[ExI] My confusion, the Kurzweil critique

[Stefano Vaj]

On Nov 10, 2007 2:46 AM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> This is merely a semantic distinction.  The terminology of whether that
> future human is "human" or "inhuman" depends on whether you group the good
> traits or the bad traits under that label.
>

It also depends on whether you see "ominidisation" as a status or as
process. In the first sense, I have no doubt that "humanity" must be left
behind. If, on the other hand, the essence of "human" is identified in
overcoming previous limitations and getting in control on one's own biology
and identity as a species, to remain as we are would mean to regress to a
somewhat "animal" status, while the real "human" attitude would be
transhumanism (i.e., transhumanism would be analogous to what made homo
abilis different from its simian-like ancestors).

Exactly the same ambiguity is reflected in XIX century superhomism: where
Nietzsche speaks of the "Superman", or the "Overman", meaning not some being
who is exceedingly human, but who has gone beyond humanity and the "human,
all too human", Wagner speaks of the rein-menschliches, the "purely-human",
to mean exactly the same thing, in opposition to human beings who are still
passively determined by their past, thus remaining "partially animal".

In fact, I slightly prefer the first kind of language, since words
"transhumanism" and "posthumanism" make it more clear where we stay on that
issue, "humanism" having come to indicate mostly bio-conservatism and
neo-luddism - even though in fact primordial human beings actually made the
opposite "choice".

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071110/6244c417/attachment.html>