Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Both. I hear opposition to this hope or philosophy, I don't understand the concern. Is it being against prosthetic limbs? Or is it a prescription to becoming "inhuman", whatever that would mean? In the other thread I mention a philosopher that seems to be linked to transhumanism. I am still researching the subject.

 

My impression of transhumanism is that it is technological eugenics. Although I’m not sure how close that comes to an apt description, as I don’t know much about it. Actually just looking around in order to respond to your comments , I learned the ‘movement’ is ‘larger’ than I presumed apparently there is a domestic political party established enough to have fielded a presidential candidate and affiliates with other similar political organizations multinationally.

Ive found what looks like a philosophic critique and perhaps a discussion on the bioethics of transhumanism. :

https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/42/3/237/3817401

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Most of these options are designed to disconnect the human soul from the human body, and prepare the body to be used as a shell for a new host.

It seems that a fundamental question is if a human, or a consciousness can be duplicatable in the physicals realm. If one duplicates every molecule of a person, would the consciousness stay with the original body, or one single consciousness would control both bodies or will there now be two consciousnesses that diverge after that moment.

https://veilofreality.com/transhumanism-the-consciousness-trap/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of multiple identical consciousnesses or a disembodied consciousness,a discrete entity, could be incorporated is more a long the lines of science fiction, far future ,supposed possibilities of post humans.

The ethics of implementing eugenics in nascent science is an actual real world problem.I don’t remember off hand where , but I had seen a talk at some conference or other where one of the panelists, who I take is a well known figure in bioengineering discussing the feasibility and attractiveness of genetic manipulation to restrict the physical stature of humans as a means to slow or survive climate change. 

As philosophical question the idea that an ‘exact’ molecular copy would result in a ‘consciouness’ Is hard materialist determinism.

Edited by tadmjones
Added comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

As philosophical question the idea that an ‘exact’ molecular copy would result in a ‘consciouness’ Is hard materialist determinism.

Yes, and that would imply a divergence between Objectivism and this aspect of Transhumanism. From what I have gathered, the ultimate desire of Transhumanism is to put our self in a machine so we become immortal. The collectivism is of concern but this would be the most attractive part.

Here is a reference to uploading your mind:

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/11/transhumanism-is-it-a-dangerous-idea/

Edited by Easy Truth
added link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

to put our self in a machine so we become immortal.

We wouldn't be immortal; the machine could still be destroyed.  We couldn't reasonably expect it to last forever.  If this worked, it would overcome some of our current limitations and vulnerabilities, but it would not make us immortal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

We wouldn't be immortal; the machine could still be destroyed.  We couldn't reasonably expect it to last forever.  If this worked, it would overcome some of our current limitations and vulnerabilities, but it would not make us immortal.

 

Well, theoretically immortal, just keep jumping to a new machine. Either way the notion is as arbitrary as science fiction.

But to a more philosophical point what do you mean by “our” limitations and being able to overcome them? Do members of a species or individual beings have ‘overcomable’ limitations and vulnerabilities, isn’t the fact of limitations part of their identity, if there exists a state where/when a being exhibits qualities theretofore inaccessible, isn’t that really a description of a different type or A is not A at the same time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

But to a more philosophical point what do you mean by “our” limitations and being able to overcome them? Do members of a species or individual beings have ‘overcomable’ limitations and vulnerabilities, isn’t the fact of limitations part of their identity, if there exists a state where/when a being exhibits qualities theretofore inaccessible, isn’t that really a description of a different type or A is not A at the same time ?

Yes and no. I think you're talking about a certain kind of limitation because we get around limitations all the time, as in flying. But in the case of mortality, I would agree that it is part of our identity.

If we were immortal, I don't know what happens with right and wrong. Like inherent values exist.

A similar (but not same) problem exists with "I will become omniscient" with such and such technology. The limitation of our knowing defines us too. Although in this case it's the nature of knowledge that limits it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

what do you mean by “our” limitations and being able to overcome them?

Please pay attention to the word "some".

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

isn’t the fact of limitations part of their identity, if there exists a state where/when a being exhibits qualities theretofore inaccessible, isn’t that really a description of a different type or A is not A at the same time ?

A human consciousness transferred into a machine, if that's ever possible at all, would certainly be physically different from a human consciousness existing naturally in a human body.

********

My main point is that under no circumstances would we be immortal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes and no. I think you're talking about a certain kind of limitation because we get around limitations all the time, as in flying. But in the case of mortality, I would agree that it is part of our identity.

If we were immortal, I don't know what happens with right and wrong. Like inherent values exist.

A similar (but not same) problem exists with "I will become omniscient" with such and such technology. The limitation of our knowing defines us too. Although in this case it's the nature of knowledge that limits it.

Well yes and no ,too.

Humans can not fly , we do build machines that operate on the principles of lift in a gaseous media and ride them. That is not the same thing as over coming the inability to fly. An inability , or describing the 'edges' of an inability as a limitation is just extending a floating abstraction , it's a form of rationalism and a failure to integrate. An 'inability' points to a nonexistent, a zero not a potential. Akin to understanding poverty as a lack of capital accumulation , you can not get rid of poverty , 'it' isn't a 'thing' , you can create wealth or capital or you can destroy the capital but you can not' create poverty' or 'destroy poverty', thinking in those terms in an inversion of causality.

Similarly with omniscience and knowledge, human epistemology is the 'science' of how humans create concepts and use reason to understand of the data of the universe , the data is omnipresent, knowledge is the product of human minds not a quality to be incorporated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about "amount", as in amount of life (time alive) or amount of knowledge. In this case immortality or omniscience points to "all" time or all data. Acquiring all of that is not possible.

The issue of flying is contextual. Granted we used tools to achieve what a bird does, but we can in fact travel in the same area above the surface. It may be metaphoric language but we communicate using it.

But putting aside immortality, let us say Transhumanism is reaching beyond it's grasp, perhaps it's good in the sense that it will cause longevity i.e. improvement. I think I saw an excerpt from the Jonny Carson show where Rand objected to the idea of the "impossible dream" although she liked the way it was performed. Maybe there is a place for the impossible dream. Or is it dangerous and harmful?

When does a utopian idea become a danger to be fought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Similarly with omniscience and knowledge, human epistemology is the 'science' of how humans create concepts and use reason to understand of the data of the universe , the data is omnipresent, knowledge is the product of human minds not a quality to be incorporated.

The term "data of sense" is used in both Rand's and Piekoff's writings. I'm looking to connect it to the omnipresent data of the universe. Is it synonymous? Or is there a distinction to data as a part of consciousness that to be distinguished here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...