From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 04:26:28 MST
After delaying publishing my response for four months, the Feedmag folks
cut most of it. Here's the full text:
Max
-------------------
Transhumanists vs. Mysterians on The Posthuman Condition
Max More
more@extropy.org
Feedmag, July 2000
Erik Davis's first column on "The Posthuman Condition" contains a deep
tension that makes for stimulating reading. On the one hand Davis clearly
is fascinated by the "technosciences" that will alter human nature. He
follows the tectonic shifts in technology and casts an eye over some of the
cultures and philosophies closely associated with them. On the other hand,
Davis finds these technologies and the ideas of transhumanists (who welcome
these advances) unappealing. Despite the massive advances in neuroscience,
genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, etc., he thinks we are
no closer to answering the question "Who am I?" today than in the past.
Davis appears to be one of the "New Mysterians"a term used by some
philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists to refer to mystical and
obscurantist views of mind and self.
Transhumanists views cohere well with mainstream functionalism.
Functionalists see consciousness as an comprehensible process of certain
complex physical systems. Functionalists do not see the subjective and
objective views of consciousness as separated by "a necessary and nearly
irreducible gap". (Which is it? Is the gap necessary, or reducible with
difficulty?) The very disciplines mentioned by Davisthe neurosciences,
human-computer interfaces, artificial intelligence, genetics, and
evolutionary thinkingcontinue to replace the darkness of self-ignorance
with the light of self-knowledge. The New Mysterians see consciousness and
self as forever beyond scientific comprehension, perhaps afraid to eat the
fruit of the tree of knowledge because of the new choices it will bring.
In the first installment of his column, Davis refers to extropians and
their intellectual cousins as "self-proclaimed posthumans". This is simply
wrong. Extropians describe themselves as "extropians" or "transhumanists",
since clearly we have not yet transformed our human nature. A few may call
themselves "transhumans" to make the point that we are already
technologically intervening in human nature. The term "posthuman" refers to
what comes after we thoroughly transform human nature, from radical
biological changes to postbiological life. No one can sensibly claim to be
posthuman today.
Transhumanism is not a condition but a set of ideas that favor using
science and technology guided by critical and creative thinking continually
to transform the human condition for the better. "Better" means extending
our years of vital life indefinitely, augmenting intelligence, refining
emotions, developing ethically, and improving economic and social
processes. You can think of transhumanism as being the supercharged heir to
worn out, uninspiring humanism. Extropians form the largest single "brand"
of transhumanism, distinguished in part by favoring voluntarist,
decentralized, market approaches to social issues. Extropians are those who
assent to the statement of values in The Extropian Principles.
[http://www.extropy.org/extprn3.htm]
Rather than address extropian views with specifics, Davis resorts to ad
hominem slurs. He talks of our "almost adolescent hatred of limitations".
Does Davis think we are mistaken to depart from conventional culture in
vigorously opposing aging and death, in aiming to do away with depression,
uncontrollable rage and other psychological disorders, and in seeking to
abolish infirmity and irrationality and the shortcomings of the mindless
results of evolution? Then he should explain why. Since extropians despise
centralized control, destructive anti-rationalism, irrational racism, and
blind hatred, would he also talk of our "almost adolescent hatred of
Nazism"? Perhaps Davis actually intended his "adolescent" comment as a
compliment. Smart adolescents are busy growing, learning, developing, and
being enthusiastic about their present and future. From the perspective of
the deeply mature persons we should become through centuries of vital
living, the wisest of today will indeed seem adolescent in any sense of the
term.
Davis is spot on when he stresses the importance of deeply considering the
"cultural and psychological consequences of our changing human nature". His
assertion that we ignore such consequences reveals that his research on
extropian thinking was shallow. Any time spent on our email lists, checking
talks we give (such as my Extro conference talks on altering human
motivations and the mistaken cultural assumptions underpinning resistance
to transhumanism), reading our public essays, or hearing what we have said
on television would belay such an idea. It's true that, until recently, we
have emphasized the positive possibilities more than the potential dangers
with new technologies. We have seen no shortage of doomsayers to do that
job. More recently we have been reaching out to address public concerns, as
seen in responses to Bill Joy's essay by Ray Kurzweil, Natasha Vita-More,
and myself. My book in progress revolves entirely around considering
possible consequences and planning ahead for transhumanizing technologies.
Davis sets up a simplistic contrast between the old myth of dehumanizing
technology and the "utopian transhuman paradise". This straw man
characterization does a disservice to a vibrant, productive way of thinking
about our future. Extropians do not expect a paradise. Paradise is an old
myth for those weary of living. Nor do we extol "technological
perfectionism" as Davis claims in his book. Paradise and perfectionism
belong to religious myths. Extropians do not expect an end to all conflict,
struggle, and strifethough we certainly desire to reduce those through
intelligence, technological progress, and good will. Rather than
perfection, extropian thinking embodies a living ideal of continual
progress. (Hence our ideals of perpetual progress, pancritical rationalism,
self-transformation, and emergent order.) We aim for a constantly evolving
and improving "extropia", not a static utopia.
In a sense I can agree with Davis when he writes that technoscience deepens
rather than resolves the contradictions of the posthuman (actually
transhuman) condition. Technoscience will open up entirely new options for
self-sculpting. On the other hand, it will show dualistic and Mysterian
ideas about the self to be pre-scientific and confining. New technologies
will open new choices, freedoms, opportunities for self-expansion and
improvement, emotional refinement, and heightened creativity. The real
struggle will continue to be against rationalization, ignorance, fear, and
control. Perhaps this last point can be an area of common ground for both
Davis and transhumanists.
Max More
more@extropy.org
www.maxmore.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:30 MST