<html>
<body>
At 10:17 PM 1/29/2007, Kevin wrote:<br><br>
Natasha wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> > How do you see the
distinction between cyborg and transhuman? Do you<br>
> > think the terms are interchangeable?</blockquote><br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">for me, I think any future
cyborgs will simply be a classifiable<br>
subset of 'human', much how the 'transhumans' of today are very much<br>
just normal humans with a fetish for futurism &
self-improvement.</blockquote><br>
I think you mean transhumanists, not transhumans. There are the
very early signs of transhumans today and many probably don't have a
fetish for futurism. I am saying this because the early transhumans
may very well be those who have overcome sever damage to their physiology
and have had to be augment to remain alive and/or functioning.
<br><br>
Donna Hathaway writes about cyborgs, but I truly think she is referring
to transhumans but did not use that term out of lack of
information/knowledge or because cyborg was more widely known. But
a cyborg is a cybernetic organism does not have "humane"
characteristics, perhaps quite different from a transhuman which is a
evolutionary transitional stage.<br><br>
Samantha wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> They are not
intechageable. One is about whether the body has all<br>
> organic parts or not.</blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">this is the 'vanilla sapien'
interpretation of humanity; see above. In<br>
short, I think this is hogwash. 'Human' means one thing, 'Homo
Sapien'<br>
another, and 'Cyborg' is a term that negates ones' membership in<br>
neither.</blockquote><br>
??<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> The other is about the
goals, views and ideals of<br>
> the brain/mind realized in that body. Conceivably a person
could even<br>
> be tranferred fully into an artificial body or uploaded without
being in<br>
> the least interested in or a proponent of
transhumanism.</blockquote><br>
Of course. A transhuman is not necessary a transhumanist.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think It'd be fair to say that
if you're a cyborg you're a<br>
transhumanist, </blockquote><br>
I don't think so. <br><br>
Best wishes,<br>
Natasha<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Design Media Artist - Futurist
<dd>PhD Candidate,
<a href="http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273">
Planetary Collegium </a>
<dd>Proactionary Principle Core Group,
<a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy
</a><a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Institute</a>
<dd>Member, <a href="http://www.profuturists.com/">Association of
Professional Futurists</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>