Memory is not who you are... debunking Transhumanism

reply to post by wasaka

I know that radical life extension and cognitive augmentation are the overarching goals of the technological establishment. Many films have presented us with these ideas, such as terminator, bladerunner, I-Robot, and more.

So you infer the goals of the 'technological establishment' from popular entertainments designed to make money from their creators? Does that seem sane to you?

As for tranhumanism, it is simply nonsense, and it's not going to happen.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by wasaka

 

I know all too well, that the forces of darkness in this world are working hard to effect what we believe (and don't believe), because that gives them control.

This is the only important thing you said.

Your disagreements with Sam Harris seem more like a childish tantrum fueled by religious delusion.

You gave one example of something I said you tend to agree with
and based on the strength of that one argument, everything Harris
says falls down. Why are there dark forces in high places that are
working hard to effect our beliefs? Because they know beliefs will
effect our behavior.... this is proof of free will.

What I find it odd that you regard my views as religious. A good many
scientist have religious views, so if I did have religious views that would
not necessarily mean I had "religious delusion" blocking my understanding
of a scientific principle. Do you consider a belief in the self-evident truth
of human free-agency to be a religious delusion? It seems you do, and
if that is the case then you are the True Believer, not me.

To deny the self-evident requires religion, and therefore I must conclude
those so quick to give Sam Harris accolades for this obtuse performance
are themselves suffering from this affliction called "religious delusion.".

Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but only religion
can get good people to do bad things. This is more proof of free agency.

Here is the full Steven Weinberg quote that I just paraphrased:

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

I am not a True Believer in the Bible or any other religious book, dogma or creed.
Nor am I a True Believer in the ideas that Sam Harris has presented but it is this
person that Eric Hoffer called the True Believer who is under a spell of religious
delusion and subject to the influence of irrational, often fascist mass movements.

“We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves.” ― Eric Hoffer

What I see is the self-evident truth that all human being have free agency,
whether they feel it or not, are aware or not, or deny it or not.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by wasaka

 

I know that radical life extension and cognitive augmentation are the overarching goals of the technological establishment. Many films have presented us with these ideas, such as terminator, bladerunner, I-Robot, and more.

So you infer the goals of the 'technological establishment' from popular entertainments designed to make money from their creators? Does that seem sane to you?

As for tranhumanism, it is simply nonsense, and it's not going to happen.

I said, "many films have presented us with these ideas" but I did not say, nor
did I infer, that these ideas were some kind of product placement put there
by some vast unseen conspiracy pushing a Transhuman agenda.

Does raising such a possibility seem sane to you?
And remember, you raised the question, not I.

reply to post by wasaka

What I see is the self-evident truth that all human being have free agency. This is more proof of free agency

Wow what amazingly astute arguments. Why would we even need to address the evidence produced by neurobiology? Lets all just say what we think is true... is true because we believe it to be true....

reply to post by Astyanax


There are permanent artificial hearts now. Along with many other artificial organ replacements coming down the pipe.

So saying trans humanism is never going to happen would be pretty dumb.

You could argue the extent to which we will augment our bodies and consciousness.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by wasaka

 

As for tranhumanism, it is simply nonsense, and it's not going to happen.

What, men becoming gods?

Yes it is non-sense, but does that mean it can't happen?

I don't mean to say that they will succeed in their ultimate goals, but
they are making progress in this direction. Transhumanism involves
a lot more than Mind Print, it also involves life extension, etc.

The ultimate goal is to become a non-corporeal eternal being--a god.

My point is not the that the ultimate goal is unattainable, but rather
that this ultimate goal should be undesirable to sane person.

One thing I really loved about Star Trek was how in several episodes they
showed being a god is not all that it is cracked up to be. After Roddenberry's
second pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" received a more
favorable response from NBC, it aired as the third episode. Here is the
plot line: "After the Enterprise attempts to cross the Great Barrier at the
edge of the galaxy, crew members Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner
develop "godlike" psychic powers which threaten the safety of the crew."



Trek Tiivia:

This was the second time Roddenberry tried to sell his series to NBC.

Kirk decides that they need to know what happened to the Valiant, and the Enterprise crosses the edge of the galaxy where it encounters a strange barrier which damages the ship's systems and warp drive, forcing a retreat. At the same time, nine crewmembers are killed and both helmsman Gary Mitchell and ship's psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Dehner are knocked unconscious by the barrier's effect. When he awakens, Mitchell's eyes glow silver, and he begins to display remarkable psionics.

Mitchell becomes increasingly arrogant and hostile toward the rest of the crew, declaring that he has become godlike, enforcing his desires with fearsome displays of telepathic and telekinetic power. Science Officer Spock (Leonard Nimoy) comes to believe that Valiant crew members may have experienced the same phenomenon, and destroyed the ship to keep the power from spreading. He advises Kirk that Mitchell may have to be killed before his powers develop further, but Kirk angrily disagrees.

Alarmed that Mitchell may take over the Enterprise, Kirk decides to maroon him on an unmanned lithium-cracking facility on the remote planet of Delta Vega. Once there, the landing party tries to confine Mitchell, but his powers have become great. He goes on a rampage, kills navigator Lt. Lee Kelso and escapes, taking with him Dr. Dehner, who has now developed similar powers.

Kirk follows and appeals to Dr. Dehner's humanity for help.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by wasaka

 

What I see is the self-evident truth that all human being have free agency. This is more proof of free agency

Wow what amazingly astute arguments. Why would we even need to address the evidence produced by neurobiology? Lets all just say what we think is true... is true because we believe it to be true....

A self-evident truth is just that, whether one believes it or not.

Neurobiology can tell us how the brain works, it does not tell us why.
For example, it can tell us that the brain of a homosexual is different
from the hetrosexual brain... but that doesn't explain why. It is also
true that what one thinks about can produce physiological changes
the brain, but this fact is seldom considered.

My point is science doesn't have all the answers, and very often
the answers they present as absolute are actually based on
limited and incomplete information. Science has been wrong
before and to cling to a current scientific view because it is
one that agrees with your world-view is really no different
than a Christian saying, "God said it, I believe it."

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
--Thomas Jefferson

One might argue that this truth is essentially religious in nature
but if it is, that only confirms the fact that this basic moral value
has a basis in reality. It is also self-evident that from the time a
child is born, they soon cease to be equal with others (because
they lack resources or education, etc) However, this fact only
proves we live in a world without justice where certain people
quickly gain an advantage over others.

In the same way, to say we are given free-will does not mean
we know how to use it. Some people may in fact lack the good
sense to reason and like animals they act on impulses that they
themselves do not fully understand. We've all does this and will
continue to do this from time to time, but that simply means we
act without self-control and from emotion, it does not mean that
we lack free will or are somehow not responsible for our actions.

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the
cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."
--Mahatma Gandhi

All persons have free will, otherwise we would not be persons.
For this is what it means to be a person--to know one own mind
and to act accordingly, to believe otherwise is non-sense.

Moreover, to claim some people are not persons (mere animals
that lack free-will) is the argument of a slave owner and it was
in opposition this false idea that Jefferson stated his self-evident
truth that all mean are create equal. Not that we remain so, but
that it is morally wrong to deny freedom to a select few based
on their DNA or the color of their skin.

In the same way, it is just as morally reprehensible to set up
a select few to rule over the whole of humanity. It was in this
context the Jefferson said all men are created equal. And
it is in this same context that I say free will is a self-evident
truth because the alternative is morally reprehensible.

We live in an evil world. Why? Because of free will.
If we had no free will, then we'd have no reason to
call this world evil. The very idea of evil is based
on the notion of free will. So then, to deny free will
is also to deny we live in an evil world.

While I don't follow the Bible as my guild in life, I do
like to quote it from time to time and this passage
from Isaiah 5:20 come to mind:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by wasaka

 

I know that radical life extension and cognitive augmentation are the overarching goals of the technological establishment. Many films have presented us with these ideas, such as terminator, bladerunner, I-Robot, and more.

So you infer the goals of the 'technological establishment' from popular entertainments designed to make money from their creators? Does that seem sane to you?

As for tranhumanism, it is simply nonsense, and it's not going to happen.

Its sad to see someone afraid of his own self, of the simple idea of what he can achieve as a man, as a species. We can be so much more - actually we will be so much more, we have a potential we have only yet scratched the surface. Humanity will evolve to be something much more than mere frail, sick, blind, deaf, weak humans. We will unlock this. It is going to happen.

But be glad. You're not alone in your fear of evolution, theres many more like you who will share your fear. And you are entitled to your fear and to be scared, but keep in mind the rules of evolution and remember some things Darwin said.

As for me... I think we deserve so much more than this. All diseases eradicated forever and secure our immortality would be just the tip of an iceberg full of advantages I cant even begin to name and that one alone would sell me the idea.

So yes, I am a firm believer and strong proponent of transhumanism so... I hope we evolve, fast, by all means necessary, be it genetics, cyber tech implants or enhancements, full personality downloads and backups, uploads into newer and better, stronger bodies, human cloning, etc we need all this if we really want to secure our future as the perpetual dominant species on this planet and ultimately beyond it. We will not lose anything that makes us human, we'll just be more than human. Like we're more evolved than the archaic homo sapiens. Nature did a fine job, but we can take the wheel now and eliminate some flaws that nature has on its design.

If not... we'll just be another faint dot, a fuzzy shadow that will mean nothing, that will leave no mark on the grand book of the multiverse.

EDIT: Maybe then we wont need Gods anymore and religion can be, finally, put to an end.

Transhumanist believe that consciousness is an artifact of the brain itself – a kind of “ghost in the machine,” if you will, that memory somehow gives rise to the self-delusion of awareness.

Sorry, its the other way around, brain is artifact of consciousness. Without the energy of life itself, there would be no brain at all. Nothing would exist for that matter. Very arrogant to say things like this, reminds me of that other idiotic saying "I think, therefore I am". Placing the brain higher than the source of life itself, is the biggest delusion of all. Only a blind person trapped in body/mind perception would say that. For them, the mind and it's thought's are pedestalized and worshipped. The audacity to say that the mind can be used to understand the SOURCE that created it. That's like a computer trying to understand the programmer.

But to say something like "Self delusion of awareness?" How demeaning to life itself. A newborn baby knows nothing about the World. No knowledge whatsoever. Yet it IS aware of it all. To tell a child that his awareness itself is a delusion would be a lie of atrocious proportions.

Phenomena is illusory in nature, but awareness being a delusion? That's a sad state of affairs. Awareness is the only real thing you have.

Originally posted by Openeye
You can't because to the best of our knowledge such a thing does not exist as traditionally defined. The soul is purely a romanticized expression of our consciousness which is produced by the complex chemical processes which occur in our brains. This is proven science. You can change everything about someone by altering their brain chemistry, a sad man can become happy and an angry man can become calm by the removal of specific part of the brain or the addition of another chemical.

This seems forward, and true, but it is only half a truth. These changes made to someone's brain, changes chemical behaviour, and emotional response. It does nothing to the individual conscious manifestation of that person. Each part (body, mind and spirit) are deeply related, and linked, and need each other to survive. But, I believe there is something else there, beyond that Trinity that chooses to exist. Although chemical manipulation explains many things, it does not explain human behaviour without external chemical manipulation. You see, feelings of Love/lust/desire can be created in someone using chemical manipulations. But, if you take a dozen men, and place in front of them a shapely woman, each will react differently to her. Some may lust for her, some may be repulsed by her, and some may feel neutral towards her. What is the chemical trigger? Why does one person feel a strong attraction for someone by looking into their eyes, while another person feels nothing? In other words, why does one person's brain release certain chemicals to trigger such a feeling by looking into someone's eyes, while another person's brain releases no chemicals, or makes no chemical change when looking into that same person's eyes. The tranquillity experienced through meditation can be achieved with drugs, and other chemical altering substances. But, a man may achieve that same state without such substances, while another may achieve a different state, or no change in feeling doing the same practice. Babies have personalities way before personalities should have been developed. Psychologist explain the different type of baby personalities, but they cannot explain how this comes to be.

You see, science cannot properly explain this. I have never seen them try to. Can science explain it? I think it can, but it would take someone, or a group of people who aren't ego-centric to do it. And I have the feeling that when, and if the day comes that science can thoroughly explain that, the conclusion will rock our world.

reply to post by Visitor2012


Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" is missing an essential injunction.
It's missing, "That which thinks exists".

deleted

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by wasaka

 

(...)

So yes, I am a firm believer and strong proponent of transhumanism so... I hope we evolve, fast, by all means necessary,(...) Maybe then we wont need Gods anymore and religion can be, finally, put to an end.

"Morals are for men, not for gods."
--Mitchell

Quote from 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'

reply to post by sdrawkcabII


Well said, science can explain the how, but it can never explain the why.

For this reason those who think science will advance to a point
were human beings will cast off religious ideas are sadly mistaken.
As long as their is mystery, there will be people seeking answers
beyond what science can provide.

I don't know about this stuff about the soul as descried in religious traditions. However, I think that transferring a persons consciousness into a machine will be more complicated then just copy and pasting the brain.

Those saying all of our conscious acts are from chemical reactions in the brain really don't know what they are talking about. I read psychology and neurology case studies and text as a hobby, and I can say that as it stands now we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg on how our brains actually work.

There is much more then just chemical influences, there are also electrochemical and electromagnetic, not to mention the unmeasurable effects from the quantum scale and even the gravity from all matter in the universe will have an effect.

My linear algebra instructor in university specializes in chaos theory (as one of his specializations, he is currently working on one of the biggest problems in that field), and he told us about interesting proofs that show it is impossible to calculated certain things, and thus to say we can transfer all the information and patterns of the brain into another body is going to be near impossible what our capabilities today.

One day in the future when we know much much more it might be possible, but honestly in my opinion its going to be well after 2045. We will however have some pretty advanced AI by then and crazy powerful computers, but consciousnesses and soul transfer is a long way off.

I support trans humanism as long as it is reasonably paced and run by those who have the best interest for the greater good. Also, there may be a soul and we may just have not found a method of actually measuring and quantifying it, but it does not mean it is impossible, remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Transhumanism isn't someone using an artificial heart to pump their blood. Transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. Source.

I am stating an opinion here, but I am firmly convinced that our options in this line are strictly limited. For example, in spite of all the hype, it is increasingly evident that we are reaching the effective limits of human longevity. Our children or grandchildren might all live to be a hundred, but not much more than that. A brain in a box is not a human being; it is a brain in a box, something entirely different. A brain uploaded onto a computer is even less human.

It surprises me that a fellow-materialist should be so convinced that the essence of humanity is something immaterial. Transhumanism – though its proponents may not realise it – is a soul doctrine. It holds that a person can exist without a body.

reply to post by wasaka

Does raising such a possibility seem sane to you?

No, indeed; it is utter lunacy. That is why I asked you why you chose to start a thread by implying it.

*

Men becoming gods? Yes it is nonsense, but does that mean it can't happen?

Yes, I'm afraid it can't. We are, and will always remain, animals. There are no gods.

I notice that the whole of the rest of the post from which I've quoted proposes Star Trek as a blueprint for what you think might really happen in the future. So I was right to ask my original question after all, wouldn't you say?

*

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

Its sad to see someone afraid of his own self, of the simple idea of what he can achieve as a man, as a species. We can be so much more - actually we will be so much more, we have a potential we have only yet scratched the surface. Humanity will evolve to be something much more than mere frail, sick, blind, deaf, weak humans. We will unlock this. It is going to happen.

It's (please note correct use of apostrophe) sad to see someone so up themselves that they think they can read a person's character and inner fears from a single internet forum post.

Actually, transhumanism is just the thing for losers who get left behind in the ordinary struggles of life, to console them with the thought that they may one day (soon, soon!) be as gods.

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't see how the oxford definition excludes artificial organ transplants more capable than the original human parts. It appears your vision is being obscured or your being purposefully obtuse.

I stated earlier in the thread that some of the physical structure of a brain and the consciousness that it produces may be inseparable. Also I see no evidence for the statement that humans cannot live past 100 years. I also disagree that a brain in a box, which is really what you already are in that skull of yours, isn't a human.

Time, of course, will make fools of us all. Be certain though that I am not concerned with what you, or anyone else, considers human and I intend to live as long as possible.

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" is missing an essential injunction.
It's missing, "That which thinks exists".

Do you exist because you think? Or do you think because you exist? If you could not think at all, would you disappear? If you did not exist at all, could you think?

reply to post by Wertdagf

I don't see how the oxford definition excludes artificial organ transplants more capable than the original human parts. It appears your vision is being obscured or your being purposefully obtuse.

It may seem so to you, Wertdagf, but unless we're strict about our definitions we shall get nowhere. If an artificial or augmented organ makes a human being a transhumanist entity, then the spectacles I wear to help me see make me one such entity. I think we have to be a lot more focused than that.

Also I see no evidence for the statement that humans cannot live past 100 years.

I didn't say that. A few people already do – a few have always done.

For evidence supporting what I did say, see, for example, here. Also here. There's a fair amount of work on this, actually.

I also disagree that a brain in a box, which is really what you already are in that skull of yours, isn't a human.

We may choose to differ on what we call human, but a brain in a human skull is very far from being a brain in a box. A human brain is dependent on a human body for literally everything: sustenance, stimulus and even direction – yes, direction! – from the endocrine system.

Consider the words you chose to use: 'what you already are in that skull of yours'. They reveal that you have already identified the person with the brain. That's jumping to unwarranted conclusions; we have never seen a brain, detached from a body, show any signs of personality whatsoever. Signs of electrical activity, yes; personality, none. You need a body, you see, to manifest personality.

A human being is a biological entity, part of which is a brain. To argue otherwise is to embrace a kind of spiritualism.