Why Transhumanism?

[rivrrat]

I disagree. There is a functional aspect of the mind and you are right in that sense, different people have a different level of intelligence.

Than there is the value of consciousness itself.

The "consciousness" is a product of the brain. It IS the mind. And our individual brains and minds are in no way equal.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Value of anything is based on input-output. Soul notwithstanding, there is definitely a static/indeterminate value you can place upon your consciousness and your volition to use it.

Unless you're talking on some deep metaphysical plane I'm too grounded to understand.

I disagree. But yes, I am essentially being metaphysical here, but is because of my religion (Christianity) informs me that such a thing is true. Of course, now that I have stated that, hopefully this won't turn into one of those debates. If so, I will cease to respond to the tangent and only respond to the main point presented in the OP. We already have enough threads on that stuff.

The "consciousness" is a product of the brain. It IS the mind. And our individual brains and minds are in no way equal.

I am religious and you are not :shrug:

 

[Gipper]

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever

See, even in religion there is an input/output basis. These are just a couple examples. The more input you do on Earth, the more output you get in Heaven. Or something like that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

See, even in religion there is an input/output basis. These are just a couple examples. The more input you do on Earth, the more output you get in Heaven. Or something like that.

That's great, but Jesus died for everyone equally. For me that is proof that in certain ways, we are no better than others.

 

[Gipper]

And according to John 3:16, he only died for his followers, for "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life".

If everyone is equal, the atheist down the street should be able to show his pass at the pearly gates.

 

[rivrrat]

I am religious and you are not :shrug:

I'm not sure how that relates to the fact that our consciousness is a product of our brains.

 

[Slartibartfast]

And according to John 3:16, he only died for his followers, for "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life".

If everyone is equal, the atheist down the street should be able to show his pass at the pearly gates.

I wouldn't say that is the best interpretation ofr Joh 3:16, but if you feel it is right, than go with it. However, the way I see it is that he died for everyone equally in the sense that they have an opportunity to participate in something that they would otherwise not have. Whether they take advantage of it is their choice, however, if he were to die inequally, not everyone would have that opportunity. However, everyone gets the opportunity because we all have equal value.

Basically, I am not a Calvinist.

I'm not sure how that relates to the fact that our consciousness is a product of our brains.

While I think it is as well, I think they are still fundamentally equal, based on religion, even if they do not have the same capacity.

Out of curiosity, what does transhumanism have to do with equality anyway?

 

[Hicup]

Hehe.. Nice! You seem like an amatuer philosopher? Good start, maybe one day you'll say something, or think of something brilliant. Your OP is anything but, IMO.

Here's why you're all wrong. Name two separate, tangible, or even intangible things in the universe that are equal. Just give me one single example? If there aren't any, why would you want, or even expect humans to become the first?

Your premise isn't based on rationality, or grounded in reality. It's fiction, and not even good fiction.


Tim-

 

[Slartibartfast]

Since we got on the tangent about equality, what does it have to do with transhumanism anyway? I am failing to see the relationship. I see what the OP says, but are we confusing the current situation with the one described in that post?

 

[MaggieD]

You didnt read the OP, did you?

Yes, I did. I quoted one of your initial premises. It doesn't wash. It can't happen.

 

[lizzie]

The essential difference with the borg though is that the system overcomes the individual. That's not what is being proposed, but it is a potential danger with that type of technology, if it ever gets invented.

Yeah, I realize that's not what is being proposed, but what is being proposed is (imo) silly. Human equality cannot be achieved with availability of knowledge via technology. People cannot be equal ever. They can be treated equally with equal rights granted, but people will never learn the same, conceptualize the same, translate information the same, nor act and feel the same.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, I realize that's not what is being proposed, but what is being proposed is (imo) silly. Human equality cannot be achieved with availability of knowledge via technology. People cannot be equal ever. They can be treated equally with equal rights granted, but people will never learn the same, conceptualize the same, translate information the same, nor act and feel the same.

Well, if the technology for direct mental interaction with a computer becomes possible, than perhaps we would all learn the same (but mentally googling something probably wouldn't be learning, so it would probably go around the issue instead of changing it). However, you right about the other stuff, but I don't really see how that is necessary for equality.

 

[Hoplite]

Neuro networking? **** that. No way, no how. I have no desire to be "connected" to everyone and have stuff extracted from and inserted into my mind.

You really are ignoring what I wrote. I'm not proposing a hardline permanent connection to the rest of humanity. Frankly, I dont know that the human mind could handle so much input. What I am proposing is similar to an implanted modem at the control of the person that carries it that enables them to link to a wider network of people with the same implant that allows the transfer or information, images, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and knowledge the same way you might send an email today. This is an entirely voluntary process.

You are proposing true "equality", and that's impossible unless we're all carbon copies of each other.

I am proposing the capacity for equality.

Yes, I did. I quoted one of your initial premises. It doesn't wash. It can't happen.

You may have quoted it, but you very obviously didnt read it.

Well, if the technology for direct mental interaction with a computer becomes possible, than perhaps we would all learn the same (but mentally googling something probably wouldn't be learning, so it would probably go around the issue instead of changing it).

The technology is not wildly out of the pale. Such information is transmitted in our brains as electrical signals and chemicals, the difficulty will be in finding a way to translate that information into a format that can be transmitted over distance then reformed into a format that can be read by a second person. It is reasonable assume that there is a "code" that enables simple pieces of data to be compiled into more complex forms, a kind of biological binary.

 

[rivrrat]

You really are ignoring what I wrote. I'm not proposing a hardline permanent connection to the rest of humanity. Frankly, I dont know that the human mind could handle so much input. What I am proposing is similar to an implanted modem at the control of the person that carries it that enables them to link to a wider network of people with the same implant that allows the transfer or information, images, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and knowledge the same way you might send an email today. This is an entirely voluntary process.

You mean like my iphone?

I am proposing the capacity for equality.

How is that different?

 

[Gipper]

I guess it just proves what I've always said: All socialism is authoritarian.

If Hoplite sounded any more Orwellian, I'd be looking over my shoulder every 5 seconds.

 

[Hoplite]

You mean like my iphone?

Not exactly. An iPhone does many different things, this device would only be to send and receive information. Think of it more as a highly advanced radio.

How is that different?

Equality is not forced, but society is free to find its own way to that end.

I guess it just proves what I've always said: All socialism is authoritarian.

If Hoplite sounded any more Orwellian, I'd be looking over my shoulder every 5 seconds.

Your rhetoric is as baseless as it is dated, get some new material and I'll be impressed.

 

[Ikari]

Humans are assholes because we dont have a full understanding or acknowledgement of the consequences of our actions.

No, people are assholes because they choose to be assholes. Because given a large enough population, some percentage of them are ALWAYS going to be assholes. You can't make assholes go away without destroying all humans. It's part of what we do. Creation and destruction are our domain, and we will entertain both. That is basic human nature, and that is what you are ignoring in your simplistic idealization of linking human minds to some form of internet. This ain't Ghost in the Shell over here, this is real life.

 

[Hoplite]

No, people are assholes because they choose to be assholes. Because given a large enough population, some percentage of them are ALWAYS going to be assholes. You can't make assholes go away without destroying all humans. It's part of what we do. Creation and destruction are our domain, and we will entertain both. That is basic human nature, and that is what you are ignoring in your simplistic idealization of linking human minds to some form of internet. This ain't Ghost in the Shell over here, this is real life.

Wrong, people are assholes because of a lack of understanding. Why does someone yell at a clerk? Because he isnt getting his service fast enough. What that person may not known is that the employee is short-handed or materials were not delivered on time. The customer doesnt know this and makes an assumption, incorrectly.

People are assholes because they make incorrect assumptions based on faulty information.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wrong, people are assholes because of a lack of understanding. Why does someone yell at a clerk? Because he isnt getting his service fast enough. What that person may not known is that the employee is short-handed or materials were not delivered on time. The customer doesnt know this and makes an assumption, incorrectly.

People are assholes because they make incorrect assumptions based on faulty information.

nah, the asshole could somehow think he was special.

 

[other]

Up to now, all free societies have started with one premise: human nature is cruel, unjust -- a force to be controlled. The separation of powers, of all ways throught time, are designed purely to stall the ambitions of individuals.

No. SOME societies have started with that premise. Not all--or even most. And the concept of the separation of powers is not "designed purely to stall the ambitions of individuals," but to keep the government, as a whole, in check. Groups of people can abuse power just as easily as any individual--more so in some cases.

The solution is to address the flaws in human nature. Make all beings truly equal in both body and mind. If you start with minds that are lucid, knowledgable, and emotionally sound, the needs of government change dramatically. If government can account for the nuances of human behavior, thought, emotion, and desire then maybe it can truly consider itself an extension of the will of the people.

You are assuming that inequality is a "flaw" in the human condition that needs to be "solved."

Through the use of advanced technology, you make possible the establishment of a true, universal, and pure democracy. Using a network of communication that links the mind of every individual to a central processing network. This network uses a synthetic intelligence to oversee the logistic and beurocratic functions of government. The network that links enhanced minds together will be linked to the synthetic intelligence such that it can have, at a moment's notice, the capability to poll the entire population about legislation or other issues.

what if the supercomputer decides that the only way to correct the flaws in humanity is to eradicate them? *gasp*

But in all seriousness, I don't exactly know exactly what entails, or all the ramifications of, a "synthetic intelligence." Why would it automatically be better than normal human intelligence, and what makes you think it would be exempt from all the same problems/flaws of normal human intelligence. And also, what if it has its own unique flaws, unknown to us?

The emerging technology also allows us to spread the influence of education to as many people as humanly possible, creating an educated and informed populace that is equipped to form sound opinions on a subject of government.

Access to information is not the same as comprehension of information, or making "good" choices. In fact, due to the natural limitations of the mind, too much access to too much information might even have a detrimental effect on the overall education of the populace. Sensory overload sort of thing.

Such a network of communication will also enable the instantaeous transmission of information to anyone anywhere in the world, allowing the near instant sharing of any knowlege. Through these means, we can ensure an educated populace and an equality that has never before been achieved.

It also allows the near-instant dissimination of falsehoods, hate, misinformation, and everything else.

There will be understandable unease about giving power to a synthetic intelligence, but all governments have power. The benefit of giving this power to a synthetic intellect is that human affairs would no longer need to be ruled by generalities. The intelligence will have a deep understanding of every person's life and opinions and will have the processing power need to generate solutions that will benefit as many people as possible.

So, again, what's to stop the computer from killing off "excess" people during a drought or shortage, for the benefit of others?

It must also be considered that such a "connected" populace will be extremely hard to dominate or control

Not necessarily. In fact, such a populace, "connected" to each other would be no more or less susceptable to manipulation or coersion than anyone who logs onto the internet today. In some cases, the individual can parse through the info and make sound determinations about what is real and acceptable, and in other cases they grow a beard and fly to yemen.

"General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect." The words of Alexis de Tocqueville, an observer of the birth of modern democracy. Though general ideas allow human minds to make judgments quickly, they are necessarily incomplete. So de Tocqueville noted that an all-knowing mind -- the mind of God, as he conceived it -- would have no need for general ideas. It would understand every individual in detail and at a glance. Incomplete applications of law or justice would be impossible for such a mind.

Without some grasp of generalizations, it would have no grasp of law or justice at all.

wisdom must also be knowledgeable, logical, and fair to billions of other beings.

says who?

Is human nature perfect? No. Therefore, improvements are to be welcomed, not annihilated with ancient taboos and fears.

To say that such a system would be an "improvement" is only an assumption. There is no reason to believe that such a system would be somehow perfect or even better than what we have now.

As enhanced beings, we can establish a pure democracy that runs on instantaneous input from the electorate. What system could be more equal than that?

1) People don't, as a whole. want perfect equality.
2) There is no reason to believe that a supercomputer hivemind would want equality either. In fact, in order to resolve logistical problems, it would probably just designate and persecute certain minority groups, just like in any other democracy.

Where did you even get the idea that equality would necessarily arise from a "perfect" democracy?

Under such conditions, we would have a clean slate to implement and experiment with any political system we wanted because we would have a population with the wisdom to not let emotions and selfish desires get in the way of the progress of the human race.

You are only assuming (again) that "emotions and selfish desires get in the way of the progress of the human race." In fact, nearly all of mankind's greatest inventions were created in the fufilment of emotions and "selfish" desires. In fact, that's very nearly the sole impetus behind man's "progress."

This may seem like science fiction to many people, but many things that we take for granted today were once considered science fiction and the exponential increase in our technology every day, even given our political burdens, shows that we CAN achieve these things. The biggest hurdle will be in accepting that this is the best of any possible reality we could ever reasonably expect.

Sounds like erronious technological determinism to me. I see no reason to believe that any technology can or will ever create "better" people or government. Too many subjectives involved. The invention of the pen and paper didn't make us better philosophers or better people, neither do (or will) computers.

 

[Hoplite]

nah, the asshole could somehow think he was special.

Another incorrect assumption based on incorrect information.

No. SOME societies have started with that premise. Not all--or even most. And the concept of the separation of powers is not "designed purely to stall the ambitions of individuals," but to keep the government, as a whole, in check. Groups of people can abuse power just as easily as any individual--more so in some cases.

The system of checks and balances is designed to forestall individuals and groups that get too over-ambitious.

You are assuming that inequality is a "flaw" in the human condition that needs to be "solved."

Why is it not?

what if the supercomputer decides that the only way to correct the flaws in humanity is to eradicate them? *gasp*

Then I would say it would be justified for us not being intelligent or forward thinking enough to deal with that possibility.

But in all seriousness, I don't exactly know exactly what entails, or all the ramifications of, a "synthetic intelligence." Why would it automatically be better than normal human intelligence, and what makes you think it would be exempt from all the same problems/flaws of normal human intelligence. And also, what if it has its own unique flaws, unknown to us?

These are all valid questions that would need to be answered before this system were to be put into place. But even without the intelligence to guide our government, the neural net itself is a powerful tool to help heal the rifts in society.

Access to information is not the same as comprehension of information, or making "good" choices. In fact, due to the natural limitations of the mind, too much access to too much information might even have a detrimental effect on the overall education of the populace. Sensory overload sort of thing.

Which is why I dont recommend the system work by having individuals constantly connected.

It also allows the near-instant dissimination of falsehoods, hate, misinformation, and everything else.

As well as the information and understanding to combat these things. These things are based in incorrect assumptions and wrong ideas. Such misinformation can be cleared away by shining the light of knowledge on them.

So, again, what's to stop the computer from killing off "excess" people during a drought or shortage, for the benefit of others?

Again, this would be a system that accounts for the nuances of human thought. While it may be a purely logical decision to make, it would know and account for the fact that we would not accept it.

Not necessarily. In fact, such a populace, "connected" to each other would be no more or less susceptable to manipulation or coersion than anyone who logs onto the internet today. In some cases, the individual can parse through the info and make sound determinations about what is real and acceptable, and in other cases they grow a beard and fly to yemen.

Again, this kind of deliberate hijacking of the system is easily countered by the masses of information that run contrary to it. The system polices itself, driving fantasy out with facts.

Without some grasp of generalizations, it would have no grasp of law or justice at all.

Care to elaborate?

says who?

What else would wisdom be if not that?

To say that such a system would be an "improvement" is only an assumption. There is no reason to believe that such a system would be somehow perfect or even better than what we have now.

There is no other logical conclusion to reach. If our problems are based in the fact that we lack common understanding, then a system to fill in that understanding, it stands to reason, would solve that problem.

1) People don't, as a whole. want perfect equality.

Not in our current environment, but people do understand that abandoning equality is not acceptable

2) There is no reason to believe that a supercomputer hivemind would want equality either. In fact, in order to resolve logistical problems, it would probably just designate and persecute certain minority groups, just like in any other democracy.

We arent talking about a hive mind.

Where did you even get the idea that equality would necessarily arise from a "perfect" democracy?[/qote]
One follows the other, in a society where everyone truly has a voice then society has a chance to assume a form that is as equal as possible.

You are only assuming (again) that "emotions and selfish desires get in the way of the progress of the human race." In fact, nearly all of mankind's greatest inventions were created in the fufilment of emotions and "selfish" desires. In fact, that's very nearly the sole impetus behind man's "progress."

It has been up to this point but it is obvious that our penchant for fighting amongst ourselves is holding us back. I dont think any reasonable person could disagree with that. Our society today is run almost exclusively with a crab mentality, "if I cant have it, you cant either."

Sounds like erronious technological determinism to me. I see no reason to believe that any technology can or will ever create "better" people or government. Too many subjectives involved. The invention of the pen and paper didn't make us better philosophers or better people, neither do (or will) computers.

There is ample proof that technological has made us a better people. Technology increases understanding, both of ourselves and our world. As technology has advanced, so too has the human race. Yes we still have a long way to go but I dont think anyone can look at the Dark Ages and say we were better off then than we are now. Technology provides a foundation for the improvement of humanity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Another incorrect assumption based on incorrect information.

I disagree, I know people who think that they are special (by being smarter than everyone else, better looking, whatever) and they think that makes them better than others and that gives them license to think they can lord it over people.

 

[Ikari]

Wrong, people are assholes because of a lack of understanding. Why does someone yell at a clerk? Because he isnt getting his service fast enough. What that person may not known is that the employee is short-handed or materials were not delivered on time. The customer doesnt know this and makes an assumption, incorrectly.

People are assholes because they make incorrect assumptions based on faulty information.

This is incorrect and why your initial premise fails. Some people are assholes full well knowing that they are being an ass. While some instances of asshatery occur because of some miscommunication problem, not all cases of such are due to it. There are many cases where a person just chooses to be an ass, it happens. In the end, people are people and some are nice and some are mean. That's life, and that's reality. We're not all whitewashed into some "we all believe X if we have all the information" stuff. Because we're all individuals and as such all probabilities are valid from people being good only for the sake of being good to people being bad for nothing more than the sake of being bad and all combination in between. And with large enough population, you'll realize all combinations. Thus you're going to get some assholes who are being assholes solely because they want to be assholes. And for those folk, it has nothing to do with information.

This willful denial of human nature has lead to the ineffectiveness of several proposed systems of governance including communism and anarchy. Both are nice in theory, both do not account for human nature, and thus both cannot work in reality. Just like your proposed system.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Personally, I don't think transhumanism will be something that fixes the problems with humanity. However, I think it will probably be an inevitable result of technological progression, assuming we are able to figure out how to make computers communicate with the brain on a thought level in a r/w fashion. I also think it will be generally better for people as it should make the cost of achievement smaller for people, who should in turn have more opportunity to do things with their lives. However, I do think there are some dangers, especially in terms of propaganda.

 

[other]

The system of checks and balances is designed to forestall individuals and groups that get too over-ambitious.

agreed

Why is it not?

When you say that human inequality is a human "flaw" you are giving your opinion, not stating an indisputable fact.

Then I would say it would be justified for us not being intelligent or forward thinking enough to deal with that possibility.

this is why I disagree with your proposal, in a nutshell. Glad I'm foreward thinking enough to have pointed that out from the start... The only way to make everyone perfectly equal is to make everyone equally dead...not a good system of governance--although you are consistent in your transhuman theory here.

These are all valid questions that would need to be answered before this system were to be put into place. But even without the intelligence to guide our government, the neural net itself is a powerful tool to help heal the rifts in society.

yes, but it's also just as powerful a tool for creating the opposite effect as well.

Which is why I dont recommend the system work by having individuals constantly connected.

then how exactly would the system work at all? Some people would refuse to participate altogether, as in government today. Criminals will take advantage and corruption would still go unresolved.

As well as the information and understanding to combat these things. These things are based in incorrect assumptions and wrong ideas. Such misinformation can be cleared away by shining the light of knowledge on them.

that's not only pure speculation, but also comletely unsupported by historical fact. The use of the internet has not eliminated disinformation/hate/etc. It is a tool for dissiminating information and has no control whatsoever on what information is dissiminated or how it is acted upon.

Again, this would be a system that accounts for the nuances of human thought. While it may be a purely logical decision to make, it would know and account for the fact that we would not accept it.

Again, this kind of deliberate hijacking of the system is easily countered by the masses of information that run contrary to it. The system polices itself, driving fantasy out with facts.

all speculation. Would not the system be completely unable to make any decision at all? It would be receiving contrary information to nearly every single thing, be it fact, hypothesis, theory, or outright lie.

Care to elaborate?

The concepts of law and justice are general concepts that are applied case by case to specific scenarios. without an understanding of the general principles behind these concepts, they are completely arbitrary.

What else would wisdom be if not that?

I'm not wise enough to know.

There is no other logical conclusion to reach. If our problems are based in the fact that we lack common understanding, then a system to fill in that understanding, it stands to reason, would solve that problem.

All our problems are not based on a lack of common understanding, only some of them.

Not in our current environment, but people do understand that abandoning equality is not acceptable.

Not now, not ever. The total abandonment of the ideal of equality is unacceptable, yes, but so is the total acceptance of it. Not to mention that it is not even possible (it's an ideal, through and through).

We arent talking about a hive mind

pot-ai-toes, pot-ah-toes

Where did you even get the idea that equality would necessarily arise from a "perfect" democracy?[/qote]
One follows the other, in a society where everyone truly has a voice then society has a chance to assume a form that is as equal as possible.

Equality does not necessarily follow. Just because everyone has a voice does not mean that they all want/need the same things or that they will all be equally heard. The development of distinct majority/minority groups is endemic to the notion of every direct democracy.

It has been up to this point but it is obvious that our penchant for fighting amongst ourselves is holding us back. I dont think any reasonable person could disagree with that. Our society today is run almost exclusively with a crab mentality, "if I cant have it, you cant either."

In general, competition creates advances more readily than cooperation.

There is ample proof that technological has made us a better people. Technology increases understanding, both of ourselves and our world. As technology has advanced, so too has the human race. Yes we still have a long way to go but I dont think anyone can look at the Dark Ages and say we were better off then than we are now. Technology provides a foundation for the improvement of humanity.

We may be "better off" than folks in the dark ages; that doesn't make us better people. Really, it just makes us more complacent and, in many respects, more gullible. Oh, and also more obese.