Do you want to be Transhuman?

2 things though:

1) Automation is not transhumanism. Transhumanism is about making humans better with science and technology, not making robots. That is a derailment. Yes, automations might replace human labor but that's a different topic. Even when companies require you to have a super-brain that can work 24/7 they are still hiring people, even when they are augmented, still people, to do the job.

2) As the GFC in 2008 have shown, companies are not great at looking at the long term. Also, with the things going as they are off sourcing is always a possibility especially with places like, you know, PRC (Oh, you don't allow me to force my worker to take drugs so that they can work 24/7? I'm going to outsource to the PRC where we can!).

And as for adaptability of machines vs humans, that depends on your point of view. In terms of flexibility in honking, the human brain is far superior to a computer. But in terms of modularity, ie say if I want wings can I grow them immediately, then no, machines are better at interchanging parts for the job at hand.

I'll admit though there are some claims by transhumanists that are way too fantastic and out there for them to be even a possibility for the far future (immortality? Seriously? Our oldest organism is only several thousand years old if we do not count hibernation - because I doubt sleeping for millions of years/eternity counts, and none of our machines lasts forever, unless you count when you replaced all the parts).

edited 2nd Jul '14 4:53:52 PM by IraTheSquire

So, something that's always kind of bugged me about the whole transhumanism thing is that it's kind of... narrow-minded, like it doesn't really take into consideration the fact that most people aren't well-off enough to benefit from it or in need of it. I say it reminds me of the futurist movement because it's something mostly restricted to a portion of the intellectual community rather than a pseudo-religion with millions of followers, which is a good thing if you ask me. I don't believe automation of labour is a good idea, nor do I think fundamentally altering humanity is a good idea, nor do I believe in the technological singularity. There's so much crystal balling involved and assumptions about what everyone else thinks and assumptions about what's best for everyone else and it's all a complete mess really.

Do I want to be transhuman? Nah. I'm happy the way I am, and I believe that technology should be a tool in the hands of humanity, not part of us. Apologies for the brief derailment; I need to make good on my vow to stop getting involved in pie-in-the-sky thinking.

First off, sorry for causing the derailment, I didn't mean to, I only mentioned it to say that it's fallacious to assume that rich people would give themselves higher employability than the poor plebs by augmenting themselves with machinery when, if you had that level of machinery, you probably wouldn't need human employees.

I certainly didn't want to spark a debate on the wider ramifications of a non-human workforce.

Many technologies have "widened the social gap" briefly over the years - cars and telephones, for a start, were once limited to the rich, now very few families don't have at least one car and people of all social strata walk the streets with phones in their pockets (and I'm personally old enough to remember when far inferior mobile phones were mostly limited to rich "yuppies").

Within my lifetime, you once practically had to be a major corporation to have a computer. Nowadays, I'm not rich and I have four, the least of which makes the one NASA used to put people on the moon look like an abacus.

Any transhumanistic technologies (biological or mechanical, it doesn't matter) might be the "provence of the rich" for a while, but that would change due to improvements (spirit of Moore's Law) and the economy of scale driving the price down as availability increases.

In fact, the gap between rich and poor - in some ways - has been diminished by advancing technology. I remember a time when there's no way I could hold a lengthy discussion with a mixed group of people from other countries - I'd never have been able to afford the phone bill! - but now I've got just as much ability any rich person to communicate globally as much as I see fit.

What makes you so certain that any transhuman-enabling technologies would cause an irreparable breach between social classes?

Whatever transhuman technologies arise will eventually be available to those who desire them, regardless of "class".

I also think a lot of the claims are way too fantastic - uploading personalities/minds into computer networks and such - but I can certainly see advances in prosthetics leading to the ability to replace most of the human body (except for the brain) with machinery, giving rise to something more versatile than either a machine or an unmodified human - greater "honking" flexibilty than machines, more modular and adaptable than humans.

No, I don't think you could gain immortality - even though the option for replacing worn/broken bits would be greater if your body were mechanical - but I think you could extend lifespans out to the lifespan of the brain rather than that of the heart/renal system etc.

But replacing human body parts with prosthetic, robotic parts is not really transhumanism. You are simply using a tool. The tool was already made by the human. The tool has limitations. And this tool is neither adaptable, nor eternal.

We could punch that nail down to the wall, or use a hammer for it. Either way, we are replacing what we can do with something else made of metal that can do it better. But the hammer did not make itself, we did it. The input has always been ours. Has always been human. Not trans-human.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

By that logic your hand is just a tool for you to manipulate objects, your eyes are just a tool for you to see things, and your legs are just a tool for you to move around.

Your body did not make itself either: your parents did.

edited 4th Jul '14 3:45:05 PM by IraTheSquire

Nope.

Tools have no purpose unless used. Humans have sentience and purpose without needing someone else to come give them one.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Where is the sentience in my hand? Does it have likes and dislikes? Does it have a personality? Can I argue with it?

I am not my body parts except my brain.

edited 4th Jul '14 3:51:03 PM by IraTheSquire

Chop it off and let me know if your brain does not tell you something is missing during, and after it heals.

Our body is a part of us.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

No it is not. After a while the brain will realize that it is no longer attached and stops sending signals to it.

Like a computer searching for the keyboard when it is not plugged in.

Also, when your nervous system is directly connected to a prosthetic your brain can send signals to it, ie you'd feel as if it is a part of you like your own hand. Is it still a tool then?

Also, someone have already connected the nervous systems between two individuals via radio transmissions and they reported being able to feel each other's feelings and emotions. Does that mean that they are the same body now?

Read my edits.

edited 4th Jul '14 4:03:45 PM by IraTheSquire

"Phantom limbs" and "Phantom pain", as the phenomenon is called, generally subside over time, with periods of stress and such helping them relive them. They may also extend to the rest of their lives.

Our brain is not a computer, nor LIKE a computer, and the analogies we can pull from one to the other, are scarce. The brain does not forget such a thing, it is ingrained into its shaped, specifically the homunculi of the frontal cortex. You can damage a brian and sever the connection to a limb, but not sever a limb and cut that connection to the brain: the difference is that the brain is adaptable, not that the limb is not part of us.

Hence why therapies and reattached mechanical limbs have worked even after years of the amputation. Hence why it is worth looking into research for it. If the brain completely forgot about these kind of things, things would be so much more complicated for the research of mechanical limbs.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Then by your logic a prosthetic that is connected to the nervous system like a hand is a part of you and not a tool.

'tis not. You were not born with it. It is a man-made and adapted construction.

It remains a tool. The brain's connection is to the arm. We, humans, take advantage of that connection and wire something into it that kinda works.

The machine did nothing but the job it is programmed to. It is not a self-adaptable, organic comes-with-the-battery-and-warranty part of the shipment that is a "human".

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

So is your definition of transhumanism that it must be both natural and eternal?

Replacing human body parts with prosthetic robot parts - especially enough of them - would transcend humanity in some significant way.

And the "tools" - a.k.a. "body parts", as Ira points out - would indeed have the potential to be adaptable.

As to the eternal, who cares when you can replace worn parts fairly easily and even build in redundancies for critical systems?

If a normal human's heart wears out or has a fault that manifests itself, there is a very short window in which to do anything and what needs to be done is tricky surgery (often involving incorporating artificial parts).

With a prosthetic body you could, accepting that nothing is perfect, build in an auxiliary system to take over should the mechanical pump tasked with pumping oxygenated blood and nutrients to the brain suddenly fail.

This would enable the person to survive long enough to get the faulty part replaced - a matter of opening up a machine and replacing a part with an off-the-shelf replacement.

Given that people are likely to want upgrades to older models or whatever's the latest fashion, the fact that the machines wear out probably won't be a problem - "20 years and 30 full upgrades later and still doing fine, thanks. Can't wait 'til the Spring Catalogue comes out."

"Oh, dear, you seem to have broken your arm. We'll attach this loaner while your own one is being repaired."

"Hey, doc, can I have an arm that has swappable modules so I can work on extremely tiny carvings in my free time?"

Immortality? Cracked.com did a good write up on why that'd suck.

Extending your life beyond that of an aging body that first traps then kills a perfectly fine brain? That I'm down with.

However many more years of reading books, watching movies, listening to music and being "young and fit" enough to go hiking through the woods or parasailing, boating, motorbike riding...

Eyes that fail because of a design flaw and can be swapped out in ten minutes rather than eyes that fail due to aging and cannot be repaired at all.

Hearing that never degrades unless the parts fail (whereupon they can be repaired), frequency responses identical to that of a new-born - or better - regardless of age.

Bodies that do not slow down with age and can repaired/replaced in whole or in part if anything goes wrong and can take more punishment before being damaged. A fall that would break bones would be trivial.

And that's not even considering the possibility of direct interface with other things - operate a car/motorcycle using the same impulses that govern running and then unplug the body from the vehicle and walk down the sidewalk.

Using robotic tools to enhance the human body is already being done, and it is not transhuman.

It is simply being human, using a tool, to fix something human. Heck it is not even specific to humans: Chimpanzees use tools too. The same way repairing a bone via putting two pieces of wood around it, and then tying it hard until it heals proper is a tool, so is replacing a lost eye with a super cybertronic iEye that lets you have X-ray vision, see the football game while looking up info on your homework, the online profile of the person you are staring at, cure cancer, save the girl, get the girl, fuck the girl, paint a picasso and check out the TV Tropes forum while you are pooping with your boring meat-made butt (Ugh! God has not released an update for that in FOREVER).

Neither the tool knows what to do until humans use it, nor do they have worth without them, nor are they simply as good as humans. Just because it is "Fancy" and has a "sleek, new design" and has "Bluetooth" and connects to the "Internet", which regardless of being the most vast container of (porn) information in the world, it is not a threat to humanity, nor a boon that has elevated us to utopias, it does not mean it is the next level.

It is just a tool.

Units of self-repairable, self upgradeable, sentient, self capacitated, reasoning capacity are not transhuman creatures, that would be speaking of the theorethical singularity and rise of the machines.

Again: We humans are making these tools and adapting them, your own examples work against you. These tools are worthless without us, but we are not worthless without them.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

@Azser Okay to be frank the problem is that you are insisting on a definition no one else uses. Usually transhumanism is meant in a way that includes things like permanent implants that are meant to improve some function beyond normal human limit, and genetic engineering.

Transhumanism is about transcending human limits. Physically immortality is breaking our most horrible limit.

While improving our bodies can remove the limits, I focus on removing mental limits by increasing our intelligence and improving our thinking. We did not get where we are now with more powerful muscles.

Remove the muscle strength and we are human. Remove the endurance and we are human. Take our hands away and we are human. Put us on four limbs and we are still human. Take our intelligence and sapience and we are no more.

When life gives you lemons, burn life's house down with the lemons.

So for you "transhumanism" means something that regular humans are worthless without?

If you've vouchsafed what you think transhumanism actually is in your litany of "x is not transhumanism", then I've missed it.

And I rather think that a stick, whether used by a human or a chimp, cannot be compared with a late 1980's cell phone, let alone an ambulatory repository and life-support for a living human brain.

If your brain's having a connection to the hand, than to it it doesn't matter whether the said hand is born with or even organic or not. By your definition a transplanted hand is also "a tool". You're not born with someone else's hand, right?

1) A hand does not know what to do until you told your hand to do it. At least that what I hope, because what's stopping it when it wants to punch you in the head or poke your eyes out?

2) What's your point? So everything that we do to solve our problems is just us "using tools" and thereby not transhumanism? Even when we extend our lifespan to beyond our natural ones? Or when we are able to give ourselves ability perform feats that no human can "naturally" attend? Or even given ourselves bodies that no one can ever be born with? Because all of it would just be us "using tools to solve problem"? What is your definition of transhumanism then? Because as far as I can see, you've just taken out all the possible meaning out of the word. That's as pointless as saying "this is not air pollution. This is just unwanted particles in the air".

edited 5th Jul '14 8:36:40 AM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, arguing whether or not any particular enhancement or extension of human capability can be labeled trans-human is pointless. No True Scotsman territory.

Another way to ask the question posed by the thread is "Which life and or personal capability extension would you turn down?"

The answer will likely have to do with the associated costs. Would I take the power to crush boulders with my "own" hands if the cost was an inability to safely pet a cat? No. I have other ways to crush boulders, should I need to.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

If transhumanism is simply transcending human limits, as a human, then we are either already transhuman, or transhumanism is a concept that goes beyond the simple concept of "Better than average as compared to other humans". You're not making any sense with your hand example, Ira. You are saying a hand is not a tool but it is a tool because we are nothing but a brain dipped in a bag of meat and chemicals and anything outside of that is a pathetic thing that does not have Bluetooth, and we have absolutely no use for our hands because we could make another harder, better, faster stronger one anyway? (theoretically speaking, that is)

Extending our natural lifespans beyond the natural? So vaccines are a form of transhumanism, as opposed to a form of human adaptation to the environment? Are countries with a bigger lifespan than others more transhuman than countries with a lower average lifespan? Are people in the "Blue Zones" simply better, superior humans than other humans?

Using tools is no big deal for humans. Creating tools is no big deal for humans. We have done it before, we will do it again, we will continue to do so for as long as we are here. And the more we make the better, more effective, they will get at what we want them to do. But just because the tool is awesome and looks awesome and seeks to enhance a part of our body, it does not make us transhuman.

A hammer is already better than a human for certain tasks. Does using it make me transhuman? I am after all, when I use it, achieving things no other human would ever do unless he had the hammer I have. It is just normal for us to build things that help our lives, or help us where we need help. Simply adding a snazzy band of silicone circuits to the tool and make it bleep and bloop, doesn't make us "better than humans".

Transhumanism involves far more than achieving things for a temporary amount of time, AKA as long as we are using the tool, or as long as the tool is useful for us. It involves a change so essential to humanity that its entire lifestyle, way of thinking or livelihood, would be denoted by a "before" and "after", instead of on just isolated pockets.

And no. I am not saying that "Then are you saying humans are the master race and nothing can compare to us!" that is dumb. The human body, and mind, are flawed. And that is ALSO part of humanity: Our flaws, our imperfections, our limitations and our lackings. The use of outside resources beyond those we are born with to make up for our lackings does not make us transhuman.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I suppose the discussion does occasionally have to do with finding a common definition of a term. Rather than state what it is not, can someone give us a definition of what it is?

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

The Wikipedia definition is roughly "fundamentally expanding the human body with the help of technologies". That would be for example genetic engineering.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I suspect that Aszur may have a more narrow definition.

edited 5th Jul '14 1:30:10 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

I did say at the beginning that either we are already transhuman then, or we are not, with the example of vaccines.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Maybe the thread should then be "Is there anything we can do to escape our transhumanism?"

Or maybe: "You are transhuman. Get over it."

edited 5th Jul '14 1:38:24 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty