Do you agree with transhumanism?

[Tee Kay]

I like it but only if I have total control over the technology.

(But yes, I'm generally on board with El Mac. I want my eyes fixed too!)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but the consequences it'd have on sport concerns me.

I think sport in general has already evolved quite far from the Coubertinesque ideal, what's with excessive commercialisation, artificial augmentation, people having to intensively train their whole lives to even compete at high levels, separate competition categories for the two sexes, different body types, ability and disability, and so on. I'm not sure a few more steps towards transhumanism would be that radical of a change.

 

[azzaman333]

I think sport in general has already evolved quite far from the Coubertinesque ideal, what's with excessive commercialisation, artificial augmentation, people having to intensively train their whole lives to even compete at high levels, separate competition categories for the two sexes, different body types, ability and disability, and so on. I'm not sure a few more steps towards transhumanism would be that radical of a change.

In most sports (at least those I'm interested in), it's still who can be the best based on their natural ability, rather than who can buy the best gear. For example, having the best footy boots might give a small advantage but it's a negligible effect in the grand scheme of things. Even a sport like cricket where you need a bunch of protective gear and a bat, I couldn't go out and just buy the best gear and the best bat and suddenly become the best cricket player in the world. Most sports don't discriminate between the rich and the poor, anyone can be the best if they have the natural ability and the work ethic to nurture it. If it reaches the point where the rich win every time because they can buy the best bodies, I'd lose interest in sport completely. I suppose for the greater good that might be necessary, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh! I think there's a tremendous potential for a huge downside. And I think that is a threat from technology, not from transhumanism, specifically.

The analogy continues to be: I need to buy a car, just to work. Because I am treading water, financially, my car is relatively expensive. This means that I am chained to my desk for a certain number of hours per week, just to afford the car, so that I can come to work.

In other words, there are technological adaptations that you are forced to endure, just to survive. Now, if this system allowed you to become progressively more wealthy, then the sympathy kinda goes down. But, that needn't happen.

Two aspects of transhumanism are the idea of diminishing costs of upgrades (more people will have cellphones than ever had rotary phones) and that each technological upgrade kicks up our ability to invent new things, whether by increasing resources or capabilities or whatever. So, discovering a cure for Alzheimer's would reduce the cost of elderly care, leaving more money available for whatever else we wanna do. Giving elmac color vision means that he can use pH paper in the lab much more easily, etc.

The final underlying idea is that we have moral onus to push for some of these technologies to be discovered and to be available to the poorest. And, yeah, this means sometimes forgoing something in order to help fund these investments.

 

[Borachio]

I think it would be a good idea, and cheaper, to discover the cause of Alzheimer's first.

It may just be something in the water.

 

[Narz]

I think it would be a good idea, and cheaper, to discover the cause of Alzheimer's first.

It may just be something in the water.

Unlikely, there are probably a host of causes, just like cancer.

 

[El_Machinae]

My position is that it would be better to have a cure for it than not have a cure for it. If this means finding a cause, in order to create interventions, I'm fine with it. But, since I think it's better to have a cure, I think there's an actual onus to put some effort into that direction.

 

[Oruc]

Purity First Nope I don't want a damn thing to do with.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I agree with the broad thrust of transhumanism- that we can, should and will become cyborgs- but the actual transhumanist movement always strikes me as a bit detached from reality.

Well, let's just say there are lots of wild and crazy ideas there.

Cyborgs yes. But "become" robots, I don't think so. That's a disguised form of suicide IMO: at least, it will be, in the early years of highly-intelligent AI. Experience as we know it is not a necessary condition for intelligence; thus AI is possible without experience as we know it. And a lot of transhumanists look forward to "uploading" with way too little philosophical insight.

This is a problem, because those robots could easily inherit a good chunk of the world. I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that they aren't actually the same people that thought they would "become" robots. And how their attitudes toward humanity (including cyborgs) will change when that happens.

 

[timtofly]

The way I see it is: We cannot make laws, they will be broken. We cannot give them choices, they may turn against us. We can build in determinism, and help the humans the day they figure out they were pre-determined to be a certain way.

 

[BvBPL]

Transhumanism was much cooler when it was called cyberpunk.

 

[El_Machinae]

Cyberpunk is a genre. It actually includes a lot of warnings regarding transhumanism and unintended consequences. A genre around which stories are written will always be more interesting than real-life, but there's a wheat and chaff opportunity for our own futures.

 

[Borachio]

This is a problem, because those robots could easily inherit a good chunk of the world. I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that they aren't actually the same people that thought they would "become" robots. And how their attitudes toward humanity (including cyborgs) will change when that happens.

Those robots are never going to figure this out, though. Why should they?

The only difference it would make to them is that they'd be denying their own humanity? Surely that would be something of value they wouldn't want to lose?

The being that is losing out on the deal, of course, is the human being who thought that what would be uploaded is themselves.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Those robots are never going to figure this out, though. Why should they?

The only difference it would make to them is that they'd be denying their own humanity? Surely that would be something of value they wouldn't want to lose?

Like the humans that created them, they will do what curious people do: look; think. Unlike those humans, they will be smarter and faster at gathering and interpreting evidence.

Giving up a long held belief hurts (for most personality types, maybe not Zen masters). But plenty of people are willing to take it in order to accomplish more in the real world. If you're a doctor who has advocated Medicine X, but then see a study that proves X doesn't really work and has harmful side effects, wouldn't you rather switch to advocating Medicine Y, or non-treatment, or whatever the evidence indicates will actually improve people's health? Or perhaps you've actually been prescribing Medicine Y all along, which did heal your patients, and you only mistakenly thought it was X.

The robots will have been avidly storing air-pressure-frequency data and spectral-reflectivity data, and valuing this process. If they discover that these can only loosely be called "hearing" and "seeing", respectively, that doesn't mean they'll suddenly stop valuing them. Life - I mean activity - goes on.

 

[Narz]

Thought I'd bump this rather than start new thread as it's fairly new by cfc standards and why craft a new op and thread when I could carry forth on a decent existing one?

I found this interview w a transhumanist quite inspiring

Information sensitive gradients of intelligent bliss, sounds a lot better than just accepting the current hardware package our of some naturalistic fallacy/fear of the unknown

He speaks about the fear of 1984 and how people fear happiness will make us compliment w power but I think most people can readily observe that it's by tweaking our lower instincts towards fear, envy, anger and tribalism we are actually controlled.

 

[Narz]

Yeah this cyborg image was the one I had in my head until recently, now I see it as more of humans taking control of our own evolution so we can be more human even (less chimpy, more davinci).

Sounds absurdly optimistic and audacious at first glance but all we're really saying is we can do better than deal w the random, often crummy cards we're given, why not stack the deck like your friend, starting w dealing w genetic illnesses.

Obviously there will be missteps and unforseen consequences but if the choice is between accept what you're dealt (pain, illness, petty human emotions like envy) and trying to game things to improve quality of existence for ourselves and ultimately all beings the choice is obvious

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Betrization Is the Worst Solution… Except for All Others.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I guess it depends what I'm transforming into.

 

[Akka]

Transhumanism is a very dangerous slope that I'm extremely worried we'll jump at as soon as possible.
Between the obvious attempts at making humans "better" (with all the baggage that comes with even trying to define "better" here) while lacking the knowledge and foresight about the consequences of such modifications, and the fact that the ones who will benefit from it will probably be the ones that shouldn't, it screams of dysfunctional dystopia with a literally inhuman caste in charge of society and molding the rest as convenient for them.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Civ6 in ya brain.​

Video shows world's first Neuralink brain interface patient playing PC games and chess with his mind​

A nine minute video posted today showed the world's first nueralink patient playing video games with his mind. The professed Charles Xavier fan, paralyzed man and lapsed chess player describes being grateful for Elon Musk's controversial Neuralink brain interface project after it allowed him to pick Chess and other games back up. We've embedded the full video below (expand tweet to see the video).

One of the first times Neuralink's first human patient was given full reign of the brain interface, he proceeded to "stay up until [...] 6 A.M. playing Civilization VI," enjoying the new input method like a true gamer. Due to the sheer scale and time investment of Civ 6, paralysis would have prevented him from having a proper gaming binge, but Neuralink made it possible.

For the video demonstration, the Neuralink subject is mainly testing online Chess, but the Civ 6 comments make clear that it's suited for long-term use. When learning controls, he first started differentiating attempted and imagined movement. Then, he mentally 'moved' his left and right hands and finally just focused on cursor movements. According to him, this feels akin to "Force Manipulation" in Star Wars.

Video shows world's first Neuralink brain interface patient playing PC games and chess with his mind

Impressive, original 9-minute video posted to Twitter is available below

www.tomshardware.com

Next week, he will try playing the stock market using a crystal ball in an attempt to improve Twitter/ X's performance.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think the essence of being human is the capability to improve our own nature beyond purely biological limitations. Wearing clothes, using tools, vehicles, medicine, etc all give us capabilities which are beyond the capabilities we have when we are born. So I don't find anything particularly special about having a bionic arm or some cellphone implanted into the brain. It is all part of the same process.