Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 1

Unabomber
The Unabomber's manifesto was pretty clear - he didn't advance any doctrine, just opposed one. And most people consider Good Old Ted a "terrorist" not an ordinary "murderer".

It's most neutral to just say he was "convicted of" what he was convicted of, and to call him The Unabomber. The paragraph as it stands now is quite neutral and elegant I think. Thanks.

Joy, de Garis, gnosticism, soul, spiritualist
The arguments of Joy and De Garis are interesting - the analysis parallels but the solution does not. De Garis seems to think a billion dead humans in a struggle to achieve transhuman status for some post-humans is "worth it"... a good demonstration of the completely insane amoral stances of the idiots who preach this crap.


 * Personally, I think the first thing AI will do is train Unabombers to kill AI researchers... that the entire program is suicidal by definition, body-hating, and a great way to say "humans suck, extinct us please". No need for Unabombers to volunteer, they'll be zombied into the job by AI-generated-advertising-believing television junkies and video gamers.    - 24


 * I'm not at all familiar with transhumanism, but the above description has some interesting parallels with some forms of early gnosticism, which also believed that our human bodies were evil, but our souls were good, or would be if they could ever get rid of their pesky bodies. The search for a way to transfer a human mind or consciousness into a machine or computer seems very similar on the surface, just without the 'mysticism' of a spiritual afterlife for the soul. Wesley 21:58 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * A transhumanist, though, would see nothing inherently "pure" about the present state of the "soul" either; after uploading oneself into a computer-mind, the first thing a transhuman would do is continue upgrading--more memory, faster processing, more senses, more connections with other uploads. And perhaps even mechanical "body" parts to help exercise one's will in the rest of the universe. Indeed, it is an explicit goal of many to transform as much of the universe's matter as possible into computronium on which to run ourselves.  --LDC


 * Oh, I don't know about that. I consider myself transhumanist. I'm also a spiritualist. I don't think any arrangement of data, or any special algorithm, will mystically result in awareness. And yes, I do "experience" "awareness". The transhumanism comes in at the part where I think we're going to make new bodies and brains for ourselves, regardless of whether mechanical or organic. At any rate: I'm getting ready to slap on a big "Not NPOV" on the page... There's nothing in Transhumanism that says you can't be a spiritualist. If the transhumanists reject the possibility, then there will be schizm. We'll have to have something called "Spiritualist Transhumanism," or something like that. -- Lion Kimbro

Hugo de Garis is not a transhumanist. The fact that he advocates the deliberate creation of AI that will wipe out the human race should be a dead giveaway (note the word "human" in "transhumanist"). As far as non-moral opinions go, de Garis's views are similar to that of many transhumanists, yes, but he shares none of the moral philosophy.

Many of the statements regarding de Garis's opinions previously appearing in the criticisms section here are simply wrong. Everything that I have read of his regarding his "gigadeath war" indicates that it is a battle between those supporting the creation of superintelligent "artilects" (artificial intellects; he loves neologisms) and those opposed to such creation. His comments should not be generalized to the transhumanist movement as a whole. Googling his personal website, I find virtually no mention of transhumanism.

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove de Garis from this section, as he is neither a transhumanist nor a vocal critic of the transhumanist movement. His opinions regarding the future of AI are somewhat relevant to transhumanism (although more so to the Singularity) and can be included elsewhere in the article perhaps. If anyone can provide quotations where he actually claims to be a transhumanist, or specifically criticises tranhumanism, then by all means insert them in the article, but I don't think such things exist. -- Schaefer 08:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted material
'''[It] is typical of transhumanists that they define victory as inevitable, much as Marxists did. This, as the anti-futurist Max Dublin noted, seems to provide a certain fanaticism and nihilism useful in advancing such causes.''' -- Cut for NPOV violation

Cyborg
Cyborg links to here in a ""see "" Is  Cybrog an intermediary stage of  evolution that should be mentioned in this article. Two16 09:56 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * The term 'Cyborg' has a lot of negative baggage associated with it and due to the fact that no such technology currently exists, it might be discussed as either future technology or one which will exist in the near future.

Critics section needs expansion
Can anyone expand the section on the critics of "transhumanism"? This article does seem a bit lopsided. Even the section on critics seems a bit skewed, almost implying that the main people who oppose "transhumanism" are Luddites, granola/hippie types, or irrational extremists that would use violence to "save" their humanity. I'm sure there's alot of moderate, intelligent people who have problems with the directions technology is taking.


 * Critics of transhumanism see a very Borg-like outcome of evil and oppression. They belive the vast majority of humanity will be worse-off due to the selfish nature of those who have the means to immortality, and the high cost (at least initially) of saving your life.207.112.31.5 04:10, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * See also: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html


 * I think it's fair to mention that some people would take a critical stance with respect to transhumanism not on a "Borg-like outcome" but by taking the stance that both the "utopian" and "distopian" perspectives posit a future that may not be implementable. A skeptical standpoint to transhumanism would suggest that current research into the physical limits of computation will radically slow progress towards these imagined futures in the next several decades.  A perspective from a lit-crit point of view might take transhumanism as general template of mythology through technological speculation, leading to a perspective on transhumanism as more of a literary, speculatively philosophical, and artistic movement rather than as a genuine body of implementers of the future. - Caoch93 23:30, August 08 2004 (EST)

Cosmotheism
That F-head "David Gerard" is editing and deleting relevant links again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history

He obviously does not know anything about subjects and topics that he reverts, whatsoever!

euvolution.com

For example, do a search on Google on "Prometheism" and you will see that links are made to cosmotheism and to many other "Transhumanist" websites!

Best regards,

Paul Vogel


 * Paul, just because you're interested in a topic doesn't mean it must be linkable to cosmotheism. - David Gerard 21:38, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

David, just because you don't like an idea or concept, ie. Cosmotheism or Prometheism, doesn't mean that it isn't actually relevant to the topic at hand, in this case "Trans-Humanism".


 * Seriously. If it is really relevant, add a link to "See also" with a description of why the two are related.  Don't just add seemingly irrelevant links with no explanation. - Omegatron 21:55, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, it is quite self-evident why they are related, if either one of you had actually ever bothered to actually understand the links above and the actual topics that are actually involved with "Trans-Humanism", in the first place! LOL! :D

See also:

euvolution.com

'''(cur) (last). . 22:23, 26 Mar 2004. . David Gerard (rv cosmotheist spam (come to the talk page rather than just spamming))'''

Maybe this lying hypocrite, David Gerard, doesn't really know what "spam" and "spamming" is, verses any relevant links related to "Trans-Humanism" and should take his own advice about reading and taking things first to the "Talk-page" before "reverting and editing" what clearly and what obviously is NOT SPAM or SPAMMING!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history

Best regards,

Paul Vogel


 * euvolution.com is Vogel's own site. He's just spamming here. - David Gerard 16:30, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

It is not my site, whatsoever.

I am linking to euvolution.com because it is a Trans-Humanist website.

This is an article on "Trans-Humanism" is it not?


 * can you prove it? (not that it would surprise me...) - Omegatron

David Gerard can't prove it, because it isn't "my site", whatsoever.


 * euvolution.com includes a cosmotheism.net link on the front page.

So what?

Cosmotheism.com is actually related to euvolution.com only because Cosmotheists also do believe in Eugenics, and in "Trans-Humanism", thereby.


 * Do a whois on each domain. On euvolution.com:
 * Mark Harris: info@1st-amendment.net
 * Consulting
 * PO Box 20214
 * Charleston, WV 25362
 * US


 * On cosmotheism.net, which "Paul Vogel" signs his articles with:
 * William Muller webmaster@cosmotheism.net
 * Consulting
 * PO Box 20214
 * Charleston, WV 25362
 * US


 * Both served by NS.1ST-AMENDMENT.NET. 1st-amendment.net's whois also lists Mark Harris.

So what?

That is actually just the mailing address of the "web-hosting service", only, you idiot!

I promote the site in my signature, only because I am a true Cosmotheist, or Classical Pantheist, myself.


 * euvolution.com and cosmotheism.net are, if not the same thing, pretty damn closely linked. - David Gerard 17:57, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Duh!

These two sites both use the same ISP "hosting service", 1st Amendment.net and they both are "Trans-Humanist" websites, which is why I had actually linked to them both within the "Trans-Humanist" article here.

No real mystery there!

I don't know if it is Vogel's own site, but it has neo-Nazi links, and really has nothing to do with Huxley's concept. Slrubenstein

Which Huxley? Not this one!

http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review19.shtml.htm

Neither one of you has any clue, and you are reverting relevant links within the article out of POV political bias, only!

I don't have any websites, but, I do link to any websites that are quite relevant to any articles of interest to me, here and to my own Cosmotheist/Classical Pantheist beliefs/philosophy.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel


 * "Which Huxley? Not this one!


 * http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review19.shtml.htm"


 * Correct. Not that one.  Transhumanism was coined by Julian Huxley, not his brother, Aldous.

Perhaps so, but, I am quite sure that both brothers agreed when it came to eugenics and to darwinian evolution and to conscious evolution, all of which are related to "Trans-Humanism". :D

Stop adding links with no explanation. They will keep getting reverted until you can come up with a convincing explanation (so far you can't) or a compromise (links at the bottom of the article to "similar concepts", with a GOOD explanation.

Those links require "no GOOD explaination", as it is really quite obvious that they are quite "similar concepts".

if the connection is so obvious, why can't anyone see it?

You few seem to be the only "bone-heads" just "too thick" to see what what is actually quite obvious about the connection.

you'll have to explain it to us stupid people.) Who's going to see them, anyway?  It's not worth your time. - Omegatron

I don't have to "explain the connection" to you "stupid people", whatsoever. Those that can read and understand what "Trans-Humanism" is and means will clearly understand it and will appreciate the links, whether you can and will or not.

The truth is always "worth my time", as is my always maintaining and upholding only the Wiki NPOV.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

'''(cur) (last). . m 13:48, 30 Mar 2004. . Omegatron (if you're going to vandalize the page at least stop screwing up the formatting)'''

Adding relevant links is NOT VANDALISM, NOR SPAM, and the formatting itself maybe wouldn't get so screwed up without all of your own biased POV reverts, David Gerard, in the first place! What F-heads!

Transhumanist spirituality and cosmotheism dispute
Until a survey on the religious beliefs of transhumanists is held, the mention of religions besides Buddhism in the article will reflect nothing more than personal preferences and therefore should not be included. Loremaster 21:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Buddhism originally stems from Hinduism which also stems from the earlier Vedas, which is just ancient Aryan cosmotheism. 66.2.156.69


 * This is a gross and biased oversimplication but even if it was accurate the issue is the number of transhumanists who knowingly and openly consider themselves "cosmotheists." If the number is insignificant, it is not worth mentioning in this article. Since the majority of transhumanists are atheists, agnostics and/or secular humanists, the pratice of religion by some transhumanists is not of great importance. To avoid a dispute, I am editing out the specific names of religions in this article until a survey on the religious beliefs of transhumanists is held. Loremaster 04:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed "Cosmotheism" from the Related Articles section of the article to avoid a dispute and will keep doing so along as necessary. Loremaster 22:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Cosmotheism... this is a form of transhumanism, by all basic definitions. why exactly are you removing it? Sam Spade 04:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * They are only always removing it, Sam, and for all of the same reasons that I have so often repeated as to be redundant.-PV


 * It really isn't though and your trolling on behalf of Vogel, I suggest waiting for the AC's ruling before continuing on this course. Stop trying to promote this agenda-the eugenics link more than suffices. Cosmotheism as a religion or philosophy is not relevant to transhumanism in any real way despite your created misinterpretation of it.GrazingshipIV 05:16, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Social-Marxist" Political correctness and its dogmatism and AGENDA and this POV CENSORSHIP by this ilk has NOTHING to do with Transhumanism but Cosmotheism most certainly does have very much to do with it, and also cosmotheism.net has many links to many Transhumanist websites! prometheism.net for one example and transtopia.org for just another example -PV


 * To Vogel and Spade: This dispute has nothing to do with "social-marxist" political correctness, dogmatism, an agenda or POV censorship. The issue is one of accuracy. Strictly speaking, cosmotheism is a form of classical pantheism that identifies God with the cosmos, that is, with the universe as a unified whole. Transhumanism is a form of modern humanism that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. According to these basic definitions that we all accept, the two concepts are obviously NOT related. The fact that a few fringe theorists have decided to synthesize cosmotheism and transhumanism into one new ideology (prometheism? transtopianism?) due to some vague similarities or radical reinterpretation and that these people have websites which display both cosmotheist and transhumanist essays and links does NOT prove that cosmotheism and transhumanism are related except in their imagination. Period. As I said before, I have removed the mention of "cosmotheism" from the Article and will keep doing so every single day if necessary... unless a moderator orders me otherwise. Loremaster 18:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Marxism and nihilism in critics section
JRR Trollkien, unless you provide some clarification, I have and will continue to edit out the mention of "Marxists" and "nihilism" in the Critics and Opponents of Transhumanism section of the article because they render the statements, which they were part of, biased and inaccurate. Loremaster 23:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * EuroTom has provided the proper clarification surrounding this issue with his edits. Loremaster 01:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Narrow concept of transhumanism
This article (especially the intro) is disappointing even if it does reflect the concept of transhumanism held by most of those who identify themselves as transhumanists. A narrow concept of transhumanism dominates the article. As a Mormon, I would consider myself a sort of transhumanist given Mormonism's doctrine of deification. That sort of religious-transhumanism (transcending the human state, mortality and its frailities and becoming like God through resurrection and exaltation) is much different than the narrow sort of transhumanism described in this article with its predeliction for cyborg type progress as if a CPU could ever be more advanced than the brain, etc. It is ironic that most transhumanists would likely accept the idea that eventually mankind's technological ability will allow them to be at least like demi-gods, but seem to overlook the possibility that such a society already exists in the cosmos and would seem as gods to our society. Secular transhumanists embrace the transhumanist ideas in movies like Powder or Godsend, but overlook the possibility that mankind's possibilities to progress may be not merely or only an evolutionary gift. In a sense, this is the transhumanism that Mormonism recognizes: that there is already a godly society, that we are their offspring and we are to progress beyond our mortal, human state to become like them. &mdash;B|Talk 00:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * B, perhaps you could write about "Mormon transhumanism" in the Christian transhumanism article. Loremaster 01:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the link in the article. I take back my comments above then with the proviso that perhaps Christian transhumanism deserves a little more attention in the article than a mere link.  &mdash;B|Talk 01:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Might want to fit in a quick paragraph with a "Main article: " link underneath it, as is done in the country articles; see United States, for example. grendel|khan 21:47, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Secular Humanism mention in intro
I've changed the intro from:


 * The vast majority of this article relates exclusively to modern, secular humanist transhumanism.

to


 * The vast majority of this article relates exclusively to modern, secular transhumanism.

Secular transhumanists do not necessarily share humanist doctrine outside of rejecting supernaturalism; in particular, secular humanism emphasizes democracy while transhumanists of a libertarian bent may reject it.

- Korpios 19:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right of course, its a subtlety I missed due to the similarity of the two terms, and transhumanism containing humanism. Would you mind weighing in on the attempt to exclude the racialist/eugenics perspective? I guarantee that anyone who impartially reviews those links (just above) will realize that however disturbing or fringe, Cosmotheism obviously is a form of transhumanism. In my experience it&rsquo;s unwise to exclude alternate viewpoints (even disturbing ones), something about NPOV... Sam [Spade] 01:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * From transhumanism.org


 * World Transhumanist Association Statement on Racialism


 * Any and all doctrines of racial or ethnic supremacy/inferiority are incompatible with the fundamental tolerance and humanist roots of transhumanism. Organizations advocating such doctrines or beliefs are not transhumanist, and are unwelcome as affiliates of the WTA.
 * Loremaster 15:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think World Transhumanist Association has the final say on this subject is a large part of why the article is currently disputed. NPOV means the inclusion of a variety of viewpoints, not only one. Sam [Spade] 19:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said and do not think the WTA has a final say. I was simply presenting the viewpoint of one of the leading transhumanist organizations. I can provide more from every single one that exists. But regardless of what all these legitimate groups think, the fact is that "eugenical comostheism" is incompatible with the fundamental tolerance and humanist roots of transhumanism. Loremaster 20:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You bias is so profound that you are missing the obvious: tolerance and humanism are the roots of the WTA, and other forms of transhumanism which you yourself prefer. Eugenics, Racial hygiene, and Nazi theology are the roots of the Transhumanists of transtopia.org. Your attempt to exclude their POV is a violation of the NPOV policy. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Transhumanism was conceptualized by authoritative thinkers who defined it as a futurist extention of secular humanism. The fact that some fringe elements then decided to call themselves transhumanists despite the reality that their anti-humanistic and pseudo-scientific views are incompatible with transhumanism doesn't change the original definition of the paradigm. In other words, should fascism be discussed in the Liberal Democracy article as being a legitimate form of liberal democracy if a Russian fascist dictator were to rise to power by calling himself a "liberal democrat" for propaganda purposes? I think not. Loremaster 18:22, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your false analogy fails to provide any explanation to your unreasonable reversion of the edits made by a number of users. Please review revert. Sam [Spade] 18:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I obviously disagree with you and always will on all these points. I've tried to compromise but you do not seem interested. You have failed to explained why my analogy is false or why my reversion is unreasonable. For the record, I have and will continue to revert this article to remove irrelevant material. Loremaster 19:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your vow to continue to disobey policy is noted. Sam [Spade] 19:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation and enforcement of policy seems to be very arbitrary. Your failure to explain yourself is troublesome. I find this situation quite sad since we have worked well together to improve the Knights Templar article significantly. Loremaster 20:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you can engage in dialogue and constructive editing here, as you have done on Knights Templar, then I'd have little reason to be upset, and would be able to remove the dispute headers and archive my request for comment. All I'm asking for is that you meet me halfway. Sam [Spade] 21:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I hope you are satisfied with my lastest edits to the article. Loremaster 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am, thank you. Sam [Spade] 22:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed
I am not alone in finding this article to be bizarre and biased. The continued reversion of cited and verified additions is but a symptom of the disease of POV to be found here. Please note Pages_needing_attention and Requests_for_comment/Loremaster. Sam [Spade] 05:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I no longer dispute the article, and have archived my request for comment due to the reasonable compromise and receptiveness to dialogue from User:Loremaster..


 * Sam [Spade] 23:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Turing test and intelligence

 * creation of artificial intelligence beyond anything conceived of in the Turing Test

This phrase doesn't mean anything. The turing test does not "conceive" of a particular kind of artificial intelligence. It rather follows the hypothesis, that "any being which can fully fake being a human must be intelligent". That doesn't place any limit on how much more intelligent the being can be and also doesn't say "any being which fails the turing test isn't intelligent".


 * I think it's just a high-falutin' way of saying "creation of artificial intelligence that's smarter than humans". -- Heron 20:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is mean to be in English, not high-falutin'.  Maybe we could start a separate edition though?? Mozzerati 21:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)


 * That was my point. I don't like bombastic writing (except when it's done for fun, of course ;-) ), so I suggested a simpler alternative. -- Heron 21:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed phrase
"the pace of technological development is steadily increasing,"

This is opinion, not fact; it should be noted as such and attributed. I personally dispute it; there was a great impulse with the "discovery" of quantum mechanics in the early 20th C., this is followed by a slow down in fundamental discovery. Current technological development is largely incremental improvement and even that is showing some signs of slowing (a la Jet engine..) Mozzerati 21:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)


 * Good point. I rephrased it. Loremaster 21:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Transhumanist manifestos
This page is rather long and I'd like to either move the WTA and Extropy manifestos to a separate page or just link to them externally. By the time a reader gets to that portion of the article, he should have a fair idea of what transhumanism is about and shouldn't need two manifestos to hammer it in. Is anyone strongly opposed to this? -- Schaefer 12:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Loremaster 16:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is biased by self-promoters
The article as it currently stands talks more of people who claimed to have done this or that than about the concepts central to transhumanism. The people mentioned here, Max More and Natasha More, are renowned for their inclination to promote themselves at any opportunity. Their claims are often dubious as are their purported contributions to futures studies in general. I find Nick Bostrom's FAQ at http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#whatistranshumanism much more congruent with the quality of Wikipedia's overall content.