Why Transhumanism?

[Hoplite]

Ya, well, this is still about 90% speculation at this point either way. I mean, 'the matrix' concept was by hooking your brain into a computer, and that illustrates a key point, that when you're dealing with electrical signals, reality is simply what your brain perceives. Though, I could see the initial phases of this being rolled out as video games.

The point is basically that ALL activity in the brain is chemically and electrically based. If we can decipher the "code" of the information in our brains and develop a device to read and transmit that code, then we can create a vast network of interconnected people.

This is true... it also goes into the downside of such augmentations being the need to go through regular maintenance.

Smart materials and nanotechnology are beginning to take stride in that even today. Self-healing protection for plastic electronics

Once we achieve true nanomachines, our possibilities become truly limitless.

I can't imagine that the brain encrypts information... but I do agree that what I'm talking about is definitely complex of a process... Though, I don't doubt that with sufficient technology that it would not be impossible.

I said encrypt as more of a turn of phrase, encode is a better term. Like information contained in a video file, you need the right codec to interpret that information into a format that can be viewed by someone using the file.

That's precisely the issue, it will become a situation of 'haves' and 'have-nots'... this situation, throughout human history has led to one group wiping out the other. That's the base of my 'fears' of this going on.

This is always a risk and will always be a risk. There is nothing at present that can be done about this until we reach a more evolved place in our treatment of each other, something I think can happen with a world-wide neural network.

Yes, if one group can be held back from just thinking themselves the 'master race' and that the rest are 'undeserving' of such technology... which would lead to an inevitable conflict.

It is the essence of Capitalism to sell anything and everything, even the instruments of your own destruction. Businesses and their investors do not hoard technology that could be used to make enormous profits and they wouldn't withhold information on such a monumental breakthrough if it meant billions in sales. The deep irony of Capitalism being that a Capitalist will sell you the rope for his own hanging if he thinks he can make money.

The relevance would be that, well... take the technology discussed from the video game, and add in the 'neural net' connecting the minds of individuals, and very well, could end up with a 'borg' like society where a 'master AI' controls humanity into perpetuity.

Again, I have already addressed this notion and I will not repeat myself

Now, as much as I agree, I also know human nature well enough to know that when there's two classes, once the rift between the two becomes too great then there's a conflict. In a situation of 'transhumans' that have been improved, could very well represent an overwhelming advantage to the rest of humans, and we'd end up with a situation as earth shattering as when Neanderthals were wiped out by Homo Erectus (though, I'm just assuming any ACTUAL conflict)

It is a possibility, but then you take that risk with any new development. Should we stop technological process altogether to prevent this from possibly happening?

I disagree somewhat, while I agree that IBM, and other tech companies, not all having such bloody hands, are greedy and will profiteer if presented with the opportunity to do so... however, those in charge of IBM believed in Hitlers ideas of the 'master race' and a 'slave race'. Now, I couldn't say with certainty that IBM is STILL a 'eugenics' organization, though it is part of the companies history.

There was a time when eugenics didnt have the stigma it does today and when even the moderately educated supported the idea, usually not as...directly as the Nazis did, but they saw merit in the idea none the less.

I see no indication that IBM's business with the Nazis was anything beyond pure profit motive. And yes people at IBM probably knew of and many probably thought eugenics was a good idea, but I see no evidence that their business ventures were in an effort to support that on ideological grounds.

So, while I'm willing to agree with you that they are two seperate concepts, they are somewhat interconnected concepts.

I see no way to honestly connect the two other than some eugenics proponents espouse technological means to achieve their goals. Transhumanism does not embrace eugenics or eugenic thought. Eugenics is focused on the emphasis of the strong and the de-emphasis of the weak with great or lesser degrees of directness depending on who is talking. Transhumanism is the idea that technology will elevate ALL of mankind, not just the socially valuable.

It's a double edged sword, in that the technology can be used to enlighten mankind, while the same technology in the wrong hands can be used to enslave mankind.

While this is true, I dont see this as a reason to oppose such advances. We understand now the consequences of irresponsible use of technology and we have the capacity to avoid it.

Yes, I think it would be more about the quality of the signal then in the content... but then again, I can only imagine the kinds of difficulties involved in even getting as far as a neural network of more then one mind. I imagine that the task becomes exponentially more complex when linking several minds simultaneously.

A potential challenge is "noise" from a large amount of transmissions in or through an area though I would assume that with practice a person could sort through the noise to find what they needed, much as sailors on a ship learn to ignore the constant sound of the engines.

Chicken!

Turkey! What are we doing?

Hoplite, are you ignoring me?

Yes, yes I am.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The point is basically that ALL activity in the brain is chemically and electrically based. If we can decipher the "code" of the information in our brains and develop a device to read and transmit that code, then we can create a vast network of interconnected people.

Yes, and as far as I know they are still working on the first part... deciphering the 'code'.

I said encrypt as more of a turn of phrase, encode is a better term. Like information contained in a video file, you need the right codec to interpret that information into a format that can be viewed by someone using the file.

Wouldn't that be something to find out that every individual operates on a different 'codec' and so all the communications must pass through a central hub to be converted into a 'standard' signal... Not sure if that's the right way to say it, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

This is always a risk and will always be a risk. There is nothing at present that can be done about this until we reach a more evolved place in our treatment of each other, something I think can happen with a world-wide neural network.

I'll agree with this, more to prevent spinning this issue into a whole other debate.

It is the essence of Capitalism to sell anything and everything, even the instruments of your own destruction. Businesses and their investors do not hoard technology that could be used to make enormous profits and they wouldn't withhold information on such a monumental breakthrough if it meant billions in sales. The deep irony of Capitalism being that a Capitalist will sell you the rope for his own hanging if he thinks he can make money.

On the surface I agree with this, but there are exceptions to this, because it's not SIMPLY about profits... especially when you're dealing with fortune 100 companies... the companies that have so much money that their face purpose of business can be essentially turned into a front. There are many institutions in this upper echelon who are interested in profits and money only for the purpose that the money buys power, clout and influence politically and over society in general.

An example of this could be, let's say you have a fully automated fighter plane, no pilot required, it may be a benefit for a time to keep using pilot driven aircraft until the enemy develops a superior fighter before releasing these robotic planes, so that there's less of an opportunity for the technology to be reverse-engineered and used against you.

It is a possibility, but then you take that risk with any new development. Should we stop technological process altogether to prevent this from possibly happening?

No, it's not the same risk with any new development... but when we're talking about advances that could fundamentally and irrevocably alter humanity and what it means to be human, it would be irresponsible to not raise the issues.

There was a time when eugenics didnt have the stigma it does today and when even the moderately educated supported the idea, usually not as...directly as the Nazis did, but they saw merit in the idea none the less.

I see no indication that IBM's business with the Nazis was anything beyond pure profit motive. And yes people at IBM probably knew of and many probably thought eugenics was a good idea, but I see no evidence that their business ventures were in an effort to support that on ideological grounds.

Are you aware of the book 'IBM and the holocaust'??

Really, the most I can disagree with this is to say that I DOUBT that it was simply a profit-driven decision. Though, at the time, there were a number of americans that expressed the sentiment that eugenics was an american idea and that Hitlers armies were beating the americans at their own game.

I would pose the hypothetical though : What do you think Hitler could have 'accomplished' (using that word loosely) if he had access to the full implement of 21 century technology??

I see no way to honestly connect the two other than some eugenics proponents espouse technological means to achieve their goals. Transhumanism does not embrace eugenics or eugenic thought. Eugenics is focused on the emphasis of the strong and the de-emphasis of the weak with great or lesser degrees of directness depending on who is talking. Transhumanism is the idea that technology will elevate ALL of mankind, not just the socially valuable.

This is a fair point... I suppose my main concern is that these well meaning transhumanist scientists are being funded by eugenicists, and so the good intentions of those developping these technologies will be subverted for the aims of individuals interested in 'racial cleansing' (or whatever 'loving' term used to describe the 'eradication of human weeds').

A potential challenge is "noise" from a large amount of transmissions in or through an area though I would assume that with practice a person could sort through the noise to find what they needed, much as sailors on a ship learn to ignore the constant sound of the engines.

Would also have to wonder if there would be the capacity to create 'private' networks within this greater neural network... so, like an example with a military team being able to coordinate privately through their neural network without the potential of alerting the targets of such an attack.