2 ms·
I am really receptive of transhumanist goals. I think it’d be cool as shit to upload my consciousness into the internet and download it into a robot. I’m not wo
by dcow 2y ago
I am really receptive of transhumanist goals. I think it’d be cool as shit to upload my consciousness into the internet and download it into a robot. I’m not worried about an AI super event killing us all. Mechanical wombs seem like they’d solve a lot of the tension around biologically assigned sex. Etc.
But you have to admit, and you did as much in your comment, it’s a pretty huge assumption right now that anything we do would innately carry our souls forward. I’m not willing to just assume. I want certainty and proof. I am sure there are some more extreme humanists out there who are more conservative than me, but all I’m asking is that as we apply technology we remain reverent of our souls. This seems like such a simple almost pedantic thing to be hung up on, but indeed it is exactly what distinguishes a humanist and transhumanist. The burden of proof is on you (royally, rhetorically) to prove that we’ll still have souls after uploading our consciousness to a machine.
And, logically, if you prove human continuity then it’s not trans anymore. Transhumanists don’t have a fundamental reverence for humanity, definitionally. They advocate for the application of technology without the assurance that our humanity will remain in tact. They hold an axiomatic belief that we humans are capable of transferring our species into a digital media. A belief that transferring a consciousness to a robot also retains the soul. And that replication of transhuman entities creates new souls. Etc.
I support research and exploration of these topics. But I’m not going to stake humanity on some belief that this is the future or even that it’s assumed to be possible.
PS most all cultures with the notion of god reserve god the right to bestow the essence of life into the biological human. Your final statement does not align with my understanding of any Christian religion out there in the assertion that since god gave us the tools to create humans biologically it’s appropriate for humans to create life spiritually. I don’t necessarily hold that to be ultimately true, but I do hold a reverence for life until we actually understand it. We currently have no idea what constitutes human life, whether our soul is the manifestation of our synapses quantum entangled to a substrate we have yet to identify, or entirely emergent from more simple mechanical biology. We need to answer that first before we can suppose to upload our species into some digital medium.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIm actually one of the humanists that are more conservative on the topic than you. I just don't think the article treated the reader and subject with honesty and respect. I don't think transhumanists believe in a supernatural spirit or soul, but that the human spirit, or at least the good part, isn't tied to biology. For myself, I'm skeptical of the entire utilitarian hedonist project, which transhumanism rests on. I think there are human values that are higher than pleasure and happiness. Values like love, honor, duty, compassion, and sacrifice. I think the biological human condition could be favorable for these in a way that some virtual bliss-state is not. I don't need cherry picked scare quotes to disagree with aspects of transhumanism. I would rather debate the strongest case for transhumanism, not a weak strawman.
- dcow 2y agoI think the term posthuman captures things concisely. Most transhumanists seek a posthuman future. Maybe the author's word soup wasn't fully charitable, but I understood the sentiment. I do think given that the author is exploring whether transhumanist movement constitutes a cult, it's maybe fair to pull on some of the more cult-like endgame that does exist in sub-genres. Agree/disagree. Anyway I do agree that the human condition gives rise to favorable qualities in individuals and the larger population. I don't support utilitarian hedonism either. I will say my experience discussing transhumanism has usually been in terms of becoming posthuman and the notion of a virtual bliss-state, if mentioned, is more if an intriguing a side-quest, but we might just have different exposures there. I mean I still think there are problems with becoming post human even if you remove the utilitarian hedonism from the mix, I guess. In the author's defense this is a difficult topic to articulate.