[ExI] Question from a neophyte

[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
 -- -- -- --