From: natashavita@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 20:10:00 MST
From: Charlie Stross
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 10:33:12AM -0000, Steve wrote:
>
> Any notion of "transhuman" is fallacious! This is because of the law
> of the excluded middle. Evolution can be from (sub/pre-human) to
> (Homo Sapiens/ Human), and to (after/post-human) .... but at no
> stage is there a separate "trans" stage. Sure, you might get two or
> more classes co-existing at the same time, and individuals with traits
> from more than one category ... so an individual humanoid might
> be more regonisably human than post-human for example.
>
> We cannot meaningful aim to be "transhuman" .... only post-human.
"Here's another possible coinage: anyone got anything to say about it?"
______________
Transhuman explicitly states what it is - a human in transition of becoming
posthuman. There is actually no better way to say it and I'm believe that
the folks who created the term (T.S. Elliot, Damien Broderick, FM-2030), in
their own ways knew what they were talking/writing about.
Being posthuman means that an entity is no longer exclusively human and
becomes another type of being. There is no evidence that the posthuman
will not share some form of genetic makeup with the human - in some form or
matter. It is my understanding, and I have written about this at length,
that we do not know what a posthuman will be in light of the many
scientific, technological, engineering and cultural changes that can and
shall take place over the next hundreds of years.
Steve believes he is a posthuman today. This is his choice.
If anyone would like to debate the meaning of transhuman, let's set up a
time to debate it. If only Steve has a difference of opinoion, I see no
need to take it further.
Best,
Natasha
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:52 MST