Originally posted by inimalist
and the specific claim you make against the idea that culture is passed through horizontal and vertical imitation is?
None I just hate Richard Dawkins .... P.S. it was a joke.
Except, i do hate Richard Dawkins.
Originally posted by inimalist
if religious ideology is the standard you wish to compare ideologies on...
Of course it isn't ,except in the context of my example.
Originally posted by inimalist👆
so, I'm going to play devil's advocate on a subject that I know better than to even speculate on. Let me further premise this at, I'm not a transhumanist, nor overly interested in it. I find a lot of it to be based on very cursory explanations of biology and systems within the human body, though of course, my expertise is neuroscience, so I can't say much really about my skepticisms of stem cells or genetic engineering as saviors to all of humanity's problems, aside from "I am skeptical".Here is my contention. The main problem with, imho, with transhumanism is two-fold. 1) It supposes design, or rather, conventional reverse engineering, is possible from something that has evolved; 2) Certain issues, especially regarding the brain, appear to be dealt with at philosophical levels. As an addendum to 2), brain stuff is difficult to accurately or even conveniently discuss at anything other than a philosophical level, so it is hardly a personal criticism, though certainly a utilitarian one.
1) So, less like Christian design, more like Ford or GM design. We seem to think that by taking apart the human body and putting it back together with new parts, we can make it work better. I mean, why wouldn't bigger stronger legs make us better? Why wouldn't eye lasers be the bomb? Evolution!
Look, I'm not saying things are impossible. I'm the last person who will say what the future holds, but to think that we could open the human body like you would open the hood of a car and just "mess" with things, upgrade, make things more lean, energy efficient, is ridiculous. We are designed from much less complex things only to work properly in certain environments under certain conditions. I understand the idea behind the philosophy is to escape these human constraints, but that is where I think the "design" mindset is in error.
Remember the first time our robots toured the outer planets and their moons? Remember the multitude of unexpected discoveries? We found far more questions than answers.
I don't see this as being any different.
The general idea is: with advanced enough tech -- "magic" -- we will one day be able to do anything (the Orion's Arm website fleshes out this notion very well). It doesn't matter how complex biology and matter may be: we will study it and conquer it, because we are Intelligence imposing our will upon unconscious physical reality, a Big Machine.
Maybe. More likely, it is all a lot Bigger than we imagine.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Ok why is it ridiculous ? You haven't really justified your conclusion that 'redesigning' the body is ridiculous. You've mentioned that we aren't comparable to the hood of a cra, but we are really. WE are just a far complex, but we are still made out of the same building blocks. If reconstruction and redesign can be done on other physical objects, what logical impossibility is stopping us from doing it on organisms. Further, such reconstruction occurs all the time in hospitals and in the labs, where various less complex organisms have been reconstructed. The mouse with an ear on its back comes to mind. True our bodies are going to require far more advanced equipment, but there is nothing that is logically preventing the reconstruction from occurring.
ok
so lets be clear here
the technological level of a society that is capable of the type of engineering where both cells and cars are made of the "same material" is so far beyond our comprehension that it matters really little if they are transhuman, as nothing about the speculation is grounded in humanity.
in which case, I'm not going to argue against science fiction nor will I claim universal axioms that prevent anything. Re-read my post, I went out of my way to make this last point abundantly clear.
We can argue about the colour of unicorn wings all day too if you like
the mouse example is interesting, yet is in no way transhuman. re: They are growing HUMAN ears. could they grow non-human ears? sure, could they grow ears that are larger than ours are and can intake more sound? sure, although that would be entirely detrimental to our auditory system, as now more noise is getting in and it would be harder to filter the irrelevant noise.
A proper fleshing out of this argument, it was a little short, would be more like: Humans are not like cars because, in a car, you can point to a particular part that has a function, you can improve certain variables about its function, and replace the part. The human brain (and from what I know the body) grows in a symbiotic relationship between systems, genes, the environment, social influences, etc. Our brains actually contain more cells than necessary at birth, and many die off as the connections they form due to incoming stimuli and genetic hormonal reactions are not strong enough. There is no way to independently separate parts in the body as there is in a car, and this comes from bodies evolving, whereas cars are designed.
Again, you can just say "oh they will invent this or that" or "we will just build new bodies", but sure, ok, see my point about technology so futuristic it isn't worth speculating on and can hardly be considered human in the first place, let alone transhuman.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Correct me if this isn't your second argument.
sure
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
1.) Memory systems have a series of interconnected variables, that depend on each other.
too vague. "memory systems" are, like all other neural systems, totally interconnected with other systems. It also depends on which memory system. Again, I was summarizing from the article, which deals more with attentional focus in parietal areas, which allows access later into memory systems, rather than memory systems themselves.
however, I want to point out specifically that the statement you made above is too vague and really isn't asking anything...
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
2.) As the variables are dependent on each other they exist in a vulnerable state of 'equllibrium'. Therefore manipulating or redesigning one of the variables will be detrimental to the whole system.
I would not say they exist in equilibrium, there is no "balance" between basal ganglia activation and parietal activity. Either your basal ganglia lights up and filters or it doesn't.
neither did I say the second part of your point. There are certainly beneficial changes that could be made, however, they would be contextual. You could enhance colour perception at the risk of being less able to filter colour information when it is irrelevant. This type of thing is too context sensitive to be painted as wholly bad or good. My argument would be that, given the mutual development of the parts for optimal usage in the environment we are raised in, any tampering is going to throw off that optimization.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
3.) Therefore any redesigning of the variables will be counter productive ?
see, because I answered this before, I'm going to take this moment to critique your argument style EDIT. Firstly, if you had any wit, you would know, as I took the time to explain it, that this is not true. So, you are either witless or a manipulator. Excellent.
Further, each question has been sillily (yup, I'm making up words) full of ambiguous statements that you have been able to ask 3 leading questions, effectively making my argument something you have a pre-stocked argument for.
EDIT
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Its quite a good argument except there is inductive evidence that counters it.
if you have nothing to say about the rest of my post, at least in the reply lets have at it about induction. Why not give me your best argument for it 😉
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
1.) Your conclusion would mean that the memory process would never be able to improve. But as we have seen, through out nature, brain capacity's vary through out humanity and nature. This would suggest that your 'unalterable' system can be altered effectively, and has been by evolution.
blamo:
Originally posted by inimalist
each process could be optimized to work with each other based on particular stimuli contexts, but change the stimuli you are looking for and the system is no longer optimized.
yes, memory can be improved for certain contexts. I don't study memory specifically, but looking at something like Visual Short-Term Memory, you could create a bias for certain features coming from the visual system to be more likely to enter VSTM (increasing saliency of that feature, re: increasing activation of cells that carry information about that feature). However, that would, relatively, reduce the saliency of the other features.
which nicely leads into:
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
2.) Your second premise only refers to one of your variable examples being improved. What if they where all proportionally improved simultaneously ?3.) Your argument doesn't account for an entirely new system of memory being used.
two and three are essentially the same question, which is answered by the idea that neither a proportionate increase in all neurological systems nor non-neuron based memory systems are not really human technology to begin with, and we can argue about unicorns all day.
If you want we can talk about computer/brain interfaces, but.... sigh...
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
I might be wrong about what your original perspective is, so apologise.
I think you understood it..........
I'll co-sign much if in's skepticism. Not to say I don't think transhuman ideals are able to be pursued, but that the proper approach is incremental hope. Uptopian/dystopian ideas of the singularity point are, for these reasons in addition to those I already mentioned, more a dream than a possible reality.
But we already have stem cell benefits, and machines that can help blind people see basic figures and room layouts, and artificial limbs, and numerous other improvements that would take too long to list. If we take our head out of the clouds, we can see the tangible benefits of a transhuman approach while still working toward loftier goals.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Its hardly any more farcical than most religious ideologies ?
Granted, but most of those are impossible too, so you don't gain much through the comparison.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
IMO anything invented by Richard Dawkins needs to go the way of the Dinosaurs !
One can dislike Dawkins but respect some of his thoughts. Meme theory hasn't died out among the scientific and philosophical community, so regardless of its inventor we can say that it's a potentially worthwhile field of study. To me, memetics explains aspects of cultural evolution better than any previous theory, so while it might be incomplete and we may never find the actual physical representation of a meme, it can be a useful indicator for tracking the strength of certain cultural tendencies.
Originally posted by inimalist
okso lets be clear here
the technological level of a society that is capable of the type of engineering where both cells and cars are made of the "same material" is so far beyond our comprehension that it matters really little if they are transhuman, as nothing about the speculation is grounded in humanity.
in which case, I'm not going to argue against science fiction nor will I claim universal axioms that prevent anything. Re-read my post, I went out of my way to make this last point abundantly clear.
We can argue about the colour of unicorn wings all day too if you like
the mouse example is interesting, yet is in no way transhuman. re: They are growing [b]HUMAN
ears. could they grow non-human ears? sure, could they grow ears that are larger than ours are and can intake more sound? sure, although that would be entirely detrimental to our auditory system, as now more noise is getting in and it would be harder to filter the irrelevant noise.A proper fleshing out of this argument, it was a little short, would be more like: Humans are not like cars because, in a car, you can point to a particular part that has a function, you can improve certain variables about its function, and replace the part. The human brain (and from what I know the body) grows in a symbiotic relationship between systems, genes, the environment, social influences, etc. Our brains actually contain more cells than necessary at birth, and many die off as the connections they form due to incoming stimuli and genetic hormonal reactions are not strong enough. There is no way to independently separate parts in the body as there is in a car, and this comes from bodies evolving, whereas cars are designed.
Again, you can just say "oh they will invent this or that" or "we will just build new bodies", but sure, ok, see my point about technology so futuristic it isn't worth speculating on and can hardly be considered human in the first place, let alone transhuman.
sure
too vague. "memory systems" are, like all other neural systems, totally interconnected with other systems. It also depends on which memory system. Again, I was summarizing from the article, which deals more with attentional focus in parietal areas, which allows access later into memory systems, rather than memory systems themselves.
however, I want to point out specifically that the statement you made above is too vague and really isn't asking anything...
I would not say they exist in equilibrium, there is no "balance" between basal ganglia activation and parietal activity. Either your basal ganglia lights up and filters or it doesn't.
neither did I say the second part of your point. There are certainly beneficial changes that could be made, however, they would be contextual. You could enhance colour perception at the risk of being less able to filter colour information when it is irrelevant. This type of thing is too context sensitive to be painted as wholly bad or good. My argument would be that, given the mutual development of the parts for optimal usage in the environment we are raised in, any tampering is going to throw off that optimization.
see, because I answered this before, I'm going to take this moment to critique your argument style EDIT. Firstly, if you had any wit, you would know, as I took the time to explain it, that this is not true. So, you are either witless or a manipulator. Excellent.
Further, each question has been sillily (yup, I'm making up words) full of ambiguous statements that you have been able to ask 3 leading questions, effectively making my argument something you have a pre-stocked argument for.
EDIT
if you have nothing to say about the rest of my post, at least in the reply lets have at it about induction. Why not give me your best argument for it 😉
blamo:
yes, memory can be improved for certain contexts. I don't study memory specifically, but looking at something like Visual Short-Term Memory, you could create a bias for certain features coming from the visual system to be more likely to enter VSTM (increasing saliency of that feature, re: increasing activation of cells that carry information about that feature). However, that would, relatively, reduce the saliency of the other features.
which nicely leads into:
two and three are essentially the same question, which is answered by the idea that neither a proportionate increase in all neurological systems nor non-neuron based memory systems are not really human technology to begin with, and we can argue about unicorns all day.
If you want we can talk about computer/brain interfaces, but.... sigh...
I think you understood it.......... [/B]
Umm Premises are not the same as questions ....
Hasn't anyone done formal Logic before ?
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Umm Premises are not the same as questions ....Hasn't anyone done formal Logic before ?
yes I have
and this is a linguistic trick
the "questions" you asked, were, yes, by the definitions of both grammar and formal logic, questions. So, lets use that definition. The answer to the first was "this is not a well enough defined question" or "no" (depending) making the rest of your questions/statements/whatever you want them to be referred to as moot and irrelevant. So, following the laws of formal logic, your question/premise/whatever is wrong, the rest do not follow.
however, more to the point, you were not asking questions. Asking a question presumes that you are interested in the answer. You were leading. I don't know if that is a tool in formal logic, but in rhetoric, boy howdy (with the additional note that linguistic tricks, like the previously mentioned, fall right in the realm of these same rhetorical tools).
You had 3 statements prepared to answer a my response to a question I had not yet seen. That question was obtained upon your presumption of what I was going to say to your previous questions/statements/whatever. To try to hide behind terminology is somewhat childish.
Clearly, you were not interested in my answer, but in making your point, which is great, start a blog, all your e-friends can go post things on your wall because I hear facebook can link those things up yo.
Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, good topic though digi 🙂had to add something, can't have people expanding undefined cognitive capacities while I'm around
Not a problem.
😉
And thanks. I'm nothing close to an expert, but the transhuman movement intrigues me, and seems to offer a coherent vision that I can (roughly) agree with, with enough goals, technologies, and outlines to provide an empirical basis for transcending ourselves through science (even despite admitted drawbacks like those you mentioned).
Originally posted by inimalistI wonder if "holistic relationship" might be a more accurate description.
The human brain (and from what I know the body) grows in a symbiotic relationship between systems, genes, the environment, social influences, etc.
bigger than we CAN imagine 🙂(oh I feel dumb, thats a Sagan rip, correct?)
Ok. Now you can feel dumb. 😛
Originally posted by Mindship
I wonder if "holistic relationship" might be a more accurate description.
I'd steer away from it personally, just because "holistic" is used a lot to describe alternative medical and mental care, and I wouldn't want to confuse the two, but technically, yes, it could be applicable
however, I would stress the interactive not just interconnected qualities
Originally posted by Mindship
"The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine; it is queerer than we can imagine."
-- John B. S. HaldaneOk. Now you can feel dumb. 😛
jeez, ya 😮
The entire idea makes my head hurt because it is flawed fundamentally.
Inimalist covered this long ago with the adage comparing the brain to a car. Anything you change will directly conflict with some action that your body is already accustomed to. Simple classes in psychology explain to you things like having way more brain cells than are needed (which he already mentioned also), etc. Every function, each key I hit, each shit I take, are connected to the brain.
With this in mind, we are far away from technologies that are capable of the goals transhumanism aim for. It's like, at this very moment, discussing what living in the Butter Way Galaxy will be like: we don't even know for certain what the heck is out there (now I know astrologists can see pretty far but we are just now observing Mars' surface, for example).
Besides, I don't completely understand what the point is. Even if it could be done, it's not the same as medical medicine, in my opinion.
Originally posted by inimalistI hear ya. As soon as I hit Submit Reply, visions of such or "New Age" began dancing in my head. I should've put holoarchical or holonic, derived from Arthur Koestler's term "holon" (any entity or process which is both part and whole). And although even that doesn't explicitly address your concern here...
I'd steer away from it personally, just because "holistic" is used a lot to describe alternative medical and mental care, and I wouldn't want to confuse the two
I would stress the interactive not just interconnected qualities...reality as an interactive system of "systems within systems within systems," is usually implied.
Guys, everyone's focusing on the "end" theories of transhumanism and talking about how preposterous they are. Happily conceded. It's only the fringe "visionaries" (i.e. quacks) that posit massive revolutions in the foreseeable future. But in the meantime, we've already made progress in these areas (genetics, robotics, information tech, and nanotechnology, to name the big ones). That's the promise, and the achievable goal: Improvement of the human way of life through technology.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Guys, everyone's focusing on the "end" theories of transhumanism and talking about how preposterous they are. Happily conceded. It's only the fringe "visionaries" (i.e. quacks) that posit massive revolutions in the foreseeable future.
Well this is where I came in on the conversation so my point stands 😆 .
The Vacanti mouse wasn't engineered to have a human ear growing from it's back, chondrocytes were grown on a biodegradable pinna-shaped mold, which was subsequently implanted subcutaneously into an athymic mouse...
The brain isn't even slightly near comparable in complexity.
Also psychology is hooey... occasionally interesting hooey... but still hooey. peaches
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Vacanti mouse wasn't engineered to have a human ear growing from it's back, chondrocytes were grown on a biodegradable pinna-shaped mold, which was subsequently implanted subcutaneously into an athymic mouse...The brain isn't even slightly near comparable in complexity.
That's still an amazing feat. People only brought up the brain to knock it down as the straw man that it is.
Originally posted by Mindship
I hear ya. As soon as I hit Submit Reply, visions of such or "New Age" began dancing in my head. I should've put holoarchical or holonic, derived from Arthur Koestler's term "holon" (any entity or process which is both part and whole). And although even that doesn't explicitly address your concern here......reality as an interactive system of "systems within systems within systems," is usually implied.
totally. Words are tough, sometimes there are too many too ambigious terms to describe the same thing. I don't necessarily think holistic or holonic accurately describe exactly what I'm going for, but I can't think of anything better and I may just not understand the terms.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Guys, everyone's focusing on the "end" theories of transhumanism and talking about how preposterous they are. Happily conceded. It's only the fringe "visionaries" (i.e. quacks) that posit massive revolutions in the foreseeable future. But in the meantime, we've already made progress in these areas (genetics, robotics, information tech, and nanotechnology, to name the big ones). That's the promise, and the achievable goal: Improvement of the human way of life through technology.
Very true. However, I don't necessarily see a difference between transhumanism and basic technological progress. Granted, transhumanism seems more targeted, but imho, there is very little, if any, difference between genetic screening and the invention of the germ theory of disease. We have many "transhuman" items, like cars and boats and planes and whatever. People talk about super strength exo-suits. Imho, that is exactly what cranes and lifters and dumptrucks are. I think much of what transhumanism is essentially is miniturization.
Not that this is a criticism, just sort of my perspective
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The brain isn't even slightly near comparable in complexity.
amen brother
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also psychology is hooey... occasionally interesting hooey... but still hooey. peaches
your face is hooey, not ever interesting hooey.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's still an amazing feat. People only brought up the brain to knock it down as the straw man that it is.
to be fair, I was responding specifically to the charge of expanding mental capcity, brought up several times in the thread.