Philosophy is mainly useful in inoculating you against other philosophy. Else you’ll be vulnerable to the first coherent philosophy you hear. (source) Long ago (’81-83 at U Chicago) I studied Conceptual Foundations of Science (mainly philosophy of science) because I wanted to really understand this “science” thing, and the main thing I learned was to avoid the word “science”. If necessary, the word can refer to obvious social groups and how they maintain boundaries, but beyond that other words and concepts are more useful.
In the vein of 'X is really about Y', what is speculating at length about categories of Other which don't exist really about? Some kind of optimism and intelligence signalling?
Interesting that we share almost the same view on vaccinating against philosophy. From my home page: "The only valid use I find for philosophy is to REJECT ideas: most prominently those of philosophers."
Your statement is really pithy: I would modify it by pointing out that newbies are vulnerable to incoherent philosophy as well. All the philosophy needs is to trigger your intellectual/emotional sunk costs protections.
How would you reply to David Roden's work. In his Speculative Posthumanism the claim that our posthuman descendants will be different from us in ways we cannot currently picture is central. At the heart of his very careful monograph on the subject he is the "disconnection thesis" that suggests that technological alteration of the species might result in the production of genuinely posthuman beings that are alien to the human. The book is called Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human. A precise of how Roden deals with the navigating the human and prefix-human terminology can be found at IEET: http://ieet.org/index.php/I...
Yes, it is possible that our descendants will in fact have traits we dislike so much as to make us reject them as no longer part of the “us” that matters. But this is hardly inevitable, and those who argue that it will happen should have to specify the particular key traits they expect will cause such a divergence.
I definitely agree with this, but am puzzled to see it said in the context of the term 'posthuman'. Usually I see this term used by people who identify strongly with 'posthumans', look forward to becoming one themselves, and mainly use the word to show off their open-mindedness regarding technological change and to differentiate themselves from those they consider unreasonably attached to biological human traits.
I've also not heard the word for quite a while now - perhaps because I've been reading a different group of futurists in the last couple of years, who, unlike the posthuman-sympathisers, do in fact strongly identify with the current forms and styles of humans, and believe that future technologically advanced beings produced by economic/evolutionary forces would be very different from us in crucial ways such that they wouldn't have much moral value.
"Cyborg" is ugly, has monster-like connotations, and is vaguely defined. Schwarzenegger's Terminator is often called a "cyborg" despite being pure robot.
You with your glasses and fillings are simply "enhanced". More important, you are an "enhanced human". You're still "human", not some new thing with a new name.
I agree. Now, you didn't use the term, but I'm comfortable with the idea of humans gradually transitioning (as I think we are already doing) into *cyborgs*, provided we can maintain personal security (i.e., avoid risks of potentially-hostile external control systems/hacking). I also don't see a need for newer terminology. "Cyborg" works fine for me. I mean, I already wear eyeglasses and have fillings in my teeth. And I know many people with artificial hip joints, lens-implants (to correct cataracts), stents, pacemakers, etc. I would look forward to getting brain implants to provide me with supplemental memory and information processing, as well as improved transducers (e.g., IR, RF, ultrasound, etc.), improved connectivity options, an ability to digest presently inedible food sources, etc. It also seems to me that "Human" or "Cyborg" is simply a label for how intimately you are connected to your technology. A rose by any other name... See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
How about "machine people"?
In the vein of 'X is really about Y', what is speculating at length about categories of Other which don't exist really about? Some kind of optimism and intelligence signalling?
Interesting that we share almost the same view on vaccinating against philosophy. From my home page: "The only valid use I find for philosophy is to REJECT ideas: most prominently those of philosophers."
Your statement is really pithy: I would modify it by pointing out that newbies are vulnerable to incoherent philosophy as well. All the philosophy needs is to trigger your intellectual/emotional sunk costs protections.
How would you reply to David Roden's work. In his Speculative Posthumanism the claim that our posthuman descendants will be different from us in ways we cannot currently picture is central. At the heart of his very careful monograph on the subject he is the "disconnection thesis" that suggests that technological alteration of the species might result in the production of genuinely posthuman beings that are alien to the human. The book is called Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human. A precise of how Roden deals with the navigating the human and prefix-human terminology can be found at IEET: http://ieet.org/index.php/I...
Typical post-apes, unwilling to acknowledge our moral equality. I'm lucky that on the internet no one knows you're an ape.
Yes, it is possible that our descendants will in fact have traits we dislike so much as to make us reject them as no longer part of the “us” that matters. But this is hardly inevitable, and those who argue that it will happen should have to specify the particular key traits they expect will cause such a divergence.
I definitely agree with this, but am puzzled to see it said in the context of the term 'posthuman'. Usually I see this term used by people who identify strongly with 'posthumans', look forward to becoming one themselves, and mainly use the word to show off their open-mindedness regarding technological change and to differentiate themselves from those they consider unreasonably attached to biological human traits.
I've also not heard the word for quite a while now - perhaps because I've been reading a different group of futurists in the last couple of years, who, unlike the posthuman-sympathisers, do in fact strongly identify with the current forms and styles of humans, and believe that future technologically advanced beings produced by economic/evolutionary forces would be very different from us in crucial ways such that they wouldn't have much moral value.
"Cyborg" is ugly, has monster-like connotations, and is vaguely defined. Schwarzenegger's Terminator is often called a "cyborg" despite being pure robot.
You with your glasses and fillings are simply "enhanced". More important, you are an "enhanced human". You're still "human", not some new thing with a new name.
I agree. Now, you didn't use the term, but I'm comfortable with the idea of humans gradually transitioning (as I think we are already doing) into *cyborgs*, provided we can maintain personal security (i.e., avoid risks of potentially-hostile external control systems/hacking). I also don't see a need for newer terminology. "Cyborg" works fine for me. I mean, I already wear eyeglasses and have fillings in my teeth. And I know many people with artificial hip joints, lens-implants (to correct cataracts), stents, pacemakers, etc. I would look forward to getting brain implants to provide me with supplemental memory and information processing, as well as improved transducers (e.g., IR, RF, ultrasound, etc.), improved connectivity options, an ability to digest presently inedible food sources, etc. It also seems to me that "Human" or "Cyborg" is simply a label for how intimately you are connected to your technology. A rose by any other name... See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...