solve puzzles. Technology gave us everything from the wheel to the fax machine. Technology changes us not just physically but mentally. We think nothing of flying, flying to Japan, formerly a land that to practically everyone outside of it was as good as mythical.

And my point is that what it means "to be human" changes frequently. Physically (genetics), mentally (perspective) and culturally (expression). What we see as human today would be very different to what our ancestors saw. To them, if they even considered the question, being human could have been a matter of behaviour, shape or even location. It would almost certainly have entailed belief in some metaphysical entity (a belief which is now optional), some sort of moral code (confusing humanity for society) and certain codes or practices. Likewise in the future what it means to be human will change again. When people have not only replacement organs, but mechanical ones. Pacemakers and organ donations were just the start, the narrow edge of the wedge. Many ancient cultures would have found it unthinkable to treat organs as commodities: removing them would be depriving someone of their body, which they would use in the afterlife. Now we treat organs as parts, blood as interchangable, conception as a series of parts that we can mix and match at our discretion. Surely the greatest sign that what it means to be human has changed is that we treat our own bodies like machines instead of unbreakable wholes.

But I digress. You suggest that human nature remains unchanged, that it is this very nature (covering, one supposes, curiosity, adventursome spirit, so-called human ingenuity, etc) which gives rise to changes in how it is expressed, but not what it is.

And I think we are working with different definitions of what it means to be human. Your definition appears to me to be, forgive me for saying so, a bit backwards. You assume that there is a "core" of unchanging facts that define "human" as distinct from "ape" or "banana," and then work to discover what this core is. In other words, you're looking for evidence of a hypothesis. That's not how logic works. You need to start with observable or provable evidence and then find a hypothesis that fits all the data to hand.

Now, forgive me if I wander a bit, but I'd like to explore this concept.

Humans were not always humans. We developed, ever so gradually, from something else. We'll treat that as established fact. This development was so gradual that there was no "cutoff," no point at which one could place a marker to seperate "non-human" from "human." In evolutionary terms, there is no way that a "core" of definitely human attributes could have suddenly arisen, give circumstances like that. So maybe, if there were to be such a core, it must have arisen gradually, like humanity itself. But if it arose gradually, where then do we draw the line between "sufficiently human" and "possessed of some of the same attributes, but not in such a degree as to be considered human?"

My suggestion would be that as humans developed as a species, we built on the attributes of our ancestors. Given that humans as a species have changed so much since our inception and continue to do so, it only makes sense that the very core of what it means to be human also changes, since there is no discrete boundary between "not human" and "human," both in evolutionary and technological terms (is a heart transplant patient human as the Romans would have understood it?). And if that is the case, then what is this core but a collection of attributes that have morphed before and could do so again?

I'm probably straying from any semblance of structured argument. To summarise: I see your core of human attributes as a perspective of modern society on humanity. We look at ourselves and think "this is what it means to be human." And I disagree.

Our brains now, that's another kettle of fish altogether. And there's an important distinction between different kinds of thinking. The ability to solve problems, the ability to remember data, the ability to recognise oneself, sapience, sentience, creativity, these are all aspects of mental power that we possess but are not unique to us. Why are humans aware of ourselves? That's an unanswered question, or at least, the answers are still being discussed. Personally I think it was an accident on the way to developing something else. Maybe social skills. Our brains developed to observe each other in order to read social signals, and as a byproduct of that we were able to read ourselves, thus gain an "idea" of ourselves.

Perhaps. I may expand on that in the future, but I've rambled on enough for now. I'm tired and want to go eat something.

EDIT: Argh, Wolf, you had to bring up something that interesting. I'll maybe touch on the whole dehumanising aspect next time. I never thought of it like that. Well, not beyond there being many types of human.

[Lord J]

Mr Flibble, sorry about the long wait between posts: I've been finishing up on my master's thesis, and it's been a major time-suck. Hopefully it is (nearly) done, and I'll have some free time to devote to this board.

I think I may have been misunderstood when I said, "Microprocessor units have fundamentally changed the way people live; the very nature of what it means to be human has been questioned by computers, the Internet, and so on." I tend to look at behavior in terms of the genetic and environmental histories of a person within a context. In my opinion, the genetic makeup of humanity makes up the "nature" of human nature, with the environmental history acting to select certain behavioral trends. The creation of microprocessor units has fundamentally changed the way people live in terms of the interactions of individual behavior in the context of the environment. The effects of microprocessors on genetics, though, are not currently clear. I believe there is some research that supports an slightly Lamarkian concept of natural selection in which the environment actually changes the genetic structure of the organism, but I'm not up on recent advances in that field. In general, I suspect that online dating will create genetic alterations that would not exist without that advancement, and I suspect that there are many similar effects with microprocessor units making genetic mixtures possible that would not have occurred otherwise. But what I was actually referring to is the (relatively) recent reanalysis of human psychology with the advent of microprocessors. The fact of the matter is that psychologists would probably still be primarily behaviorists (or Jungians.... ;) ) without the development of the computer as an analogy for human thought. Therefore, the development of the microprocessor unit called into question our concepts of human nature, not necessarily changing human nature.

In fact, Mr. Flibble, you and I are very much in agreement on your point of "...I have a feeling that the "core" of humanity lies in our cognitive abilities, from which our active changing of the external world, and our bodies as well, arises." It's just that instead of referring to "cognitive abilities" I refer to behavior, because the school of thought that I am trained in refutes the idea of cognition as causality. If cognitive abilities rise from the environment and our genetic histories, then why rely on cognition to explain human behavior when the cause is very much external (or at least, external within genetic parameters)? To answer another of your questions, that's my take, essentially, on cognitive science; they continue to cling to the concept of cognitions (ideas, thoughts, mental images, feelings, etc) as causal while ignoring the importance of the environment on building those cognitive events. My opinion of computer science and the field of robotics is also that building an effective robot is dependent upon building an operating system capable of learning the relationships between various external stimuli.

Free agency, self-determinism, or free will. I have heard of a philosophical concept (I don't remember the name of it, just now) that argues for the existence of free agency based upon the idea of how order may arise from individual choices, so that in the chaos of our existence the order that is observed may be considered in terms of free agency. Although I think this might be an interesting concept (I honestly haven't looked into it very far), I continue to argue that human behavior is shaped by the environment in which it occurs, which leaves little room for "freedom."

[Wolf]

It's terrifying, isn't it? Look at how people like Liar and Anth-whatever act now. Could you imagine the horrors that would follow if there actually were measureable, meaningful differences? There was a point in human history were homo sapien and Cro Magnon existed on planet Earth concurrently. Naturally, Cro Magnon went extinct in short order--too short to be explained by natural selection, but just short enough to be explained by murder. My take on this subject is that any coexistence of humanity with transhumanity and posthumanity would be necessarily brief.

[athanasios]

Breastmilk isn't just nutrients in fluid form, it also contains things to help boost immune responses, for example, very useful in protecting the baby against disease. But, even though it is superior, mothers today can choose not to breastfeed, and no negative stigma attaches to that decision. It's a choice. An option.

Those things have a name, for example 'antibodies'.

As for a stigma granted they are not stigmatized as prostitutes but not considered the correct decision either, especially from MDs.

-

I consider parts of your post very offensive. I think you crossed the limits. Wasn't it I had to reply, I would report your post. It is a pity to force us to read all that garbage to get to the main points of your post. Please don't do it again.

[ErasOmnius]

I am hostile, Eracist, because you are the most weasel-worded, passive aggressive, slime-speaking abberation ever to worm your way onto the internet. Also you're an idiot, and I can't stand idiocy. Also you don't take hints, or even direct instructions. I told you to stop implying some sort of companionship between us, and "fellow human" covers that. You are not my fellow and you are - behaviourly speaking - about as human as a jackal. So to reiterate for your tiny-brained benefit: if you must talk to me, and I'd prefer you didn't, refer to me by name. No descriptors, no adjectives, no preceeding terms, no qualifiers. Trying to establish some sort of camaraderie with me is a fruitless exercise as long as you keep spouting the same tired old bullshit, so knock it off.

No kidding. We are not friends, we have nothing in common. I am well reasoned and open-minded, and you are not. I believe in natural law guiding humanity, and you do not. You never explain yourself. You don't care to. I have been posting in peace since Sept, with hardly any notice, but there you are, challenging me -- so I know what awaits me next on this Forum.

Also, it's not that our views are dissimilar. Wolf and I have argued in the past, and because we're both adults with brains we were able to work out our differences maturely and to a reasonable compromise. Or at least I think so.

The difference between that situation and this is that you're an unreasonable troglodyte with your head so far up your own arse that you can lick your tonsils from the back. You might, in the hilarious alternative reality that you inhabit, think that you're trying to structure a calm, sensible debate, and the laughably tragic thing about that is that you might actually believe it. Take it from someone who knows: your arguments cross the line from unreasonable to ridiculous.

You're right about one thing though, racism and similar ilk are not welcome here.

Never been a racist, never will be. You have equated human behavior with genetic types that people are born with, their race and ethnicity. But besides me, no one has ever called 'you to the carpet' in a rational coherent manner.

So you have your dichotomy with in you. You want me to leave so that you never have to think about changing in any way. But you, Dante, more than anyone around here, in fact, in any Forum anywhere I have ever posted on. I can count on on you to answer me, usually within hours. Always answering, always within a day or two. Not because I am a secret bi-sexual trolling the Forums of the sci-fi realms. Far from it. I think it's because you are a secret hetero-sexual. Of course I make it no secret that I believe that of everyone who engages in same-gender sex.

Which is precisely why you should get out and take your stupid with you. You're already banned from one forum, one can only hope it's the first of many.

Your so-called hilarious story from September in Fan Fiction: how touching that you and your Scottish friend would devote 4 pages to put me down. Then ask Bumble to ban me, so that I can't defend myself. Real classy. Of course, I view this as a secret hetero-sexual crying out for help.

You know nothing about the environment, you know nothing about oil supplies. Peak production has passed, it's gone. We've already extracted half of the planet's oil supplies, and it was the easy half. What's left is impure, sulphuric, locked in sands or otherwise expensive and difficult to obtain. I'd suggest you actually try to know what you're talking about before making statements, but then you'd never say anything at all.

Plenty of oil to go around. But there needs to massive conservation efforts. I support lower, clean vehicles and mass transportation. A good Christian response to being a good steward of God's green Earth. Composting, Aggressive Mandatory Recycling. That is what we need.

The world needs fewer children, not more. Granted there will be a difficult time as a huge aging population finds itself lacking young people to support it, but better that than an underclass of young adults enslaved to the last generation. And sooner or later the old people will die, and the next generation of old people will be smaller.

We live in a finite world, Eracist. The delusion that we can just keep growing and growing forever is just false.

The huge aging population is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unless the birth rate exceeds the death rate in an extreme way, the nation state continues to produce more and more older people. The next generation of old people is smaller, but the next generation of young people is smaller, too. It never catches up. I would have thought that you would have caught this.

Dante, you really should have let me finish your's and Dragoon's story in Fan Fiction. It would not have been about me lusting after the disgusting things that you and friend wrote -- it would have ended with you confessing what you truly are, what God created you to be.

Well, that will probably be the end of it. I know how you truly will not allow your deep hatred of me to pass. You will probably petition Bumble as you did in Sept, and he will ban me.

[Wolf]

Man, Liar, you are so bizarre. I'll never be quite sure whether you were some washed-up, whackjob schlub with no future and too much time on his hands, or a troll of such dedication and skill that it would be professional, if there was such a thing. Either way, you're still a moron. Calling Dante "closet-straight" is pretty much the most hilarious and absurd thing I've ever seen you do, and I'm glad I happened to check back here and catch it. It actually doesn't mean anything and it doesn't offend him. But great way to let us know that we're still getting to you.

Nothing you're saying is on-topic, by the way. Oh, and your "natural law" is a garbage term that's designed to sound vaguely-reasonable for propaganda purposes, but means nothing, and in the event that random whackjobs such as yourself impart any meaning to it, it's simply because they have an ugly [insert -ist word here] bullshit agenda to advance. You hurt America.

As for the Greek, I love how you find Dante's actually-reasonable, and empirically-valid post "offensive", and threaten to report him, yet you post vaguely threatening and awkawrdly nationalistic ramblings on a routine basis. (Hint: that's actually offensive, and probably more worthy of disciplinary action.) I don't know what world you inhabit, either, but I can't understand you as well as Liar, so I suppose I'm at even more of a loss to explain the mystery. In any case, if artificial breastmilk offends you, you really need to get a life.

But, seriously, I've made fun of you boys so much that I feel the need to thank you for all the good times I've had.

Anyway, for the rest of you: sorry that none of this is connected to transhumanism! Let me try to weave some of these threads together as an afterthought: we're seeing "transhumanism" happen right here! Yes we are: you see, uneducated slugs who go through their lives in a barely conscious state end up reproducing formlessly and randomly. Their inane ramblings impart no educational value to their unfortunate offspring, who, fortunately, eventually go off on their own and find their own way through life. Everyone else, on the other hand, may not have all the answers, but they approach the world with a rational mind (an actually open-mind, as opposed to Liar, who has convinced himself that closed-mindedness is open-mindedness and subsequently attacks everyone who attacks him, all the while never noticing the irony), and they take their time. They're calm, rational, they take life as it comes. They try their best. They may not reproduce immediately, and for it's own sake, but should they choose to have offspring they do it with as much planning as they can manage, to afford their children the best possible opportunties and to make them the most responsible citizens that they can be. That's the "stratification" that exists currently--it's much of what's responsible for continuing economic gaps, actually, but that's another, very complicated issue, and no one should take what I've just said as a complete explanation of that idea. It's certainly not close enough to the technical and biological augmentation that creates "transhumans," but responsible, rational people who work hard end up being in the best position to take advantage of those opportunities when they arrive. The slugs, on the other hand, would probably never recognize that opportunity, or, if they did, reject it as "offensive" (artificial breastmilk, for example) when it comes.

[Dante]

"Please don't do it again."

Well isn't that precious. It actually thinks it has an opinion worth listening to. Listen ath, if parts of my posts are offensive, and I hope they are, it is because I am responding in kind to posts which offend me. Idiocy is very offensive to me. Savvy?

Also, conntecting prostitutes with mothers who choose not to breastfeed? Exactly what kind of arcane world are you living in?

Ah, eracist. Finally picked a different avenue of attack, have we? No more deluded and ridiculous than before, but at least it's a new approach. Well, lets take this step by step then.

No kidding. We are not friends, we have nothing in common. I am well reasoned and open-minded, and you are not. I believe in natural law guiding humanity, and you do not. You never explain yourself. You don't care to. I have been posting in peace since Sept, with hardly any notice, but there you are, challenging me -- so I know what awaits me next on this Forum.

As Wolf has already pointed out, you're pretty much saying the opposite of what is true. You're as close-minded as they come (witness your refusal to even accept my homosexuality, which by the way is hilarious), while I am quite capable of acknowledging the worth of belief systems that differ from my own (christianity: a valuable placebo for some). Your 'natural law' is an undefined nonsense which you've never adequately explained or justified, while I've been posting charts, figures and data summaries since before you ever logged on to this site.

Seriously, do you just ignore reality or are you subject to vivid hallucinations?

Never been a racist, never will be. You have equated human behavior with genetic types that people are born with, their race and ethnicity. But besides me, no one has ever called 'you to the carpet' in a rational coherent manner.

"Called you to the carpet" ? What does that even mean? Googling the term produces nothing but carpet sales and a single, lone site on emotional abuse. Are you seriously suggesting that you're emotionally abusing me, eracist?

Look, eracist, if you want to argue in a rational, coherent manner then just pretend to be Wolf, Lord J or Edric. Because you haven't done it yet, and aren't doing it now. So just... copy them, see how far it gets you. Heck, it might even work. Also, refer to previous threads for our evidence on you being a racist. It was something along the lines of using your wife's ethnicity as an arguing point, as I recall.

So you have your dichotomy with in you. You want me to leave so that you never have to think about changing in any way. But you, Dante, more than anyone around here, in fact, in any Forum anywhere I have ever posted on. I can count on on you to answer me, usually within hours. Always answering, always within a day or two. Not because I am a secret bi-sexual trolling the Forums of the sci-fi realms. Far from it. I think it's because you are a secret hetero-sexual. Of course I make it no secret that I believe that of everyone who engages in same-gender sex.

Actually I want you to leave because you're polluting my conversation space. Also, see the names I listen above? Edric, Lord J and Wolf have all, at some point in the years that we've been talking, influenced my opinion such that it has changed. You, on the other hand, have had about as much influence as a clown. To think that I would even consider the shadow of a thought of altering my perspective because of anything you might say is ludicrousness of the highest order. So don't flatter yourself.

You do realise that implying I'm actually straight is an insult, right? I mean it's not an effective one because your opinion is worth less than some used toilet paper, but I point it out because it rather puts a dent in your "well reasoned and open minded" charade. As for the accuracy of the claim, you're quite welcome to believe what you like about me, believing that I'm bright purple, eight-legged and friends with the magical Jub-jub bird won't make it so.

Also, as a brief aside, are we forgetting, eracist, that at least as far as anal sex goes, I'm still a virgin? I've said it before and I'll say it again: homosexuality is not a sex thing.

I did have a date last night though. Fun times.

Your so-called hilarious story from September in Fan Fiction: how touching that you and your Scottish friend would devote 4 pages to put me down. Then ask Bumble to ban me, so that I can't defend myself. Real classy. Of course, I view this as a secret hetero-sexual crying out for help.

Aww, the worst father in the world thinks that I need help. Forgive me if I'm less than convinced.

For the record, I didn't ask Gob to ban you. To the best of my knowledge he did that of his own accord. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted about it, but I didn't ask for it.

As for the story, I'm sure I don't know what you mean. It was a parody. Surely you don't think it was about anyone in particular?

Oh, and case in point of your inability to look things in the eye: his name is Dragoon Knight. I mean seriously, are you incapable of refering to things by their names? I knew you were afraid of words, but names too? That suggests serious self esteem issues to me, to be so afraid of addressing people in a way that's likely to get their attention.

Plenty of oil to go around. But there needs to massive conservation efforts. I support lower, clean vehicles and mass transportation. A good Christian response to being a good steward of God's green Earth. Composting, Aggressive Mandatory Recycling. That is what we need.

Oil is running out. Other than that it seems we mostly agree, which is a bit depressing. I'd add the proviso that we simply can't sustain current levels of transport though.

The huge aging population is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unless the birth rate exceeds the death rate in an extreme way, the nation state continues to produce more and more older people. The next generation of old people is smaller, but the next generation of young people is smaller, too. It never catches up. I would have thought that you would have caught this.

Look, idiot, it's really very simple. If you have a small population of young people then they will grow up to be a small population of old people. The question is only how many times they reproduce along the way. China's recently modified law of one child per couple was a big step in the right direction. Sadly, modern life as we know it isn't going to be sustainable for much longer unless we either discover a brand new cache of resources or find a way to make the Earth's finite reserves stretch even further. That means, bluntly, that either some families go childless or overpopulation strains our way of life past breaking point.

Dante, you really should have let me finish your's and Dragoon's story in Fan Fiction. It would not have been about me lusting after the disgusting things that you and friend wrote -- it would have ended with you confessing what you truly are, what God created you to be.

That's because, as Wolf has pointed out, you are a liar, and liars lie. :)

Well, that will probably be the end of it. I know how you truly will not allow your deep hatred of me to pass. You will probably petition Bumble as you did in Sept, and he will ban me.

No he won't, you have to be a pretty awesome thorn in the side before you're banned completely. And believe it or not, you're not actually the worst this forum has seen. Close, definitely in the top ten, but the top spot is reserved for someone whose very name is legendary in these parts. And even he was given several patient warnings and chances to redeem himself before finally being booted off this mortal coil.

Also, ye of the tiny brain evidenced by your inability to remember anything, I've said before that I don't hate you. I don't hate you for exactly the same reason that I don't hate dog shit when I tread in it. It, and you, are beneath consideration. You're just not important enough to waste the emotion.

Now. I have something that's actually on topic to add to my daily offering of bile.

Earlier Edric posited that any groups of sentients with more than superficial differences would inevitably war on each other. I disagreed at the time, and I still do, but Wolf brought up a very valid and very disturbing new perspective on the matter in his post.

When I disagreed with Edric I was working under the assumption that "sentient races" was more or less synonymous with "people like me." And I have more sense than to cheer war between peoples for no better reason than distrust, racism or xenophobia. But what about people like eracist? How would the ugly side of humanity react to the advent of a people who were either objectively better than humans ("supermen" of a sort) or even merely physically different to the extent that interbreeding would be impossible?

I find my denial of Edric's point has hit a stumbling block. People like me, well, we're just fine with the concept of living alongside people who aren't human by the current genetic defintion. Whether that be sapient machines, cell-based life of non-human genome, whatever. But others, they can't even accept the right to exist of people who already are human, those who just act or look differently.

My reaction, immediate and therefore not yet verified as it is, would be that we need a serious improvement in education and culture before we start tinkering with genetics. Or put another way, improve humanity to such an extent that it is ready for improvement.

The alternative is that those of us who aren't slugs just improve ourselves until we reach a point that those we left behind form a kind of genetic underclass, unable to reist or even comprehend the completeness of our domination. Edric suggested that in such a situation, 'true' humans would have a responsibility to war against their potential overlords. But I can't help but think that the overlords would have the right of it. After all, human is just human, it carries no extra worth or righteousness than any other species. Less even, if looked at objectively.

And finally, on the subject of cognition. I admit, this isn't really an area that I find particularly interesting. The question of why we should have evolved self awareness is a tricky one, but without going into it I acknowledge that my interest in it is largely based in evolutionary curiosity, not psychological.

Having said that, we seem to have moved on to a discussion on how machines have changed our perspective of ourselves. Indeed, where would modern analysis be without the blueprint of a computer to compare itself to?

Certainly my own worldview would be very different, as I strongly believe that cell-based life is simply a very complicated and minutely managed machine.

But if I might stray from the topic for a bit, what if the line between the technology and the beneficiary became blurred? It's already possible to use simple nerve tissue to control machines, for a given value of control, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrot

Assuming such technology is developed so far as to become self aware, what does it then become? Is it human, or not? Is it a technology that we have developed or an aspect of humanity that has been improved ('modified' might be a better term) by technology? Essentially: if we divide technology and humanity into benefactor and beneficiary respectively, then which side of the line would such a creature land on?

That's my interest. Forgive me if it's not strictly on topic, but I think it's related enough.

[Wolf]

I'm sorry, I really have to stress this point, mainly because it's had me in stitches all day. I don't care that it isn't on topic, and as you'll see below, I have good reasons for making this point. Chances are it's going to be one of the last, if not the last posts I make on the forum.

Liar is absolutely obsessed with homosexuality. I've not been here in months, and on a topic that one would think is utterly unrelated to human sexuality, save in the most tangential sense, I catch him writing dissertations about how Dante must be a "closet heterosexual". This is both absolutely hilarious and solid proof that he ought to be banned simply to preserve some standard of decent conversation on the forum. First of all, what does Dante's sexuality have to do with anything related to transhumanism, besides Liar's being a homophobe? Second of all--and this is the best part--this is absolutely irrefutable proof that Liar is absolutely bigoted human scum of the lowest order. Why? Because he thinks that calling Dante "straight" should be an insult to him. He knows that Dante's gay, so, he figures, if he calls Dante "straight," that should offend him. This doesn't make sense to normal people, but let me spell it out for you: in the land of Crazyvania that Liar inhabits, charges of heterosexuality are an insult. He thinks that gay people, being an alien race from far beyond the stars (Deep Space Nine civil rights reference!), will be offended if they are likened to the wholesome straight people of Middle America that they must despise! What he doesn't realize, out of absolute stupidity, is that, for the same reason that "charges of heterosexuality" are not offensive, neither are charges of homosexuality! Oh God, it's almost too good to bear.

As funny as it is--Edric, Gob, you guys gotta get rid of this guy. Best case scenario is that he's a troll who's hit on a topic that he knows offends people here (homosexuality), and he won't shut up about it regardless of the topic. He will look for every chance possible to inject a vaguely offensive point to get the response he needs. Worst case scenario is that he believes this shit and reminds us all that hate is just around the corner. Either way, it reflects poorly on you guys and on the forum that it keeps happening.

[MrFlibble]

You suggest that human nature remains unchanged, that it is this very nature (covering, one supposes, curiosity, adventursome spirit, so-called human ingenuity, etc) which gives rise to changes in how it is expressed, but not what it is.

And I think we are working with different definitions of what it means to be human. Your definition appears to me to be, forgive me for saying so, a bit backwards. You assume that there is a "core" of unchanging facts that define "human" as distinct from "ape" or "banana," and then work to discover what this core is. In other words, you're looking for evidence of a hypothesis. That's not how logic works. You need to start with observable or provable evidence and then find a hypothesis that fits all the data to hand.

It's definitely true that we're working with different definitions, or different perspectives of the problem. If I got your point (which I hope I have :)), your position seems to focus on human self-awareness and self-understanding that is subject to change and is culturally and socially dependent. I guess this is an important aspect, as it influences behaviour and development of both individuals and the society on the whole, and is, probably in itself a part of human nature. I was, on the other hand, trying to take a look on human nature from an "external" POV of sorts, akin to the scientific approach that attempts to be objective, and try to understand what can be singled out as the defining traits of humans as a species, or what our ecological niche might be. Once again, your input on this would be appreciated, as I'm not a specialist in biology. I did not as much assume that there are "facts" about humans that are unchanging, or that there are constant defining parameters within the structure of the concept of "being human" (basically I do not agree with the classical Aristotelean categorization theory), but rather sought to figure out the features of a species (morphological, behavioural etc,) that stay more or less the same. I did not mean that any use of the word "human" or its equivalent in any other language should necessarily imply breastfeeding or bipedal locomotion, or anything of that kind.

In fact, we must have been talking about somewhat different things all along :)

Now, forgive me if I wander a bit, but I'd like to explore this concept.

Humans were not always humans. We developed, ever so gradually, from something else. We'll treat that as established fact. This development was so gradual that there was no "cutoff," no point at which one could place a marker to seperate "non-human" from "human." In evolutionary terms, there is no way that a "core" of definitely human attributes could have suddenly arisen, give circumstances like that. So maybe, if there were to be such a core, it must have arisen gradually, like humanity itself. But if it arose gradually, where then do we draw the line between "sufficiently human" and "possessed of some of the same attributes, but not in such a degree as to be considered human?"

Oh, now I see why your approach to the problem makes sense. I've viewed these question of "What is to be human?" and "How has the technology changed us?" somewhat outside of the discussion concerning vast changes to human bodies suggested by transhumanism.

My suggestion would be that as humans developed as a species, we built on the attributes of our ancestors. Given that humans as a species have changed so much since our inception and continue to do so, it only makes sense that the very core of what it means to be human also changes, since there is no discrete boundary between "not human" and "human," both in evolutionary and technological terms (is a heart transplant patient human as the Romans would have understood it?). And if that is the case, then what is this core but a collection of attributes that have morphed before and could do so again?

I see your core of human attributes as a perspective of modern society on humanity. We look at ourselves and think "this is what it means to be human." And I disagree.

Well, once again to avoid any future misunderstandings, I was aiming at a kind of a scientific POV (which is, of course, by necessity as modern as my unprofessional knowledge of biology and evolution allows), free from any possible socially- or culturally-dependent subjectivity. Perhaps an incorrect choice of words made it look like a classical category type of thing. Still, what is your opinion about this flexibility of human nature (in your sense of the term) as being evolutionally determined? I.e. that humans have developed as a species that adapts by actively and creatively changing both the environment and the individual organisms themselves. Or maybe this is something of an obvious commonplace in contemporary evolutionary biology?

As for the Romans, they would have probably understood the notion of organ transplantation, if not the underlying principles. In fact, the Romans had some pretty advanced technology in their time (heated floors anyone?), and personally I wouldn't deny them the imagination to understand even the more weird-sounding concepts of the current discussion.

Our brains now, that's another kettle of fish altogether. And there's an important distinction between different kinds of thinking. The ability to solve problems, the ability to remember data, the ability to recognise oneself, sapience, sentience, creativity, these are all aspects of mental power that we possess but are not unique to us. Why are humans aware of ourselves? That's an unanswered question, or at least, the answers are still being discussed. Personally I think it was an accident on the way to developing something else. Maybe social skills. Our brains developed to observe each other in order to read social signals, and as a byproduct of that we were able to read ourselves, thus gain an "idea" of ourselves.

Yeah, that's why I love Dewey's principle of continuity (applied to the evolution of cognitive abilities), as the fact that mental activity shares similarities with that other animals, and is possibly an extension thereof, pretty much suggests that human mind isn't something entirely unique. It would be interesting to discuss the possible reasons why it came to be in the first place, but you're right that there are many yet unanswered questions in this field.

BTW, are you familiar with Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments with teaching bonobos to communicate using lexigram keyboards? Some tend to interpret these experiments as a hoax, notably Chomskian linguists, like Steven Pinker (at least, that's what he says in his 1994 book, The Language Instinct), who believe that language is absolutely unique to humans and no other animal can get close even to the most rudimentary use of language simply because Chomsky said so. Such experiments, if taken as valid, can provide some interesting insights into the evolution of human language.

In fact, Mr. Flibble, you and I are very much in agreement on your point of "...I have a feeling that the "core" of humanity lies in our cognitive abilities, from which our active changing of the external world, and our bodies as well, arises." It's just that instead of referring to "cognitive abilities" I refer to behavior, because the school of thought that I am trained in refutes the idea of cognition as causality. If cognitive abilities rise from the environment and our genetic histories, then why rely on cognition to explain human behavior when the cause is very much external (or at least, external within genetic parameters)?

Well, I am no fan of Carthesian dualism myself, and contemporary cognitive science generally holds a version of reductionism that takes the neurological processes in the brain, which have become more observable due to methods like EEG, fMRI or PET, into account. Other than that, it's probably a matter of the choice of words, since I suppose you can call the functions of the neurons and synapses "behaviour" too. However, I don't think that the causes of behaviour are completely external; rather, an interaction between the environment and the organism takes place, and the external stimuli only cause those kinds of reaction that are largely defined by the physical structure of the organism (or, more generally, object) itself. If I'm not mistaken, it's one of the major points in H. Maturana and F. Varela's autopoiesis theory.

To answer another of your questions, that's my take, essentially, on cognitive science; they continue to cling to the concept of cognitions (ideas, thoughts, mental images, feelings, etc) as causal while ignoring the importance of the environment on building those cognitive events. My opinion of computer science and the field of robotics is also that building an effective robot is dependent upon building an operating system capable of learning the relationships between various external stimuli.

Once again, cognitive science, at least of the kind that follows the embodied mind thesis, is far from being idealistic in nature. If you have time, you can take a look at the video records of this year's ShanghAI Lectures, a course in cognitive sciences, robotics and AI.

Free agency, self-determinism, or free will. I have heard of a philosophical concept (I don't remember the name of it, just now) that argues for the existence of free agency based upon the idea of how order may arise from individual choices, so that in the chaos of our existence the order that is observed may be considered in terms of free agency. Although I think this might be an interesting concept (I honestly haven't looked into it very far), I continue to argue that human behavior is shaped by the environment in which it occurs, which leaves little room for "freedom."

I don't think that the existence of free will is something that can be proven, so basically it's out of any scientific discussion. Moreover, if notions like "mental states" or "ideas" can be of use as labels for phenomena that aren't yet fully understood, the case doesn't seem to be the same with "free will".

[athanasios]

It's already possible to use simple nerve tissue to control machines, for a given value of control, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrot

Assuming such technology is developed so far as to become self aware, what does it then become? Is it human, or not?

The specific one will not. It is just a soup of neurons.

BTW, are you familiar with Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments with teaching bonobos to communicate using lexigram keyboards?

I was aware of experiments with bonobos but not of the specific ones. They continue to surprise us. Thanks for link.

... on a topic that one would think is utterly unrelated to human sexuality, save in the most tangential sense, ...

... First of all, what does Dante's sexuality have to do with anything related to transhumanism...

Are you sure? Not only Dante's but the sexuality of all of us has to do with transhumanism.

... he thinks that calling Dante "straight" should be an insult to him...

I fail to see the connection.

As for the Greek, I love how you find Dante's actually-reasonable, and empirically-valid post "offensive", and threaten to report him, yet you post vaguely threatening and awkawrdly nationalistic ramblings on a routine basis. (Hint: that's actually offensive, and probably more worthy of disciplinary action.) I don't know what world you inhabit, either, but I can't understand you as well as Liar, so I suppose I'm at even more of a loss to explain the mystery. In any case, if artificial breastmilk offends you, you really need to get a life.

Sorry for wrong word used, I intended to write 'offending'.

I find it very offending you calling me a nationalist. I am a good patriot not a nationalist. I hate nationalism.

Artificial breastmilk? There exists no such thing. That s*** is NOT milk. It is a formula. Bring me a package intended for infants that writes 'milk' on it. And when I say s***, I mean it-literally! More in exposed thread tomorrow, because little George stated crying and I am going to prepare some of that s*** for him.

[ErasOmnius]

athanasios, the original article is a philosophical article that was posted. It is loaded with theories that are far-fetched and can only be brought about by violence by a trans-human 'race'. If somehow a transhuman being were brought into existence, then what supposedly? We should all bow down? Are we talking about a cybernetic human being? Or a super-human with super abilities?

To put as a question that one can understand, are we talking about the cymeks from Brian Herbert's prequels from the Butlerian Jihad? That seems to be where all of the articles supplied are moving towards. That somehow if an organism with human abilities, but enhanced with cybernetics, should somehow have 'special right's above the rest of humanity. Would this special organism somehow prove that religion should not exist, that all morality should not exist? Hardly. Would this cymek be like Hecate -- somewhat caring about the rest of the universe? Of like Agamemnon, Juno, and Dante (the cymek) -- totalitarian beasts?

As far as Wolf's desire to protect Dante from me, it really is censorship; and a desire not read the postings of what is going on. Those of us like Wolf and I who did not major in the 'hard' sciences at the University when younger, have a tendency to get off topic when presented with these 'scientific' topics. Attorneys, Co-owners of Marketing Companies, etc.; we are can come out non-plussed when presented with some of this information. But Wolf, thanks for giving a reference to my fave sci-fi show of all time, the hugely under-rated, Deep Space 9. Even though I am trying to simply understand Dante, Wolf has my motives completely upside down.

These questions that I have about Dante's thinking, should I not be talking about these things in a Forum, Wolf, is that what you are saying? If so, I think that Dante should say so. I really don't mean to offend him, but some of his responses over the past 6 months, seems to me that he has not thought things through in a full circle. If he says that I should not bring these questions up, because he does not want them discussed in a Forum, then I won't. Life is hard -- full of hard questions.

Ath, you were alluding to those hard questions. The writer of the article has his own agenda, Kurt. For the last 4 months, he has been blogging about abortion, bi-sexuality (his favorite topic), sex, free 'love. So, obviously, the sexuality part of the discussion is important. It shows we are not just talking about robots.

[Lord J]

Thanks Flibble, you've given me something to think about. I'll write a longer response at some point later, I just saw the posts regarding self-awareness and thought I would share a video on the topic.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8043770680563591826#

The whole video is interesting, though the self-awareness stuff is around 14 mins into the video. There is more to my philosophy of "self-awareness", but I think this will produce some discussion. Please watch the whole video, but the bits on self-awareness are pretty interesting and relevant by themselves.

Here's a question. Does a robot with the ability to infer causality have self-awareness?

[Edric O]

[c=#00dd00](Belated) Moderator warning: From now on, any post that is dedicated entirely or almost entirely to a personal attack on a forum member will be deleted. Any post that contains lengthy insults (a paragraph or more) will find its insulting parts edited out. This means you, Eras, Dante, and Wolf. I don't care what you think about each other. I've had debates with people whom I considered irredeemably evil. The opinions expressed in this forum are nothing compared to some of the views held by other people out there. If we didn't have anyone here that was completely wrong about everything, it would be boring. Anyway, I believe the new forum software has an "ignore user" option somewhere.[/c]

[Lord J]

I'm pretty sure that "ignoring" is not what anyone involved in this mess is interested in. Thanks though, Edric.

So no comments on the video? That's unfortunate and slightly obnoxious.

Here's a question: is writing a form of transhumanism? Many of the great works (and several of the crappy ones) outlive their authors (call them, "original thinkers" or "original sinners" for some ;) ) making the effects of a single idea go farther than a single human lifespan.

[MrFlibble]

Here's a question: is writing a form of transhumanism? Many of the great works (and several of the crappy ones) outlive their authors (call them, "original thinkers" or "original sinners" for some ;) ) making the effects of a single idea go farther than a single human lifespan.

Writing is, no doubt, a useful technology, but it simplified, and made more efficient, the conservation and transition of knowledge previously achieved by memory and oral tradition.