Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > To be more than human is to be human
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: To be more than human is to be human Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Oct 3rd, 2008 04:36 AM
executioneer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat View Post
Did anyone bring up grey goo yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaporTrailx1 View Post
we'll find out when we create the self replicating nano-bugs that might consume everything
yes!
Oct 3rd, 2008 02:59 AM
Big Papa Goat Did anyone bring up grey goo yet? That's a good one. I'm actaully pretty surprised that no transhumanists have joined the forums for the purpose of arguing in this thread, I remember I made a post on my now defunct blog that was read by maybe 10 people about transhumanism and the executive director/founder of the World Transhumanist Association, a sociologist by the name of James Hughes, made a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of my dumbass remarks.

Maybe now that I've mentioned his name he'll swing by these parts.
Transhumanism makes me sad though, I failed at writing a thesis on it
Oct 2nd, 2008 09:05 PM
Rez why are we having this conversation when warren ellis isnt even around...
Oct 2nd, 2008 01:24 AM
kahljorn nanotechnologu
Oct 2nd, 2008 01:05 AM
VaporTrailx1 All I know is we'll find out when we create the self replicating nano-bugs that might consume everything.

BTW I personally wouldn't mind having my consciousness uploaded into a computer system, as long as it was like Tron and not like The Matrix. I don't want anything close to reality. I want virtual consciousness to be retro, like Lawnmower Manish, hell maybe even like a quake 2 typa thing. something with some synth and some pixels.
Sep 30th, 2008 01:01 AM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub Lover View Post
They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac.
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Sep 29th, 2008 04:19 PM
Dimnos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub Lover View Post
They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac.

Doh!
Sep 29th, 2008 03:32 PM
Pub Lover They tried but the DNZ wouldn't resolve because Jeanette's mind is configured for mac.
Sep 29th, 2008 03:12 PM
Dimnos Have you guys not downloaded your consciousness into the Internet yet to battle this out on a massive IP server somewhere?
Sep 27th, 2008 11:18 AM
kahljorn its cool transhumanism is like the gayest subject and besides that i had home-team advantage. people arguing for transhumanism have all kinds of tricks but usually the whole caution argument does fuck with them because they are silly idiots who, like you said, never consider that there may be problem.
and yea usually they do say that it will happen WITHIN FIFTY YEARS. I think that transhumanists like that are just millenarianists in disguise!Q
Quote:
although I'm sure most transhumanists would argue that it's just around the corner with the kaleidoscopinng parascoping nature of advancing technologies! someday your paradigm will shift and you will understand that the future comes faster than the future; here time turns into space!
That's basically an accurate rendition of a transhumanist's thoughts, except with better punctuation and a quote of parsifal!
Sep 26th, 2008 10:49 PM
Jeanette X I know, I know. I haven't gotten into a serious debate with anyone for a while, and so I'm out of form. Like a boxer who's gotten soft and fat from not practicing.
Sep 26th, 2008 10:37 PM
Pub Lover OK, I just read the posts I skipped. Jeanette is a humourless sack of shit that should shut up until she passes a course of joke getting, if not a minor seminar in having a point before trying to argue it.
Sep 26th, 2008 10:22 PM
Pub Lover I'm sorry if she already admitted that is was only playing the fool, but I stopped reading Jeanette's posts halfway down the last page because her pedantic and pointless idiocy wasn't being rescued by kahljorn's seemingly considered and well thought out counterpoints that Jeanette then consistantly ignored.

Haha, she probably got me good with her humourless vet attack of being dull, rite guys?
Sep 26th, 2008 08:54 PM
kahljorn that's my kind of transhumanism :O
Sep 26th, 2008 03:52 PM
Dixie Come on extinction!
Sep 26th, 2008 01:52 PM
kahljorn
Quote:
I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind.
Well, I didn't. So there ya go. I say, let caution be the wind beneath our sails.

Quote:
I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.
There's no time-frame on this. and i wouldn't say there's an official rush, per se. Although I'm sure there's some who think it should happen now.

Quote:
Same strawman as before.
That's not a strawman. It's the logical extension of your idea ;/ If you really think that's a straw-man then i dunno you need to study more or something.

Saying we should be CAUTIOUS is NOT saying we SHOULDNT DO ANYTHING (except be uncautious or not be cautious whatever). It's just saying to be cautious. Sorry; it's not an argument against transhumanism. The only way it could be an argument against transhumanism is if you said that transhumanists are uncautious, and being uncautious is bad since it leads to bad results, therefore we shouldn't be transhumanists. Or if you could suggest a route that requires less caution than transhumanism to reach the same goal.

Furthermore, it can't be a strawman because I haven't really acted as though by misleading you from your original point and changing the topic i have defeated your whole argument because I defeated that new argument that i represented you as having.
In fact, I have consistently used your same logic against you, like when I said that if transhumanists were cautious, you would have no problem with it.
Quote:
I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems.
You seem overly pessimistic, or at least like you let your pessimism argue for you. and anyway that's why i mentioned such stringent control methods!

Quote:
And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.
Probably because I'm not at all a transhumanist and really have absolutely no interest in the idea.
Sep 26th, 2008 11:32 AM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
It's not even a fact. And agan; that's not a MALFUNCTION: power plants are known to create emissions. Plus it's not just power plants don't be silly lol
Must we argue semantics here? Even if it isn't technically a malfunction, its still a very negative side effect. And don't tell me you don't believe in global warming.


Quote:
that's prolly because you're gay. You already said in one of your other posts that whenever you say there's a problem I say it will be fixed. That means I ascent that it's not an error-free technology but disagree with you in that i think those problems will be resolved; thus refuting this "Seeming" of which you speak.
I'm not saying that the problems won't be resolved, I'm saying it will be a long time before they are and thus I am a little unnerved by this rush to embrace the technology.


Quote:

Didn't I say like 30 times including after what you quoted that the real solution is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. If something causes problems you either FIX THE PROBLEMS. FIX THE PROBLEMS BY ABOLISHING THE PROBLEM MAKER. OR IGNORE ThE PROBLEM. But obviously the last one would be a "bad" decision.
Same strawman as before.

Quote:
Here's your argument:
WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.

That's not an argument against transhumanism: it's an argument to be cautious. that can apply to anything and everything, but not specifically to transhumanists; only to uncautious transhumanists.
I make this arguement because virtually everything I've read about transhumanist ideology throws caution to the wind.
Quote:
Are you saying that transhumanists are inherently uncautious? or that I'm submitting an reckless pursuit of transhumanism? Because I never did so, in fact, I've consistently said that we should be very careful to fix problems and perform rigorous experimentation if we care about not getting bad results.
I'm saying that you are overly optimistic about fixing these problems. And I believe you are the first transhumanist I've ever seen who even acknowledged the possibilty of these problems occuring. Pardon me if I'm a little unsettled by that.



http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc233.gif

I would hotlink, but I don't want to suck up this guy's bandwidth.
Sep 26th, 2008 12:15 AM
kahljorn
Quote:
Now this is what I mean by masturbatory. Pardon me if I'm reluctant to believe that it'll all be so nice and neat.
I didn't say it would be so "nice and neat," or anything of the sort. I said that 95% of the transhumanist argument is that technology will continue to advance and at increasing rates. And no matter what type of problem you introduce they merely point out that there's a solution.

there's not really a good way to argue against a transhumanist, or argue transhumanism, cause it's kind of non-rational in a lot of ways. Might as well argue about god, really ;/
Sep 26th, 2008 12:09 AM
kahljorn
Quote:
Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.
It's not even a fact. And agan; that's not a MALFUNCTION: power plants are known to create emissions. Plus it's not just power plants don't be silly lol

Quote:
Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?
Okay...
PERFECT:
----------
US CURRENTLY:
----......
US AFTER SOME TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSHUMANISM BUt WIth NEW PROBLEMS LIKE DEALING WQITH IMMORTALITY:
--------..

Quote:
You seemed to.
that's prolly because you're gay. You already said in one of your other posts that whenever you say there's a problem I say it will be fixed. That means I ascent that it's not an error-free technology but disagree with you in that i think those problems will be resolved; thus refuting this "Seeming" of which you speak.

you're the one acting like the technology will be in the pits for 7,000 years.

Quote:
Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?
Didn't I say like 30 times including after what you quoted that the real solution is to FIX THE PROBLEMS. If something causes problems you either FIX THE PROBLEMS. FIX THE PROBLEMS BY ABOLISHING THE PROBLEM MAKER. OR IGNORE ThE PROBLEM. But obviously the last one would be a "bad" decision.

To bring up what you're saying as an ARGUMENT AGAINST TRANSHUMANISM is fucking retarded.
Here's your argument:
WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.

That's not an argument against transhumanism: it's an argument to be cautious. that can apply to anything and everything, but not specifically to transhumanists; only to uncautious transhumanists.

Are you saying that transhumanists are inherently uncautious? or that I'm submitting an reckless pursuit of transhumanism? Because I never did so, in fact, I've consistently said that we should be very careful to fix problems and perform rigorous experimentation if we care about not getting bad results.

In fact I don't even see how its possible to be that incautious especially with some of the things we've discussed: like how long the technology will take to develop and you know the scientific method.

From this point forward in history I decree that all transhumanists should be careful and if not they are jerks who don't care about anyone but themselves and their foolish search for an ideal!
k happy now jeanette obviously that resolves your argument and makes you a believer in transhumanism oh look how nothing you said was ever an argument about transhumanism but against uncautious acts.
Sep 25th, 2008 11:49 PM
Chojin also, i'm pretty sure that right around the time quality VR becomes a reality, we'll all be too busy mentally masturbating to invent anything else.
Sep 25th, 2008 11:47 PM
Tadao Has anyone claimed the Adrienne Barbeau-bot yet?
Sep 25th, 2008 11:45 PM
Chojin i would just like to add to this thread that i don't think i'm ever going to die, because i will have a shiny robot body by the time i'm 80.

and a very, very large gun.
Sep 25th, 2008 08:44 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
The environmental impact isn't a dysfunction. It's not like power plants have been exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/
Global warming from energy production isn't a huge problem? Gee whiz, I guess all those scientists are wrong.


Quote:
And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.
Care to explain us being more perfect as a whole with a new host of previously unhuman problems?


Quote:
I don't think anybody seriously thinks that this will be an error-free technology.
You seemed to.

Quote:
Basically, jeanette, what I'm getting from this is that you have absolutely nothing to say and really no conclusion. yes, technologies have problems. Thius one prolly will too. Big whooptifuckingdoo, thanks for teling me something i didnt know.
My point is that trashumanists are overly optimistic and glib.
Quote:
Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.
the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.
Why must everything be in this stark either-or dichotomy? Why can't I take a middle ground in my attitudes without being denounced as neo-Luddite merely because I think we should proceed with caution? Do you honestly believe that wholeheartedly embracing the new techonology and abolishing it are our only two options here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists
Now this is what I mean by masturbatory. Pardon me if I'm reluctant to believe that it'll all be so nice and neat.
Sep 25th, 2008 08:30 PM
kahljorn
Quote:
The main problem I see with your arguements is that whenever I make a counterpoint that the technology will pose some problem, you argue that the technology will be advanced to the point where that problem won't be an issue.
and duh that's like 95% of the point with transhumanists
Sep 25th, 2008 08:12 PM
kahljorn
Quote:
Yeah? And how long do you think its going to be until the problems are totally worked out? Lets see, we've had powerplants for...well over half a century. Sure, they've improved, but are they problem free today? Are they not making any negative environmental impact? If we can't so much as get our power plants in order over the time that we've had so far what on Earth makes you think we can overcome the probelms that cybernetics might pose in timely fashion?
The environmental impact isn't a malfunction ;/. It's not like power plants have been consistently exploding for "well over half a century." The environmental "problems" are a side-effect that is widely known and accepted ;/

Anyway, my retort tot his still stands. What you're saying only means that we might have problems we will have to work out. Or this:

And not to be a jerk like you would be: whether or not the technologies will have a problem or two isn't really relevant. Transhumanism doesn't posit that we will be perfect. If anything, it posits that we will be significantly more perfect as a whole. And further, it doesn't posit that we will have NO problems, only that many of the problems we have will be either eradicated or lessened in effect, and that a new host of previously unhuman problems may arise.

It doesn't really matter if the problems are completely worked out, either, anytime soon. It could be tomorrow it could be ten billion years from now.

Quote:
Now who's making a strawman? I'm not proposing we abolish the technology, you utter moron. I'm just saying that it may not be as wonderful and utopia-creating as you seem to think it is, and that rushing to embrace it without anticipating these negative consequences is unwise.
Okay, I guess I stood to understand what you were saying in the only way that it could possibly mean anything.
Quote:
Well, given your insistance that cybernetics would allow for fundamental changes in the negative aspects of human nature, what is to stop those in power from forcing it on the masses "for their own good"? Sure, in an ideal world the technology would be used fairly and justly and never forced upon anyone, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.
the natural conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't do it. For me, at least.

Also, I would like to add that the failure to achieve an ideal is not the same thing as the ideal. There can't really be such a thing as a "Flawed transhumanism." I don't doubt that these possibilities aren't possible to happen. Sure, a civilization could go awry with their technology. But the ideal and the technologies are not the same thing. the technology is merely a means to an end. The reason it is so fascinating for the achieval of such an ideal, however, is the fact that it fundamentally alters people. So yes, it could be used to fundamentally alter people for the achievement of evil, but again, what this means is that we should try to keep it from being used that way ;/

also i don't think anybody is rushing to achieve this, either. Too much natural fear of, basically, exactly what you've been saying... that natural human fear of becoming unhuman.

Quote:
No they are not. And World Peace isn't impossible either. That doesn't mean I expect it to arrive quickly.
Transhumanism doesn't necessarily have a time frame, so BOOYAH! I guess.
although I'm sure most transhumanists would argue that it's just around the corner with the kaleidoscopinng parascoping nature of advancing technologies! someday your paradigm will shift and you will understand that the future comes faster than the future; here time turns into space!
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.