[extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Teilhard de Chardin - Truth or Dare

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 06:10 PM 11/1/03 -0500, Eliwrote:

>Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>>Why suggest that anyone who is fully versed in their field, such as 
>>Aubrey de Gray, or evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, make up a point 
>>for fiction sake? Further, are you suggesting that transhumanists's ideas 
>>about evolution are, or should be, based in "human" transitional views 
>>that center around a limited lifespan and that pushing the lifespan 
>>father in years is an assault on humanity's acceptance and even worship 
>>of death?
>
>This is wholly unrelated to the theory of evolution.  It is not an idea 
>about evolution at all.  It is a declaration of a goal, which will be 
>achieved through means other than natural selection.

You we step back a moment and take a look at the definition of "transhuman" 
as "an evolutionary transition from human to posthuman."  If Dawkins 
claimed genes were selfish and had their own set of "goals" about survival 
than I suppose, in your view, the genes (and Dawkins) are sadly mistaken.


>>>Transhumanism doesn't need, and can't have, and shouldn't have, its own 
>>>model of evolution, any more than there should be a transhumanist model 
>>>of physics.
>>I think your argument is misplaced.  Transhumanism is based on ideas 
>>about evolution that have been published and promoted for many years and 
>>continue to be published and promoted as the science and technology of 
>>new ideas surmount.  These ideas are transhumanist because they, in their 
>>directive intent, are based on questioning traditional acceptance of a 
>>limited lifespan and recycling of the human spirit into a mystical landscape.
>
>Mm... certainly natural selection, insofar as it replaces theological 
>assertions about the operation of the universe, denies that human limited 
>lifespan had what we would regard as a "good reason" behind it, either in 
>terms of intelligent design or in exploded theories of group selectionism.

>  But this is not a transhumanist idea.  It is not the result of 
> supervenience of transhumanist ideology on the development of a 
> scientific paradigm.  It is a flat fact about the historical cause of the 
> biological human lifespan, which any rational observer will accept 
> regardless of whether they, personally, wish humans long lives, instant 
> deaths, or precisely threescore and ten.

You might be too careful to mix science and philosophy.  Your very 
interpretation of evolution is base on your set of reference points - 
whether philosophically, psychologically, or emotionally induced.

>There is nothing wrong with a transhumanist outlook being *based on* the 
>standard model of evolution.  Of course it should be based on evolutionary 
>theory; evolutionary theory is the correct account of how we got here; 
>what else would we use?  I object to the idea of a transhumanist model of 
>evolution or even the idea that transhumanists, qua transhumanists, should 
>have their own ideas about evolution at all, unless they wish to operate 
>in a dual capacity as ordinary evolutionary theorists (which is what I try 
>to do regarding the evolutionary psychology of human general intelligence 
>and so on).

Some evolutionary theorists are transhumanists.  It is much of their 
writings that set the "goals" of transhumanity.

Could thinking along the lines of an Omega Point reinvented type of 
Singularity which infers an evolutionary digression or ingression from 
evolutionary biology?


>>If you are suggesting that any transhumanist be foolish enough to 
>>fictionize the facts developed and being investigated, than
>>this is overly broad.  It is in opposition to the basics of transhumanism 
>>to "make up" ideas to justify a cause.  I hardly think any transhumanist 
>>would get away with it for more than a few moment to a few weeks.
>
>Right!  Whether it was a minor or major point, some helpful pedant on the 
>Extropians list would object to it.
>
>>Our society is very hard lined in attempting to make sure that 
>>information is as plausible as possible, if not solely accurate.
>
>There is no such thing as "plausibility" where information is concerned - 
>either the probability one assigns is justified on observation, or it is 
>not.  One who says, "Aha, here's a gap in science, now I can make up 
>something plausible and no one will be able to contradict me" will, of 
>course, end up being wrong, because plausibility combined with prior 
>desire for a particular answer is not a good way to seek out truths.  They 
>also end up being shot down because they didn't know what science could or 
>couldn't say - a nonspecialist doesn't know where the gaps are and will 
>invariably stumble over an issue science has already settled.  Ideology, 
>transhumanist or otherwise, is not involved in which probabilities are 
>*warranted*, even if through carelessness it should mess up the 
>calculation in practice.  There are transhumanist technologies, there is 
>transhumanist art, but there is no such thing as transhumanist science.

There are certainly aspects of strains of science that, in particular, 
relate heavily to transhumanism.  It is "plausible" that some 
transhumanists might concur that this science is transhumanistic.


>Solely accurate sounds good to me.  We cannot, will not, should not, have 
>no need to creep into the dark forest of the plausible, and I fear we'll 
>get into real trouble if we try.

Solely accurate is good to my ears as well.  Plausibility allows for 
questioning.  We must question.

Natasha