Take a closer look at what sort of things transhumanists identify as falling within the extension of “biological limitations.” In my perusal of the literature, I have often come across transhumanists complaining about such things as: the slow speed of [...]]]> Phillipe Verdoux has an illuminating post up on IEET about how we define “limitations:”

Take a closer look at what sort of things transhumanists identify as falling within the extension of “biological limitations.” In my perusal of the literature, I have often come across transhumanists complaining about such things as: the slow speed of cerebration, the mind’s limited data-storage capacities, the unreliability of love and other interpersonal relations, our inability to “to visualize an [sic] 200-dimensional hypersphere or to read, with perfect recollection and understanding, every book in the Library of Congress,” and so on. While I am not (at least not necessarily) arguing against the claim that such features are limitations, I am urging special caution in labeling them as “limitations.” Why? Because, as far as I can tell, many of the values hiding behind the transhumanist’s list of limitations derive from (the domain of) technology itself—or at least it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of the origin of such values.

There is nothing more exciting than people saying “this philosophy is interesting, here are all the problems I see, let’s get to fixing them!”

Those who study Existentialism or [...]]]> Kris Notaro has an interesting post up at IEET, “Transhumansim and Phenomenological Reduction,” that is something of a meditation on a Singularity scale intelligence observing itself observing itself. For those not elbows-deep in phenomenology (Notaro cites Husserl, I prefer his successor, Merleau-Ponty), the definition of epoché is quite useful:

Those who study Existentialism or Phenomenology should be familiar with the idea of epoche which is the action of doing phenomenological reduction by “bracketing” out everything you know about the world to reach pure consciousness and then understand the nature of being conscious of the things around you. Wikipedia explains it clearly as “the act of suspending judgment about the natural world that precedes phenomenological analysis.The concept can be most easily understood as “unpacking” phenomena, or, in other words, systematically peeling away their symbolic meanings like layers of an onion until only the thing-in-itself remains. Thus, one’s subjective perception of the bracketed phenomenon is the truest form of experience one can have in perceiving it.” The action of phenomenological reduction also allows your brain/mind to experience experiencing, to be aware of awareness, to be conscious of being conscious.

Good stuff. I might enjoy phenomenology more than I should because every time I hear the word “phenomenon” I think of the Muppets’ song, “Mana Mana.” For your enjoyment:

In fact, Enlightenment philosophers were intensely conflicted about the virtues of powerful monarchies and technocratic elites versus popular democracy. [...]]]> J. Hughes has another one of his excellent posts up from his “Problems of Transhumanism” series. As usual he does a great job giving the discussion context and summarizing the variety of the Enlightenment mind:

In fact, Enlightenment philosophers were intensely conflicted about the virtues of powerful monarchies and technocratic elites versus popular democracy. Some believed an absolute state was the best form of governance. Thomas Hobbes argued that political absolutism was necessary to prevent the war of “all against all.” Voltaire said that he “would rather obey one lion, than 200 rats of [his own] species.”

Other Enlightenment thinkers argued against absolutism and the divine right of kings, but held out for the desirability of “enlightened despots” who had political legitimacy because they were pursuing their people’s interests. Free peoples, as individuals and democracies, often do not choose the ends that are in their best interests. As Spinoza said, “the masses can no more be freed from their superstition than from their fears…they are not guided by reason” (Spinoza, 1670: 56). The benevolent rationale for authoritarianism has always been that rulers and their advisors understand the needs of the people better than the people do themselves.

Hughes goes on from a great historical summary to a survey of the various strains of political belief within the futurist, transhumanist, and technoprogressive communities. The comments are as enlightening and entertaining as the article itself. Read it.

["Problems of Transhumanism: Liberal Democracy vs Technocratic Absolutism" - IEET]

Self-identified transhumanists today are mostly secular and atheist. In a [...]]]> James Hughes has another great post up from his “Problems with Transhumanism” series. This time he’s tackling atheism and natural theology. The results from their survey of transhumanist beliefs didn’t exactly surprise me, but it was startling to see the results all the same:

Self-identified transhumanists today are mostly secular and atheist. In a survey conducted in 2007 of members of the World Transhumanist Association (Humanity+, 2008), 93% answered ‘yes’ to the statement “Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?” Ninety percent denied “clear divinely-set limits on what humans should do,” and ninety percent affirmed that their “concept of ‘the meaning of life’ derived from human responsibility and opportunity, not than from divine revelation.”

Hughes does a survey of the various strange cosmologies transhumanists have proposed as alternatives to theistic views of the universe. Personally, I think William James had it right when it comes to ideas like these. On the question that matters, “are your actions or beliefs restricted by religious dogma or convictions?” all the cosmologies outlined by Hughes answer, “no.” So what’s the point? Is there a difference that alters the way ethical systems are constructed? Why split hairs?

My position here is that transhumanism—the belief that technology can transcend the limitations of the human body and brain—and techno-utopianism—the idea that humans [...]]]> Dr. Hughes has a great summary of his upcoming series on the Enlightenment and transhumanism up on IEET. I am really excited to see where he goes with it. A taste:

My position here is that transhumanism—the belief that technology can transcend the limitations of the human body and brain—and techno-utopianism—the idea that humans can create a progressively better future through the rational mastery of nature—are part of the family of Enlightenment philosophies. Transhumanism and techno-utopianism can be traced back to the original Enlightenment thinkers 300 years ago, and transhumanists need to understand how the ideological conflicts within transhumanism today are the product of these 300 year-old conflicts within the Enlightenment.

This exercise is also an attempt to make clear which criticisms of transhumanism are internal contradictions, and which start from external, non-Enlightenment predicates. In other words, saying that transhumanism is bad because it threatens the human soul is a criticism from a non-Enlightenment position. Arguing that transhumanists are being anthropocentric or “human-racist” when they preference particular kinds of intelligence and feeling as the basis for moral standing is an intra-Enlightenment argument.

I cannot reiterate enough how indebted the transhumanist movement is to Hughes and Bostrom for giving it a coherent foundation. It isn’t always the most fun stuff to write, but it’s some of the most important.

I think his guesses are pretty spot on, both in terms of where we’ll be technologically (I hope) and people’s opinions. If this is what the world looks like when I’m 40, I’m pretty psyched. Now where’s my jetpack?

Objects in the rear-view mirror—those artifacts of human history that may seem archaic to some in the Transhumanist community—are likely to be sources of substantial public resistance. The artifacts in question include religion, patriotism, [...]]]> Richard Eskow has a great post up on IEET about the Singularity Summit and the hurdles still faced by the transhumanists.

Objects in the rear-view mirror—those artifacts of human history that may seem archaic to some in the Transhumanist community—are likely to be sources of substantial public resistance. The artifacts in question include religion, patriotism, attachment to old family structures, and the other quotidian pleasures of many people’s lives. Confronting those artifacts with derision will not be an effective strategy for selling the enhancement vision. Even relatively simple “enhancements” like birth control and other reproductive technologies have been met with a firestorm of religiously-based resistance. In fact, this country has actually moved backwards from the widespread acceptance these techniques enjoyed had in the 1970s.

That fact was brought home for me when I was researching Spider-Man as an example of what I call “zero-sum” enhancement characters from religion, legend, and popular culture. (“Zero-sum” figures are those who receive special talents or gifts, but pay an equivalent price in other parts of their lives to preserve the balance of nature. Think Icarus, Iron Man, or Dorian Gray.) I learned that Marvel Comics released a pamphlet for Planned Parenthood in the 70s in which Spider-Man explains why teenagers should not get pregnant and explaining the services available to them. If Marvel did that today they’d face a nationwide boycott—so much so that there’s little chance they would even try.

I agree. The threat of old social norms and institutions is precisely why I focus on critical theory and gender studies as much as I do. The battles already being fought by feminists, liberaltarians, and progressives are indicative of the enormous power of entrenched culture. I agree it’s going to take a lot of work, but the recent sobriety and mainstreaming of the transhumanist/ human-enhancement philosophies is an extremely good sign. More and more discussions are shifting from “what might be” and “what if” to questions of rights, autonomy, personhood, justice, and self. I, for one, am excited.

["Objects in Mirror are Closer than They Appear" at IEET]