From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 13:42:46 MDT
At 04:39 PM 8/11/02 +1000, Avatar wrote:
>For example, even under full-scale programmable intelligent molecular
>nanotechnology a la Drexler [including miniaturized laser cellular surgery
>and linked intra-cellular molecular supercomputers] you could envisage...
>
>mortals
>mortals who allow their biology to be "reset" through temporary invasive
>techniques
>augmented mortals and immortals (with nanoscale materials in brain fluid
>for example)
>fully changed mortals and immortals (e.g. as has been suggested via a
>cell-by-cell mechanism)
>individuals neurologically connecting to other individuals (i.e. one
>otherwise neurolically separate) via broadcast technology
>individuals uploaded into vr
These possibilities are entirely plausible and, as such, "mortal" entities
would somehow be a different type of being by the very nature they are
mortal -- having a limited lifespan. However, if we fuzzy the meaning of
mortal and rearrange it so that it has a different application, then mortal
could relate to living from one type of life span and then shedding that
skin to live another lifespan. And so on.
The individuals or entities neurologically connected/ing to other
individuals or entities via a interconnected technology could be either
human, transhuman or posthuman. But I see this as a method of
communication rather than biology. We connect to others just as we type
our sentences here. Upgrade than and square it off a bit and we are
interfacing right smack into the core of each other's neurological
mechanics. Primo Posthuman does this through its metabrain's
conceptualized capacity.
>The fact that individuals can fluctuate between chosen forms, both mortal
>and immortal, will make these definitions even more fluid.
I'm not sure I agree, based on the meaning of mortal. But, putting this
aside, it is precisely why I estimate that there will be stages of
transhuman, from early, to mid, to late, prior to assuming a posthuman
position. And even here, a late transhuman could also be a posthuman.
>This is why I prefer the term "amortality" myself and largely disregard
>the current cultural distinction between AI or artificial and biological.
>My main distinction of import is between areas of physical interaction and
>neurological systems. The fact that a virtual being has a physical
>neurological substrate is also important to me. [ See
>http://www.bjklein.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=486str
Artificial, like many words that fit neatly into a social dictionary,
change over time, just as our values change over time. What was once
unnatural or artificial becomes natural after we begin to have a
relationship with it and integrate it into our lives. Artificial
Intelligence or Machine Intelligence was once considered a block of
technology -- unfamiliar and distant. Today we have been introduced to the
benefits of biotechnology and have adapted to a wide range of robotics and
prosthetics which have become part of our bodies, and thus our minds.
Virtual beings exist within some from or another, currently a type of
algorithmic code. Even when the form becomes somewhat transparent or
entirely fluid, it still has some metaphorical sticky stuff holding it
together.
Natasha
Natasha Vita-More
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Executive Art Director, Digital Design
http://www.natasha.cc http://www.extropic-art.com http://www.transhuman.org
"I'd rather be inebriated on a classic life than a 1996 classic Merlot."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:00 MST