From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 22:50:43 MST
At 06:24 PM 3/8/02 +0100, you wrote:
>So, people have problems settling on a meaning of a word. What else is new?
>But for the purposes of this discussion *we* can decide on meanings we will
>use, and not get bogged down in whether the definition used by Dr.
>Knödlerbacher is better than the one suggested by Pr. Foobarius. What is
>important for us is the aspects of being human that are affected by the
>transhuman project, not exactly where we care to draw the boundary lines.
Well, you were the one suggesting that I had problems with the word
"human". The aspects of being human that are affected by the Transhuman
project in my view are precisely those that some people seem to regard as
valuable (obviously I do not refer to conceptual processing here, which I
view as the only human attribute worth preserving).
>As I see it, humans grow out of a complex interaction between their
>genetics, environment and also their own thoughts and actions - which serve
>to select what experiences and environments they will encounter. The whole
>process is very dynamic and open ended; we are not so much *things* as
>*proceses*.
No problem with that. Your point?
> > I suspect the original humanists really had not idea about
> Transhumanism in
> > a concrete sense, and in any event they are so wrapped up in the "human"
> > (or *their* notion of the human) that they have no clue about what
> might be
> > in a Transhuman's nature.
>
>Actually, they might have had some ideas (angelhood):
>
> ``We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor
> endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever
> form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same
> you may have and possess through your own judgement and decision.
> The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within
> laws which We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such
> restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody We have
> assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature.
> I have placed you at the very center of the world, so that from that
> vantage point you may with greater ease glance round about you on
> all that the world contains. We have made you a creature neither of
> heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you
> may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion
> yourself in the form you may prefer. It will be in your power to
> descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able,
> through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders
> whose life is divine.''
>
>from Pico Della Mirandola's _Oration on the Dignity of Man_,
>http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Mirandola/
OK - haven't read him. I was assuming you were referring to modern day
humanists. As I have noted elsewhere, this sort of thought originated (or
at least was promulgated) by the Gnostics, much earlier than this. And I
suspect the concept originates much earlier than that.
The concept Mirandola discusses, however, while important, does not address
the Transhuman directly. It appears to be simply a commentary on the
nature of man as capable of conceptual thought. While a necessary
precondition to the Transhuman, it does not contain the whole notion of
Transhumanism in it.
Possibly you can find and quote "humanists'" who had Transhumanist notions
- in fact, I suspect Sir Julian Huxley's essay on Transhumanism around the
turn of the last century would qualify. That does not make humanism
Transhumanism or make humanists Transhumanists.
> > > Pico Della Mirandola's discussion of human
> > >dignity suggests as a fundamental human trait our ability to change
> > >ourselves according to our will and knowledge.
> >
> > "Fundamental" trait? I am not sure about that.
>
>See above. While there have been plenty of thinkers with other ideas, I
>think Mirandola had a very good point and provides a good humanist
>foundation to build on. I'm not saying we should view him or the other
>renaissance humanists as the definition of our humanism, but rather build on
>their ideas while discarding the oldfashioned stuff.
My point stands. Conceptual processing is a fundamental trait of
humans. Our ability to change ourselves is derivative from
that. Therefore it is not in itself a fundamental trait.
> > > I hardly expect that you
> > >seek to remove that trait from yourself as a posthuman.
> >
> > No, but the trait does not equate to the whole of what it means to be
> > human. Nor is it certain that such a trait is "fundamental" to
> humans. In
> > fact, it the trait is included in Transhumans, and I do expect that to the
> > case, it is by definition not necessarily "human" at all. If the trait is
> > motivated by the feat of death, it may be human. If the trait is
> motivated
> > by the rational desire for continuity of existence, it may not be a human
> > trait.
>
>I would say the ability of changing oneself according to will and knowledge
>is rather deeply intertwined with other core traits like being an ethical
>subject and autonomous being.
Again, derivative. Also, a certain amount of hand-waving. "Ethical
subject"? C'mon, don't try to blow smoke at me... "Keep it real", as they
say in the joint - :-}
>I would consider a transhuman that was unable to change itself a very failed
>transhuman.
True - how true I know well from my own life...
> > > The humanist
> > >concept of human is rather an entity with rational abilities, that acts
> > >as a free moral subject and has the potential to grow - it could just as
> > >well apply to AIs, aliens or uplifted animals.
> >
> > Fine, that is the humanist concept, and I have no problem with that. But
> > that is not what most *humans* mean by the term "human."
>
>Sure. But we are not most people :-)
>
>More seriously, I think this is a terminological problem we need to deal
>with somehow. Any ideas?
Yes - accept the Transhumanist notion that the above ideal is what a
Transhumanist is (eliding the "free moral subject" hand-waving) and that
most humans don't qualify *in practice* for the rest. "Potential" is not
actuality. Most humans are stupid, ignorant, irrational, malicious, and
fearful. They are these things more often than they are rational and
growing. They DO have the capability of conceptual processing, which IS
what distinguishes them from animals. But if they, as a result of their
evolutionary and cultural history, behave more like animals than conceptual
entities, what good is the term "human"? Especially what good is it to the
notion of *transcending" such human nature?
> > >If you regard transhumanism as a move away from humanity, it would be
> > >interesting to hear what you consider it as a move *towards*, and why
> > >that move is desirable for human individuals.
> >
> > It is a move toward invulnerability, invincibility, and hence immortality
> > (leaving out the question of whether "eternal life" is feasible in the
> > physical universe). In other words, it is a move toward continuity of
> > existence - survival. If that is not desirable for humans, I don't know
> > what is. The fear of death i(and its polar corollary the desire for life)
> > is the basis of most animal and human reactions. The problem is that
> > humans still have animal reactions from their evolutionary heritage - the
> > "fight or flight" syndrome - and most humans display flight response -
> > which in a human context is the least functional way to insure human
> > survival.
>
>I think most people would here triumphantly say "Hey! You want to move
>*away* from a lot of stuff. You do not seek to move towards anything. Deep
>down these goals are just driven by fear of death, and hence these goals are
>human goals in your more derogatory sense of human".
Absolutely not. It is driven not by the FEAR of death, but the rational
perception and refusal to ACCEPT death - which is not the same thing at
all. "Fight or flight". Granted, the fear of death is ingrained in any
human, Transhumanist or not, and will manifest when survival is
threatened. I refer to the Transhumanist being able to objectively
recognize that fear, control it, and not be driven by it when making
choices as to his survival. Most people do not react that way. They react
with "flight" response, without rational consideration.
>You seem to recognise survival as valuable, but is it an end in itself?
Sigh... YES! Without survival, there ARE NO OTHER ENDS. Why is it so
hard for people to grasp that concept?...
>I
>personally consider immortality a tool. It is a tool I will need to realize
>my grandest projects of understanding, reshaping and creating in the
>universe, but there is no inherent value in survival itself, rather in the
>good stuff I can do *while* I am surviving.
Your notion of survival is the usual human one of - oh, I'll toodle along
doing something interesting until I drop dead at 75... And in so doing,
you miss your fundamental purpose, which is to survive indefinitely. All
the actions you take in life should be directed to that end. NOW, having
said THAT, I am NOT saying that going out for a pizza is
contra-survival. What I am saying is that until your survival is as
assured as the universe allows it to be, your first and primary purpose in
life is to assure your survival. Any action beyond that is a bonus.
Also, keep in mind that you are still thinking in human terms - i.e., you
value the emotional rewards of creating, etc. It is not clear to me that a
posthuman will have the same sort of pain/pleasure reward/penalty system
humans have. I suspect that a posthuman will have above all clarity of
understanding of their nature and relationship to the universe. This is
what I regard as "enlightenment". And in their enlightenment, as in many
of the higher level spiritual philosophies, emotions are considered a
fairly low level consideration. They will create, they will explore, they
may even alter the very structure of the universe - but I suspect they will
do so out of rational necessity. But NOT survival necessity, except at
first, but as the only logical goals once survival is no longer a
consideration - if in fact it ever ceases to be a consideration - and that
depends on the actual nature of the universe.
> I think this is an important
>difference between those driven to transhumanism because they fear death and
>pain, and those who seek more life. But seeking more life (in the sense of
>actively growing and self-developing towards one's current ideals), that is
>very much a "human" trait.
As I have said elsewhere, the polar corollary of the fear of death is the
desire for more life. The issue is, how do you react to that - fight or
flight? The Transhuman response is fight, the human response more often
than not is flight.
> > >I think assuming transhumanists to be genetically different or the
> > >result of some special revelation overthrowing the illusions plaguing
> > >the rest of humanity is quite premature. It is just a convenient and
> > >self-congratulatory way of isolating oneself.
> >
> > It can be, I'm sure. Note that when I say it might be due to "genetic
> > differences", I merely mean that it is possible (not proven yet, I
> believe)
> > that people have varying temperaments and capabilities and predilections
> > toward certain behavior and attitudes that are a result of their
> > genes. It's no different than being physically attractive
>
>I think you are partially right in that there are certain dispositions
>making a transhumanist worldview more likely. But obviously there is far
>more to it than that.
Agreed.
> > As to "special revelation", this comes when you think seriously about
> what
> > it means to say that all values come from life, and that survival is
> > therefore the primary value. This has *corollaries* - as do the facts of
> > evolution and the facts of life on this planet and in human society. To
> > determine the necessary course of action based on this can be considered a
> > "revelation" - but simply because it *does* become the basis of one's
> > philosophy. Especially when you consider that the bulk of the human race
> > has NO CLUE.
>
>Hmm, so you really do consider survival itself the core value?
Yes.
>And then one
>can derive a lot of philosophy from that, and this unfolding of meaning is
>what you described as a "revelation". OK, I think I get it. But many people
>seem to have other views, not just among humanity in general but also among
>transhumanists.
Oh, well...
> It seems common that many transhumanists regard themselves
>as having always been transhumanists (I hear that a lot); maybe this is
>because they have internalised transhumanism closely to their own
>personality and value system, but it doesn't seem most of them have reached
>this state by thinking about the core values of life.
Well, that sort of supports my point that it may be a predisposition caused
by the individual's genes affecting the way his brain is predisposed to
function, i.e., some people may be inherently more rational than others. I
can't prove this, but there does seem to be some basis for grouping
people's behavior along inherent lines.
In the old Libertarian Connection, Erwin S. "Filthy Pierre" Strauss came up
with the notion of the "gamma" - which he borrowed from the notions of
"alpha". "beta", "prober" and "omega" behavioral typology. A lot of
writers for the connection believed that they were somehow predisposed to
be libertarians or anarchists. They felt different from the mainstream
population. Human behavior is very complex and individual, but certain
broad characteristics can probably be identified and people grouped
accordingly. I don't know what those characteristics are, myself. The
point is that a lot of people believe certain philosophies because they are
predisposed (either by genetics, or their upbringing, or circumstances, or
environment, or whatever) to do so and these predispositions start early in
life. Psychologists like to portray this as some sort of pathology if the
belief structure is not one they happen to espouse - I think THEIR belief
structure is evidence of pathology - :-}
>As an aside: Overall, I think it is too easy to underestimate the bulk of
>the human race. It can never participate in any debate, so it will never
>make its voice heard. Only people from this bulk can do that, and my
>personal experience is that most actually are fairly sane people. I might
>disagree with them, but they are not entirely clueless.
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
>GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
Well, we all have different experience in life. Mine have been far more
negative than yours, apparently. I would like to believe you are right, but...
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:52 MST