[ExI] Question from a neophyte

[natasha at natasha.cc]

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
>