Transhumanism

Red Lila wrote: How do you feel transhumanism interacts with Jedi philosophy?

The thing about the Jedi philosophy for me is that there is nowhere that the light does not shine, its just about whether the person sees it or not, but you had to use the word 'interacts'!!! That makes it hard for me to answer!!!

Red Lila wrote: Do you think transhumanism (or humanity+) is truly the best path to survival? If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

Depends how one defines the 'human' thing? A lot of people do not really act very 'human' so if its just the physical dexterity and associated mental controls and awareness then improving those things could be a good thing. I think transhumanism is 'some damn fool idealistic crusade', which can a good thing but can also end up not so good.

My interest in it is that I think it has the potential to be the right direction in regards to protecting the planets biodiversity by the subsequent requirement to move offworld as a result of life extension increasing population even faster.... even so far as being inevitable, and the question changes 'how' not 'if' we move offworld - but since transhumanism seems more about the individual I wonder can an animal be a Jedi, can a robot be a Jedi, if the answers to these are yes then does it matter if we change into something different from what we are now so long as we retain the capacity and will to be Jedi? I'd have to say Jediism is the best path to survival

Red Lila wrote:

Rickie The Grey wrote: Define human? Does it include keeping our DNA?

Who would do the reproducing if we had no bodies?

That's kind of the question isn't it? What definition of human do you use? What leap could humanity take in the name of progress that would cause it to cease to be human? DNA could be simulated, used as a method for determining offspring programs/machines though it wouldn't be wholly necessary. What role does reproduction have if life is infinite and we hold the ability to replicate our consciousness and direct it to different tasks? Company? Certainly. But how much of child rearing's fulfillment is knowing your knowledge will survive you and you have created a legacy. What meaning are legacies when we live forever?

Hay I don't know if we would be human if all our knowledge was in a machine. That's why I ask. Can you to define humane with no body?

Replicated DNA with no biology? That that is like a disk copy? Where would be the self awareness and evolution.

Are you alive if your a machine with a past living memory recorded or are you a library?


Life is organic. I think evolution has to be organic. Recording and storing a life time of experience and knowledges with machines now a day is no different than the dead sea scrolls just better methods of preserving knowledge.

If you pulled the plug it would not survive in the natural world. It would be an excelent machine in the cyber world but it would not be a living life, just a well programed and very usefull copy.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Hay I don't know if we would be human if all our knowledge was in a machine. That's why I ask. Can you to define humane with no body?

Replicated DNA with no biology? That that is like a disk copy? Where would be the self awareness and evolution.

Are you alive if your a machine with a past living memory recorded or are you a library?


Life is organic. I think evolution has to be organic. Recording and storing a life time of experience and knowledges with machines now a day is no different than the dead sea scrolls just better methods of preserving knowledge.

If you pulled the plug it would not survive in the natural world. It would be an excelent machine in the cyber world but it would not be a living life, just a well programed and very usefull copy.

If you remove any part of a person, we still consider them human. The designation of any species is largely otological but our membership within this one creates a bias. A tendency to assume a sort of human "essence" that takes us beyond the physical. If we perfectly simulated every aspect of the human brain within the computer, to the point that the simulated brain had consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and emotions we would consider it an advanced AI. However, what if we performed micrometer scans of the brain and constructed an exact simulation of a person. Their existence resumed in computer form at the moment of death. Are they still just an AI. They have memory. They remember having a body. They still have dreams and desires just as they had before. Are they no longer human?

Evolution can occur in any system wherein development of new systems and features occurs at more or less random but their long term survival or irrelevance is controlled by survival or continued usefulness. While the nature of these evolutions might be engineered and vestigial traits could be removed rather than left in place, is it any less an evolution? Why is cellular matter necessary?

If you remove any part of a person, we still consider them human.

Very interesting discussion....

Yes but to remove all parts leaves nothing behind.

If we perfectly simulated every aspect of the human brain within the computer, to the point that the simulated brain had consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and emotions

I think the key word here is simulated...but not a life and not human just a copy.

However, what if we performed micrometer scans of the brain and constructed an exact simulation of a person. Their existence resumed in computer form at the moment of death

It's just a machine that recorder everything.

They have memory. They remember having a body. They still have dreams and desires just as they had before. Are they no longer human?

Nope. It no longer has a body, the origional source of dreams and desires. Without a body there would be no human and nothing to record and save.

Evolution can occur

I just don't think our DNA is going to evolve into nonbiological form. Not for several billion years anyway.

While the nature of these evolutions might be engineered and vestigial traits could be removed rather than left in place, is it any less an evolution? Why is cellular matter necessary?

We know what problems happen when we engingeer evolution, it upstes the balance of nature. There is no and would not be any life without cells.

Good discussion though.

I just don't think our DNA is going to evolve into nonbiological form.

No, but evolution is no longer something we simple wait and observe anymore, especially in regards to ourselves. Not for a long time.

How much information do you already outsource to technology? More than you might realize. How then does it not correlate that it could be internal instead of external.

People save pictures,(memories) Informations( phone numbers, facebook friends, book reports, etc,etc) They reference it(Google, Bing, etc) all the time.

You seem to think attachment to your meatsuit is what ultimatey makes things "More real" Or "Human". When really you traverse simulated realities every day and spend a good amount of time "jacked in" (Forums, facebook, video games, the internet in general)

We know what problems happen when we engingeer evolution, it upstes the balance of nature. There is no and would not be any life without cells.

Typical doom and gloom. However nature, is a new concpet as far as humans are concerned precisely because of our intimate relationship with technology. Ever since stone tools and fire we have engineered our evolution and the "balance" of nature? What exactly do you mean by that?

Nature is in constant flux.

As for there being no life without cells, thats interesting considering that some of the newest thoughts in science and technology are basicly little robots( the size of a blood cell) that you inject. Essentially artficial cells.

Or what about cloning? They have altered stem cells to form a full beating human heart. Certainly that is a marriage of the biological and the technological.

You seem in many ways attached to the meatsuit you inhabit right now.

So, perhaps there would be no life without cells, but those cells may not be purely biological anymore in the future.

Meat suit, I like that and I am very much attached to it or it to me. :laugh:

but evolution is no longer something we simple wait and observe anymore, especially in regards to ourselves. Not for a long time

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. Pollution and global warming are just two examples.

I'm not having a problem outsourcing to tecnology. We have fantastic tools for saving information and I use it when needed.

You seem to think attachment to your meatsuit is what ultimatey makes things "More real" Or "Human".

Yes Just human, no more. No meatsuit no human. Wrap all the technology you want around and in it but the meatsuit is still human. Take stuff out of the meatsuit and put in a machine, leave the meatsuit behind and you may have a smart machine (a very smart maching) but it's still a machine and not human.

However nature, is a new concpet as far as humans are concerned precisely because of our intimate relationship with technology.

Nature hasn't changed it's human arrogance to think so. Sorry We are not the masters of the universe and are barely the master of ourselves.

basicly little robots( the size of a blood cell) that you inject. Essentially artficial cells.

Exactly, artficial, not human.

Clones are living beings and in my opinion human beyond that it's up to the philosphers and lawyers.

So, perhaps there would be no life without cells, but those cells may not be purely biological anymore in the future

So we are in agreement, no cells no life.

I believe the origional statment/question was:

If we replace our bodies, digitize our brains, and expand our perception beyond human limits, are we still human?

No

Long live meatsuits! :laugh:

I think we will see some form of parallel evolution. Take the Amish as an example. They don'y use any new technology and so they're not going to get wiped out by things that are techy.

Jediism is another kind of evolution going on parallel to the mainstream. Right now we have rich vs poor... and a largely ignored group that is outside of the monetary paradigm (again see the Amish). When money fails these ignored groups will survive/thrive and eventually become the norm.

Whyte Horse wrote: I think we will see some form of parallel evolution. Take the Amish as an example. They don'y use any new technology and so they're not going to get wiped out by things that are techy.

Jediism is another kind of evolution going on parallel to the mainstream. Right now we have rich vs poor... and a largely ignored group that is outside of the monetary paradigm (again see the Amish). When money fails these ignored groups will survive/thrive and eventually become the norm.

lol, have you ever been to an Amish community?

They 'cheat'....

Dont believe the common misconceptions...

I have been there, they do use modern conveniences...

Ricky the Grey wrote: Nature hasn't changed it's human arrogance to think so. Sorry We are not the masters of the universe and are barely the master of ourselves.

I agree Ricky...

This is a multi-pronged thing...

This the whole topic...

We are 'nature', we came from it, we are it, we will be it....

If a animal using a tool is still a 'natural' thing, then humans using technology (tools of our design) is too...

I keep seeing, and people referring to 'nature' as if we are separate from it...

Everything on this planet, came from 'nature', from the 'natural world'....

You could say, that nature is exactly as it should be (my thinking), as we are from it, and everything we do is too....

If you remove us from nature, put us humans on a pedestal, then we have altered nature... Sped up the decline of animals and plants...

Before we existed, and even now without our help, things die out... SO, I find a problem with this second theory...

Hi Khaos!!

Khaos wrote:
You seem to think attachment to your meatsuit is what ultimatey makes things "More real" Or "Human".

It sits, barks, wags its tail, plays fetch, rolls over, does that cute thing with its ears... is it a dog?