While I agree with most of your factual observations (if not your wording of them), I disagree with all of your conclusions.
I don’t see the problem with progress. And that is what it is. Same as when people decided to stop hunting and start farming. Instead of living off the land as it was, they manipulated it. Is it wrong? No. When they put a harness on horse to pull their plow instead of doing it themselves, is that wrong? Was it dehumanizing to ride horses instead of walking? How about when we bred dogs to herd sheep? A domestic animal is far more “automated” then our machines now.
It seems you are not so concerned with the machines capabilities as you are with it’s origins. The fact that we made it does not make it any more (or less) “evil” than something in nature.
AND! your silly handwritten (then scanned… with a machine) post has made it ridiculously hard to quote you. So there’s that .
WEF3 Said,
I like horses and harnesses and agriculture, and especially dogs. If there is a positive form of technology, it is the domestication of nature. I could heartily endorse a breeding program to produce flying creatures for personal transportation. But machines do not attempt to engage nature in that way. Machines do not harness. They rape.
Machines are the fundamental elements of a man-made nature. I call it the ‘fouth-world’ - a virtual reality that mines, boils, and reconfigures the natural world into a synthetic world of man’s own imagination.
Hence, transhumanism. It isn’t about good and evil. It’s about simply remaining human.
WEF5 Said,
Semantics. Forcing the path of evolution for specific needs is at least as unnatural as synthesizing something new out of natural resources. Either way humanity is utilizing nature to create something that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Saying that something is more natural just because it is organic just doesn’t make any sense. Either way, it’s a deliberate alteration of nature.
What makes it “evil”? Is it the intent? The process? The end result? Because both have the intent of trying make life easier, and both end with humanity having to do less work. The only difference between machines and forced evolution is the process by which it comes about.
Then there is the fact that we can do things with technology we could never do with animals. Cell Phones, the internet, pretty much all of our communication technology could not be replicated by an animal, regardless of how you breed it.
Of course the same can probably be said about animals, but I can’t really think of an example.
So at the very least, we shouldn’t ignore one in favor of the other, but use both.
I could go into the pros and cons of both, but we’ve already had that conversation, haven’t we?
WEF6 Said,
Nice rhetoric. But at the end it sort of falls apart.
You establish pretty effectively the assumptions the man-made world has, as well as the long-term goals of the philosophy behind the manipulation of nature. For example, man’s liberation from the limits of the flesh. But then, without any real evidence, you claim these assumptions are false and these goals impossible.
Why can’t man become ‘gods’ (aka escape the limits of the flesh) via machines?
How can you know there are unbreakable limits?
Why is the created world of man any more or less false than the created world of nature? In fact, this created world seems to be a reprogramming of reality—which you claim is impossible.
Anyway, I am impressed by your rhetoric, but find it difficult to agree with your conclusion—or even understand, outside of your interpretation of religion, why you believe your conclusion. Personally, I think there’s been far more depth and support for your argument in our conversations than in this paper.
WEF5 Said,
I don’t think I ever said that transcendence through technology was impossible, and if I did I certainly didn’t intend to.
I think where we differ is that you think this would be a bad thing, whereas I don’t.
Comments
Really not too much to say about this, actually.
While I agree with most of your factual observations (if not your wording of them), I disagree with all of your conclusions.
I don’t see the problem with progress. And that is what it is. Same as when people decided to stop hunting and start farming. Instead of living off the land as it was, they manipulated it. Is it wrong? No. When they put a harness on horse to pull their plow instead of doing it themselves, is that wrong? Was it dehumanizing to ride horses instead of walking? How about when we bred dogs to herd sheep? A domestic animal is far more “automated” then our machines now.
It seems you are not so concerned with the machines capabilities as you are with it’s origins. The fact that we made it does not make it any more (or less) “evil” than something in nature.
AND! your silly handwritten (then scanned… with a machine) post has made it ridiculously hard to quote you. So there’s that .
I like horses and harnesses and agriculture, and especially dogs. If there is a positive form of technology, it is the domestication of nature. I could heartily endorse a breeding program to produce flying creatures for personal transportation. But machines do not attempt to engage nature in that way. Machines do not harness. They rape.
Machines are the fundamental elements of a man-made nature. I call it the ‘fouth-world’ - a virtual reality that mines, boils, and reconfigures the natural world into a synthetic world of man’s own imagination.
Hence, transhumanism. It isn’t about good and evil. It’s about simply remaining human.
Semantics. Forcing the path of evolution for specific needs is at least as unnatural as synthesizing something new out of natural resources. Either way humanity is utilizing nature to create something that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Saying that something is more natural just because it is organic just doesn’t make any sense. Either way, it’s a deliberate alteration of nature.
What makes it “evil”? Is it the intent? The process? The end result? Because both have the intent of trying make life easier, and both end with humanity having to do less work. The only difference between machines and forced evolution is the process by which it comes about.
Then there is the fact that we can do things with technology we could never do with animals. Cell Phones, the internet, pretty much all of our communication technology could not be replicated by an animal, regardless of how you breed it.
Of course the same can probably be said about animals, but I can’t really think of an example.
So at the very least, we shouldn’t ignore one in favor of the other, but use both.
I could go into the pros and cons of both, but we’ve already had that conversation, haven’t we?
Nice rhetoric. But at the end it sort of falls apart.
You establish pretty effectively the assumptions the man-made world has, as well as the long-term goals of the philosophy behind the manipulation of nature. For example, man’s liberation from the limits of the flesh. But then, without any real evidence, you claim these assumptions are false and these goals impossible.
Why can’t man become ‘gods’ (aka escape the limits of the flesh) via machines?
How can you know there are unbreakable limits?
Why is the created world of man any more or less false than the created world of nature? In fact, this created world seems to be a reprogramming of reality—which you claim is impossible.
Anyway, I am impressed by your rhetoric, but find it difficult to agree with your conclusion—or even understand, outside of your interpretation of religion, why you believe your conclusion. Personally, I think there’s been far more depth and support for your argument in our conversations than in this paper.
I don’t think I ever said that transcendence through technology was impossible, and if I did I certainly didn’t intend to.
I think where we differ is that you think this would be a bad thing, whereas I don’t.
This is an interesting read about the technological singularity.
Perhaps I misinterpreted you. I’m thinking of the 3rd and 2nd to last paragraphs.
Are you guys confusing your responses for mine?
Yes, yes I did. I thought she was you. I should really pay more attention.
Yeah, that makes a whole lot more sense now. I didn’t think anyone else was paying attention.
Lol, that’s funny…