[ExI] Question from a neophyte

[natasha at natasha.cc]

This may very well be quite correct for all of us!

And with that in mind (pun here), one design concept I love is the  
metabrain.  I was just in NYC meeting with an NPR producer about  
transhumanist design (specifically the design of the future human) -  
should be a meaningful upcoming program.

Natasha




Quoting jameschoate at austin.rr.com:

> I have two thoughts to share on this exchange...
>
> - Sounds like a re-hash of the Schismatrix Shaper-Mechanist dichotomy
>
> - There is no real Transhumanist dichotomy, this whole either or (ie  
>  wet|soft/dry|hard) discussion is a good example of how none of you   
> have escaped the non-transhumanist patterns in your fundamental   
> mental model.
>
> ---- natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning
>> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured
>> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to
>> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests
>> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will,
>> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>>
>> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean
>> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future
>> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>>
>> Morphological Freedom?
>> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4-photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom   
>> ,
>> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>>
>> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand,
>> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically
>> incorrect.   As an artist, I have been pretty much politically
>> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days
>> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect
>> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>>
>> Best,
>> Natasha
>>
>>
>> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for
>> > me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_,
>> > but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position,
>> > we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to
>> > modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its
>> > widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Of course these options will become available much later than the
>> > options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by
>> > biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now
>> > politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Stefano Vaj   
>> <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> As somebody coming from "wet" transhumanism, I could not endorse more
>> >> the following Natasha's statement. In fact, we have just begun to tap
>> >> into the potential of biotech itself...
>> >>
>> >> On 5 March 2010 01:46,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> >>> I'm not sure why you would chose Moravec as an entry point. It   
>> would not be
>> >>> my choice at all.  Transhumanism is not about robots and bush people.
>> >>>  Transhumanism is a philosophical worldview.  If you lens is robotics,
>> >>> again, I would not single out Moravec, but engage a collection   
>> of sciences
>> >>> and technologies through which the transhumanist goal or future  
>>  could be or
>> >>> has the potential of being established.
>> >>>
>> >>> And I agree with you about the Western narrative, by I do not   
>> agree that it
>> >>> is a bad thing.  Body transcendence is not the aim of transhumanism -
>> >>> whether a body is used or not is NOT the point!  Uploading is   
>> not the GOAL
>> >>> of transhumanism!
>> >>>
>> >>> This is why transhumanism gets a bad rap.  I oppose Moravec's particular
>> >>> vision, no matter how imaginative it is.  We will not forgo the  
>>  biological
>> >>> body for no body, but transform the biological body for semi and
>> >>> non-biological bodies in real time and in synthetic environments.
>> >>>
>> >>> To assume Moravec's vision of uploads (by the way a more
>> >>> contemporary phrase
>> >>> for transferring the brain's content to an artificial system is
>> >>> "whole brain
>> >>> emulation"), is the entry point and the ground rule of transhumanism is
>> >>> simply not correct.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Stefano Vaj
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> extropy-chat mailing list
>> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > extropy-chat mailing list
>> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> --
>  -- -- -- --
> Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus
>
> jameschoate at austin.rr.com
> james.choate at g.austincc.edu
> james.choate at twcable.com
> h: 512-657-1279
> w: 512-845-8989
> www.ssz.com
> http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
> http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center
>
> Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
>  -- -- -- --
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>