From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 10:24:11 MST
(I separated the humanity subthread)
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:58:05PM -0800, Richard Steven Hack wrote:
> >I disagree. You are mixing up the two senses the word human can be used
> >in: as denoting homo sapiens, and as denoting the important parts of
> >rational subjects.
>
> I do not mix up the terms. Humans can refer to the species as a whole, or
> to six billion individuals, each of which behaves somewhere on a wide
> spectrum of behavior and belief affected by their genes, their upbringing,
> their physical and cultural environment, etc. As for the important parts of
> rational subjects, I do not believe Ayn Rand's definition of the term
> "human" has been accepted by the scientific community. Most scientists
> would agree, I suspect, that man's capacity for conceptual processing is
> the distinguishing factor between human and animal. But many would not so
> agree. They are probably quite wrong, but the point is there are many
> scientists who would disagree. Most scientists would probably define human
> using what is strictly known by science and would hesitate to include
> aspects of the human mind which are imperfectly understand. Once we get
> the neuroscience down, it's another story. But the vast majority of
> non-scientists, if asked, would probably be incapable of defining their
> humanity except in emotional and religious terms.
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.
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*.
> 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/
> > 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.
> > 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.
I would consider a transhuman that was unable to change itself a very failed
transhuman.
> > 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?
> >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".
You seem to recognise survival as valuable, but is it an end in itself? 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. 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.
> >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.
> 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? 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. 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.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:51 MST