/lit/ - Literature

you've already convinced yourself

>>3965110
>see all the stupid isms
>exit thread

>>3965110
Didn't Plato say that man's ultimate desire is for immortality? Isn't that kind of the goal of transhumanists, to use technology to improve ourselves to the point of immortality?

Pic related

>you've already convinced yourself
explain

>>3965118
>ultimate desire
is not a real thing

>>3965131
I've read that one. If I were to convinced someone to the contrary of my request, this one would be the book.

>>3965136
There isn't anything on the otherside of the argument.

Transhumanism (from advanced prosthesis to full blown Kurzweilianism) is a prediction about the future, and there aren't any credible people who have written books about why they think it's impossible.

The best you'll get is competing predictions, theology or philosophy of the mind by people like Nagel who say "there is something extra that empiricism can't detect", and blog posts written by anti-technology people.

>>3965145
I don't think that's how logic works. You make a claim, you have to provide evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

the fact that you don't realize that is exactly what makes me see you transhumanists as new age cultists

>>3965145
Reipce for new age religion

1. steal and claim for yourself the vestigial understanding of brain that scientists have
2. ???
3. twenty years later robot jesus

Are you serious?

>>3965149
I'm not a transhumanist. What claims have I made?

>>3965162
>Transhumanism (from advanced prosthesis to full blown Kurzweilianism) is a prediction about the future, and there aren't any credible people who have written books about why they think it's impossible.
those

>>3965170
I don't understand what you are trying to say?

>Transhumanism (from advanced prosthesis to full blown Kurzweilianism) is a prediction about the future.
How do you want me to "provide evidence". A dictionary?

>and there aren't any credible people who have written books about why they think it's impossible.
There aren't any credible people who have written a contemporary refutation of transhumanism. I gave you the exemptions you will find:
>Competing predictions, theology or philosophy of the mind by people like Nagel who say "there is something extra that empiricism can't detect", and blog posts written by anti-technology people.

Stop getting buttflustered.

>>3965187
>There aren't any credible people who have written a contemporary refutation of transhumanism.
maybe because you don't refute claims that provide no evidence; what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

remember that burden of proof thing i mentioned? get it now?

>>3965187
>I predict in 20 years america will be a dildo based economy. This is now fact, prove me wrong.

>>3965110
>Recommend me literature that will convince me that transhumanism and singularitarianism aren't new age cults posing as science clubs

OP, they are two very separate things.

>transhumanism
We are living in a transhumaist world already. We have electronics that can enable the blind to see, and the deaf to hear. We are interfacing with electronics every day, and improving our cognitive performance through them. Transhumanism started when man first used tools, and has slowly snowballed to what we have now - people with bionic arms, artificial organs that outperform the biological ones, pacemakers... Everytime you save a word document, you have outsourced cognition and extended your memory. There is no way you could remember those paragraphs without writing them down. There is no refuting transhumanism.

>singularitarianism
The singularity is something completely separate, and invented by a guy named Ray Kurzweil – although his theories have been made numerous times before. His idea rests on a historical observation that the rate of information possessed by the human race has been increasing exponentially for thousands of years, and concluded that if it continues there will be a point where we interact with so much information that we will hit a 'singularity' where human consciousness is unrecognisable by today's standards. The first part is pretty conclusive, and the invention of the internet has allowed the collective information possessed to continue exponentially, but the latter half is where the trouble is.

It's perfectly conceivable that a ban on merging human neurology with computing power will be placed after the EU brain simulation has been made. People made similar predictions about the future of our species way before the human genome project was completed. While it is possible to make a human free from diseases like Parkinsons, and pick eye colour, height, penis size, myostatin production for muscle growth, it's illegal.

>>3965198
>what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>3965149
I don't think that the poster you responded to is saying that transhumanism "will" happen. Just that it's a prediction about the future. You can't refute it because it hasn't happened yet. You can say it is unlikely, but the only proof is in the pudding.

Hate to tell you, you're pretty wrong with your argument here. There is definitely room for saying that some of the Kurzweilians have "blind faith" but you just sound like you heard someone hating and jumped on the bandwagon.

>>3965224
i see i have to give you 5th grade logic 101 tips
The argument for presence and the argument for absence are two separate arguments, for all intents and purposes unrelated. The opposite for the presence of evidence for your pet religion is not the evidence for the absence but _the lack of evidence for the presence_ - which is the case with transhumanism

I do not argue for things for which I have no reason to believe are real in the first place because I value my time. I am not interested in arguing for the impossibility of something - this is not even my position. My position is agnosticism towards a baseless claim of transhumanist cultists like Kurzweil that is not backed by evidence.

get it now?

>>3965224
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
this statement is fallacious and overall retarded

the first part
>Absence of evidence
is about argument A, which is preditions will happen

the second part
>evidence of absence
is about completely separate argument B, which is predictions WILL NOT happen

if you understood basic logic you would know that argument opposite to "A" is "notA"; you however, fallaciously assume that argument opposide to "A" is actually argument "B"; which is simply false

Yet another bombastic sci-fi fantasy kids fall into. Great.

Take it to >>>/sci/

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3965243
>You can't refute it because it hasn't happened yet
lol, it is totally possible to refute things which havent happened yet; f.e someone may make a claim that is fallacious; incongruent with laws of physics or statistically improbably

>Hate to tell you, you're pretty wrong with your argument
I make no argument; I simply reject the argument of someone else on the basis of lack of evidence

Your logic is the logic of uneducated theists. You give me even more reasons to see transhumanists as pseudo new-age cultists

>>3965275
>>3965265
Oh god. so much logic fail. I was just responding to your slogan with the traditional counter. I don't even Cate what you faggots are talking about.

Google " Absence of evidence."

>>3965222
transhumanism and singularitarianism are closely related

Ray Kurzweil didn't come up with the term singularity. What's more, he didn't even come up with the Technological Singularity term. I think you need to read some more.

>It's perfectly conceivable that a ban on merging human neurology with computing power
this is a meaningless hogwash, wild speculation, akin to discussing how developing black magic spells might influence EU policies

>>3965286
logic fail where?

google "how do i treat down syndrome"

>>3965224
Here's a heads-up for you next time.

>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is a buzzword that's been used by uneducated teenage atheists that read Hitchens, debate the non-existence of God on youtube, but really have no idea what Logic really is and what it is about.

>>3965300
>This is a buzzword that's been used by uneducated teenage atheists
It's used by theist to demonstrate that a lack of evidence for God doesn't prove that he doesn't exist. "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is the slogan used by atheists, and even Hitchens said it.

>>3965300
>what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
And this one is also a highly contagious buzzword amongst teenagers.

>>3965300
it's been used by theists at least as much as atheists, what's your point?

The only issue is that this statement was a red herring he used to mask his misapprehension of the burden of proof

it still stands that rejecting baseless transhumanist claims out of hand is logically justifiable

>>3965288
Oh for fuck's sake, why does this always happen? I type out a post, and find that I was responding to a shitty troll.

>>3965286
>I was just responding to your slogan
it's so cute you were responding but you still havent addressed the fact that burden of proof is on your ass

coward much?

>>3965309
what happened, you feel like an idiot because you didn't know neither the genesis of the word singularity nor its adoption by transhumanists? can't face the fact that Kurzweil wasnt the first transhumanism that used it?

transhumanism and singulitarianism are closely related; Kurzweil is both. But yeah, if being pointed out on your bullshit makes you cry, get out. Can't stand the heat, get out o the kitchen.

>>3965317
This is pathetic. Read a book. Better still, read up on the Ethics committee for the BRAIN initiative. That law you dismissed as "meaningless hogwash, wild speculation, akin to discussing how developing black magic spells" is actually being discussed.

If you bothered to read anything you were talking about, you wouldn't look so foolish.

If you want a sensible debate, then I'm game, but stop mouthing off gibberish. You're only exposing your ignorance.

>>3965306
That doesn't change the fact that it's true.

>teenagers talk about the laws of physics
>laws of physics are therefore to be discarded for all eternity
self-concious prick

>>3965132
>Ultimate desire

purely symbolic, an individual / group / humanity's ultimate goal to avoid death at any cost

>>3965317
>nor its adoption by transhumanists
Unless you are an anarcho-primitivist who lives in a cave, you are a transhumanist, you dumb cunt.

>>3965328
You already lost all credibility in my eyes. You are a pathetic egotist that can't even man up basic mistakes he makes are pointed out. There is nothing to be gained conversing with you

>>3965338
Swing and miss.

>>3965331
sounds like pseudoscience to me, ever heard a biologist talk about it or you don't need to listen to them pesky experts?

>>3965334
nah, transhumanism is a new age religion, I'm not a part of it

>>3965328
>Better still, read up on the Ethics committee for the BRAIN initiative.
Dude, some of their proposals are pretty horrifying.

Have you seen the new neuromorphic chip from Intel? Imagine those fuckers in a CPU in your laptop. It's about time we moved away from a simple 2d Transistor grid.

>>3965352
>I'm not a part of it
How are you on the internet then?

>>3965355
so scientists since time immemorial are just pesky thieves that stole acoomplishments of brave transhumanist cultists? that's fascinating, any books I can read on that?

>>3965358

>>3965366
nice I love me some pseudoscientific pamphlets posing as academic titles

have you read this very serious futurological treaty on future and science and psychohistory by any chance?
<--

>>3965353
>Have you seen the new neuromorphic chip from Intel?
I have. I think it will be 5 - 10 years before parallel processing is cheap enough to incorporate into consumer electronics though.

>simple 2d Transistor grid.
They have actually named these "memristors", and it functions just like a neuron. I'm pretty sure the array is still two dimensional, though I could be wrong. I didn't think 3d beyond a few microns was feasible yet?

>>3965381
>and it functions just like a neuron
this is what cultists actually believe

>>3965344
It has appeared many times on literature / fiction / movies but specially on anything sci-fi.

>>3965374
>pseudoscientific
>Freeman Dyson

"Freeman John Dyson FRS (born December 15, 1923) is a theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."

In 1952 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society[24]

Dyson was awarded the Lorentz Medal in 1966, Max Planck medal in 1969 and the Harvey Prize in 1977.

In the 1984–85 academic year he gave the Gifford lectures at Aberdeen, which resulted in the book Infinite In All Directions.

In 1989, Dyson taught at Duke University as a Fritz London Memorial Lecturer. In the same year, he was elected as an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge.

Dyson has published a number of collections of speculations and observations about technology, science, and the future. In 1996 he was awarded the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science.

In 1993, Dyson was given the Enrico Fermi Award.

In 1995 he gave the Jerusalem-Harvard Lectures at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, sponsored jointly by the Hebrew University and Harvard University Press that grew into the book Imagined Worlds.[25]

In 2000, Dyson was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.

In 2003, Dyson was awarded the Telluride Tech Festival Award of Technology in Telluride, Colorado.

>>3965384
inb4 "cultist" becomes the new buzzword

>>3965387
and in this post you can see how ignorant cultists misapprehend science and conflate a personal position of a fringe crackpot that happens to be in academia with consensus science

you fools have no shame

>>3965384
>Intel are cultists who have lied about their CPU's

>>3965392
>corporations with their marketing buzzwords will make THE FUTURE happen, for the good of humanity!

hah

>>3965387
can you please point me to a university that lectures that pseudoscience title? thanks

Southern Mormon University doesn't count

>>3965402
Sure, he lectured at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton until he retired in 1994.

ITT: a militant luddite gets angry at technology.

>>3965307
Hey never heard of it. Can you give a examples of the claims

>>3965435
yeah he lectured about transhumanist trash at his physics course

see your shrink, nutjob

>>3965438
transhumasnim isnt technology son, you are like christards claiming that god gave us science

>Recommend me literature
>transhumanism and singularitarianism

>>3965463
"Transhumanism is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."

>>3965485
i don't think you fundamentally transform the human condition by being a basement nerd true believer fighting the good fight for technojesus on the Internet

might be wrong, though

>>3965480
Thanks, will check that out.

>>3965497
>on the Internet
You don't believe laptops have changed the way we interact with reality? You don't think being able to download any book, watch any lecture, take any course, explore any subject instantly has "enhanced human intellectual and psychological capacities" as opposed to only a few years ago when you had to go to the library and take out a maximum of five books?

but they are new age cults posing as science clubs

I wish edgy would put this thread in its place

>>3965507
get it to your silly heads that transhumanism is an ideology; it has nothing to do with scientific breakthroughs, scientific communities, scientific method; not only with computer sciences but also all the super cool and trendy neuro sciences, you are free-riders and scammers that latch to cool ideas if they fit your presuppositions

you are monkeys parroting the adults that achieve actual scientific breakthrough and work their assess off. none of the actual scientists buy your new age hogwash, scientific community doesnt even see worthy to consider your ramblings

you are like the homeless guys preaching at the street corners

some christard sects claim that every scientific breakthrough is a direct gift from god
you tards see everything through a narrative of teh progress to TEH FUTUER that incorporates transhumanist baseless assumptions and tropes

holy shit how can you be so indoctrinated, i bet you just contain yourself to your retarded in-group that reinforces your biases - all the pseudoscientific/pop-sci sites that show the flashy geeky gadgets that are artificially inserted into your narrative

>>3965526
Hi onion

>>3965519
You already flounced edgy; don't come back.

>>3965544
Hi onion

>>3965526
>transhumanism is an ideology; it has nothing to do with scientific breakthroughs,
This is quite possibly – and I mean this with no ill intent – the most ignorant, stupid, and uneducated statement I have ever read on /lit/.

I'm not sure what your vendetta against transhumanism is, but I honestly wish you would just read a book. I don't mind your tirades against technology, but your obvious lack of knowledge in multiple areas is distressing.

Transhumanism isn't a movement in the distant future, it is now. It is our current interaction with technology; and this that will continue to advance, refine, and improve no mater how much you protest otherwise. Now, please step down from your soapbox.

If you have a specific area in mind that you don't understand, or just wish to discuss, then by all means ask. But please stop this preaching.

>>3965544
I'm not robojesus but it's clear he disturbed your jimmies.

>>3965556
His problem is that he thinks transhumanism is a future movement.

If someone said back in the 70's that they would like a tiny portable device that they could track al their daily calories with, and also look up recipes, and also order food to their house with, that would be a transhumanist view (and quite possibly laughed at). But now we do that and don't think about it; now that our daily tasks have been made so much easier by interacting with technology, he is excluding that from his definition of transhumanism, and shifting the goalposts to only cover future events.

In his mind, once something happens, it can no longer be called transhumanism, because he has a dogmatic idea of transhumanism being exclusively some future event that can't exist. It's just cognitive dissonance.

>>3965556
you have no arguments, your knee jerk denial and delusions are in direct contradiction with empirical evidence of countless transhumanist groups on the internet everyone can visit with one fucking click

>I don't mind your tirades against technology
you are a shameless coward, in no post have I ever tiraded against technology, only useless retards like you that have the audactity to claim the scientifc work of others for their own new age hogwash religion

>Transhumanism isn't a movement in the distant future, it is now. It is our current interaction with technology; and this that will continue to advance, refine, and improve no mater how much you protest otherwise.
this is exactly what I'm talking about, a pathetic free-rider grabbing the work of scientific community and incorporating it into his ideology. At no point in time have scientific community approved of this, at no point in time have your new age bullshit ever been considered by the scientific community as worthy of attention, at no point in time have the hard-working neuroscientists exclaimed "Yes! 10 points for transhumanism!" after achieving a breakthrough.

You don't need transhumanism for scientifc change. You don't need transhumanism for new technologies. You don't need transhumanism for the healthcare of humans. You are parasites that latch to anything that fits your infantile fantasies and push your narrative down everyone's throats.

Get back to your shitty paperbacks read solely by sweaty basement dwellers, and new age christard converts who needed to upgrade their passe jesus to hip and edgy technojesus. Disgusting hoi polloi.

>>3965602
I told you to stop.

Once again, If you have a specific area in mind that you don't understand, or just wish to discuss, then by all means ask and I will explain it to you, in simple easy to digest pieces. But stop ranting, it's not good for you.

>>3965602
Science exists to serve the needs of edgy jesus lelel #rekt

>>3965575
>>3965602
No, after reading this it seems he is struggling with basic linguistic concepts.

He doesn't understand that it is, like virtually every concept, a description applied to empirical abstractions. He almost seems to be making a category mistake too; "Well I can see the 440uf capacitor, but where is the transhumanism?"

>>3965110
Impossible

>>3965575
>>3965619
there is science and scientific breakthroughs with its technological marvels
then there is transhumanism
what does transhumanism add to the picture?
what do you gain by invoking transhumanism EVER?

I'll tell you, it gives chills to basement nerds like you and illusion that your little club of tech geeks is somehow a part of scientific and technological process

you retards cant parse that no one ever invokes transhumanism when scientific change happens, it is a buzzword, a parasitic social circle of self-referrencing frauds that lets new age hucksters siphon some money from suckers with their dirt-level paperbacks and shitty pseudo-sci web portals

if humanity forgot about your cult this very second, if it completely disappeared with all its laughable memes and tropes, nothing would change, no scientific and technological processes would be impacted in any way

there would be a bunch of crying nerds though, no longer able to pronounce themselves the avant garde of humanity, the great pioneers with their shiny smartphones and pseudscientific paperback transhumanist bibles would be just kids with phones, like everyone else

you are a laughing stock and you can't see it

>>3965654
>you are a laughing stock and you can't see it

lol

>>3965654
Transhumanism is merely the doubling or tripling of our mental capacities thanks to science. It's not that difficult. For some reason your insecure STEM brain cant keep up.

>>3965678
why give names to unfalsifiable, unfeasible, pseudoscientific claims and/or fantasies about hypothetical future state of neuroscience-related issue, is scientific community somehow incapable to use its own terminology for its own inventions and processes?

and no, transhumanism isn't just a redundant name to a nerd's wet dream. it is a parasitic movement that poisons discourse about technological change and politics that surround it

Transhumanism is basically the just idea that it's desirable to use technology to improve ourselves, right?

How is that a cult?

>>3965688
Lol whatever dude, later

/lit/, I honestly had no idea there was a debate or controversey regarding transhumanist literature right now, but I'm in the middle of writing a novel about transhumanism.

Specifically, it deals with radical transhuman terrorists who augment their bodies to absurd degrees in an attempt to separate their mind from their mortal shells, and their weapons are neuro-memetic viruses that infect the minds of people and cause them to go insane. Eventually it's revealed that the entire movement has been orchestrated by a living mechanical being--literally a machine created by Elder Gods to oversee the structure and composition of the universe--that sees organic life as the very essence of corruption and chaos.

Is that like, too fedora-core or something?

>>3965693
>Transhumanism is basically the just idea that it's desirable to use technology to improve ourselves, right?

and islam is the religion of peace, amirite
and christianity is just about spreading love, amirite

>>3965704
no, it's fine as long as you aknowledge you write about science fictional fantasies

>>3965688
>why give names to unfalsifiable, unfeasible, pseudoscientific claims and/or fantasies about hypothetical future stat...

It's not. Transhumanism is just the improving on our biological limitations through predominately technological means. If someone starts talking about hover-skateboards or teleporters they are asked for evidence just like everything else. You are setting transhumanism up as a strawman that you have been dousing with gasoline and poking matches at for the entire thread. Your personal views have nothing to do with the reality. Again, transhumanism is just the term applied to anything that assists in our abilities as humans to perform in different areas.

>>3965714

Oh yeah. It's basically Lovecraftian Cyberpunk. I'm trying to paint world where technology is both the cause of and solution to all remaining problems. Just as Lovecraft wrote stories that appealed to the horror of discovering the universe literally could not be understood from a human perspective, my story hopes to invoke the horror of realizing that there is literally nothing special about humanity, or life in general. That when our labor and thought is done by computers, all we'll have left is laziness, stupidity, and fear. And the end of the story, the main character is given the option to either upload all the remaining human consciousness into a single entity, or leave them to die a slow death on a planet that can no longer support life.

She chooses to shoot herself in the head.

>>3965734
John Campbell got there first. Read "Twilight" (no, not that one)

>>3965736

Motherfucker. Everything good in sci-fi has already been done.

>>3965723
this is ridiculous, humans have "improved" their biological condition the second they donned fur, picked up a stick, lighted a fire

every piece of technology ever, including the above, can be fit into your retarded narrative. we have names for those - TECHNOLOGY -, we had names for centuries or even milennia. what does invoking transhumanism bring to the picture? it is a redundant term, it has literally no meaning, why not call technology just that - technology?

Thats one thing. The other is much more important. By accepting the established term "transhumanism" you are giving credibility to all the fucking hucksters that have latched to it in the last few decades. You are unwillingly perpetuating countless pseudoscientific concepts, you are peddling memes and tropes that you might personally not even be aware exist. The hucksters like Kurzweil, Yudkowsky, Moore, Anisimov, Prisco and other countless retards that hide behind benign and strightforward proclamations about transhumanism, like the one in your post, actually preach pseudoscientific bullshit as facts. They are opportunistic and delusional, they siphon funds from egotistical investors like Thiel and other silly valley turds, they go mainstream and try to establish themselves as pundits on science and technology, they distort the vision of how scientific process and technological breakthrough actually happens and shun the hard working scientists into second plan. They are Gurus of the cults, they are there for fame and acclaim and they don't give a fuck.

>>3965752
It's not ridiculous because transhumanism can and include those things depending on how strictly you define it. You may as well throw another hissyfit about something like "loud" or "light" or "fast" not being very specific.

The guy you're responding to is right and I don't think I can restate what he's saying any more eloquently. If you don't understand yet you're an idiot.

>>3965756
nah transhumanism doesn't include shit, because no one gives a shit about your nerd club meme

hide behind ad-hoc definitions like a neutered coward you are, you have no authority to define anything anyway

>>3965752
>we have names for those - TECHNOLOGY
Technology is the name for the physical devices, transhumanism is the application of these devices to our benefit. The fact that you despise Ray Kurzweil has nothing to do with the linguistic concept itself.

I, like you, am very dubious about the vision of Kurzweil, but just for arguments sake, which aspects in particular do you disagree with? AFAIK he has stated that he thinks the human nervous system is compatible with electronics, is this it?

>>3965762

But like it or not, Transhumanism is a meme. It's an idea that a lot of people have collectively decided exists, and I think that it will only grow over time. Whether or not the definition is correct doesn't matter. Like a turn of phrase that no one can quite remember where it originated, the essence of Transhumanism will ultimately be whatever the masses collectively, unconsciously decide it to be.

>>3965723
>Again, transhumanism is just the term applied to anything that assists in our abilities as humans to perform in different areas.
I'm not that guy, but no. You're wrong. (And I hope you're not spouting shit to deliberately mislead people.)

'Transhumanism' is a _very_ specific term with a very narrow meaning.

'Transhumanism' is the idea that the Kingdom of God can be achieved by technological inventions. 'Transhumanism' is a rebranded heaven fantasy, and not even applicable outside of a narrow Christian context.

>>3965762
onion wants some dick

>>3965765
>I, like you, am very dubious about the vision of Kurzweil, but just for arguments sake, which aspects in particular do you disagree with? AFAIK he has stated that he thinks the human nervous system is compatible with electronics, is this it?

>>3965110

Science are this things: physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geology, anatomy, zoology, etc..

Philosophical schools, from any period they may be, are not science.

So transhumanism and singularitarianism are not science.

>>3965772
excuse me *needs

>>3965762
You seem to be really angry.

ITT: people abuse the terms transhumanism, futurism, posthumanism, and singularity.

>>3965770

It doesn't matter what the definition IS or WAS, what matters is what the definition WILL BECOME. Words are defined by the people that use them, and if more people say Transhumanism is mechanical augmentation than say Transhumanism is Christian techno fantasy, then the definition changes. Because either way, there's no such thing as an entity called "Transhumanism". We can just make it up, off the top of our heads, and define it as whatever we want.

>>3965770
>Transhumanism' is the idea that the Kingdom of God can be achieved by technological inventions.
No. You know as well as I that this isn't true.

>>3965770
>Transhumanism' is a rebranded heaven fantasy, and not even applicable outside of a narrow Christian context.

Are you thinking of Transubstantiationalism?

>>3965788
Of course it is true. At the core of transhumanism is the idea of eternal life and 'living happily ever after' after a Singularity. These are all core Christian concepts that don't make sense outside of a Christian context.

>>3965793
>Are you thinking of Transubstantiationalism?
Go fuck yourself, you nitwit.

>>3965786
>Words are defined by the people that use them, and if more people say Transhumanism is mechanical augmentation than say Transhumanism is Christian techno fantasy, then the definition changes.
Whatever. The fact is, in 2013, 'transhumanism' has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is 'the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come, via the wonders of modern robotics and a technological Singularity'.

>>transhumanism is the application of these devices to our benefit
What now, another definition? Keep pushing the goalpost. Using this term here is as redundant as ever. The term is meaningless, it gives no insight, it fails to address the actually existing coplexities in this topic, the term has literally zero advantages over using for example the phrase "to apply beneficial technology", especially since, as I said, EVERY technology improves the biological condition. You also conveniently ignore the -ism at the end of the term and how it usually is applied in the language

>>3965766
>Transhumanism is a meme. It's an idea that a lot of people have collectively decided exists,
so is dianetics, what is your point? as I stated above, giving names and building narratives around things and processes that don't relate to reality is pointless, it is indistinguishable from theological divagations aka rambling

>which aspects in particular do you disagree with
rather, which aspects do I agree with? probably none since they are all baseless claims, some of them pushed with manipulative techniques such as his outrageously deceptive powerpoint presentations and citationless books

>>3965765
>transhumanism is the application of these devices to our benefit
What now, another definition? Keep pushing the goalpost. Using this term here is as redundant as ever. The term is meaningless, it gives no insight, it fails to address the actually existing coplexities in this topic, the term has literally zero advantages over using for example the phrase "to apply beneficial technology", especially since, as I said, EVERY technology improves the biological condition. You also conveniently ignore the -ism at the end of the term and how it usually is applied in the language

>which aspects in particular do you disagree with
rather, which aspects do I agree with? probably none since they are all baseless claims, some of them pushed with manipulative techniques such as his outrageously deceptive powerpoint presentations and citationless books

>>3965766
>Transhumanism is a meme. It's an idea that a lot of people have collectively decided exists,
so is dianetics, what is your point? as I stated above, giving names and building narratives around things and processes that don't relate to reality is pointless, it is indistinguishable from theological divagations aka rambling

>>3965766
>Transhumanism is a meme. It's an idea that a lot of people have collectively decided exists, and I think that it will only grow over time.
Perhaps the same could be said of every concept ever.

>>3965813
>giving names and building narratives around things and processes that don't relate to reality is pointless
>Builds a Christian narrative around transhumanism.

Transhumansim has nothing to do with Christianity. There have been a couple of people viewing it through a Christian lens, and even through a Buddhist lens as reincarnation through technology.

Regardless of what ideology you crowbar in to it, it's not in the underlying premise. There have been neo-feminists trying to attach postgenderism, Capitalists trying for Libertarian transhumanism, but these are not inherent in plain transhumanism.

The case is there that immortality through technology is seen as the Singularitarianism goal, but it is not what transhumanism applied to contemporary society means.

>FM-2030 died 27 years ago

>Implying the rate of technological progression hasn't been exponential
>implying my predictions haven't been correct for the past 30 years
>Implying technology isn't compatible with the central nervous system
>Implying we wont tweak the genome for designer babies
>Implying we wont interface cognition directly with computers
>Implying we wont be interconnected through these interfaces
>Implying I'm wrong
>Implying you wont worship me as Nostradamus in 50 years
>mfw

>>3965857
>>Implying the rate of technological progression hasn't been exponential
hogwash he pushed with the amazing evidence of powerpoint slides i could have made in five minutes
>>implying my predictions haven't been correct for the past 30 years
he's been a laughing stock for decades, he pushes the dates even more frequently than pat robertson
>>Implying technology isn't compatible with the central nervous system
baseless pseudoscientific claim
>>Implying we wont tweak the genome for designer babies
eugenics are centuries old, read a book
>>Implying we wont interface cognition directly with computers
call me when science learns what cognition is
>>Implying you wont worship me as Nostradamus in 50 years
oh yeah, his cultists already worship him

>>3965857
>>3965895
>b-but muh singularity
>b-but muh ghost in the shell fanfiction ;_;

>>3965845

>>3965842
I never said transhumanism is solely based on Christianity but abrahamic religions have had huge influence on a part of its dogma and theology, especially with the ideas of singularity, mind uploading. Scientology, Mormonism and transhumanism strains have a lot in common

you need to read more on the topic, if you want to be redpilled about this cultish transhumanism bullshit just learn about mormon transhumanist association that peddles transfigurism

http://transfigurism.org/

I've counted about a dozen actual transhumanistic religions in the last few years with actual dogmas, rituals and canon, but they are born and die in a rapidly, some of the sites are defunct by now.

What the fuck do you think "cult" is?

>>3965895
>hogwash he pushed with the amazing evidence of powerpoint slides i could have made in five minutes
Except it his "powerpoint slides" like pic related are correct.
>he's been a laughing stock for decades.
By ignorant naysayers like you. It doesn't dispute the fact that he was, and still is, right.
>baseless pseudoscientific claim
It's already been done. Read a book.
>eugenics are centuries old
eugenics is not actively switching off precise genes.
>call me when science learns what cognition is
It's called neuroscience.

>>3965916
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols

all of those fit perfectly well

>>3965845
he wasn't praying to robojesus hard enough

>>3965919
>the physical fitness cult.
If /fit/ is a cult, surely people who love literature are cultists too?

>>3965917
>Except it his "powerpoint slides" like pic related are correct.
nah, those slides are selective and manipulated, also if you tried to actually convince an actual scientist by showing him cartoon slides he would punch you in the face

>By ignorant naysayers like you. It doesn't dispute the fact that he was, and still is, right.
Pretty much by everyone ever that is not in your cult. Well maybe not the scientific community because they havent even heard about this fringe crackpot. But have no fear, your true belief in the guru will give you more robovirgins when the robojesus come

>It's already been done. Read a book.
haha oh wow, who told you that? let me guess some fellow cultist?

>eugenics is not actively switching off precise genes
yeah it's not flashy enough to satisfy your techno fetish; lets reinvent the wheel, this time lets call it technoeugenics, and lets call ourselfs technonazis. its gunna b awesum

>It's called neuroscience.
we have physics; that doesn't mean we know or ever will how to travel at the double speed of light
see your shrink

>>3965946
>nah, those slides are selective and manipulated,
Oh, please explain how it's "manipulated". When every single date is public knowledge.

>Pretty much by everyone ever that is not in your cult.
By nobody other than a handful of angry bloggers like yourself.

>haha oh wow, who told you that? let me guess some fellow cultist?
Okay, I'm not sure if you are trolling with this one. If you are not, you automatically lose the argument through overwhelming ignorance and no knowledge of the subject matter.

>yeah it's not flashy enough to satisfy your techno fetish
So you don't understand embryo screening or somatic gene therapy either? Great.

>>3965954
I don't know how to prove a negative to you of Kurzweil being a fringe crackpot leading a cult. Maybe you reading a book, attending higher education, looking out of a window will help illustrate that no one, apart from your circle-jerk websites, knows or cares about your cult's guru

though the fact that every single of your claims is peddled solely by your fellow cultists and virtually absent in the outside world should have been a hint

>>3965973
>though the fact that every single of your claims is peddled solely by your fellow cultists and virtually absent in the outside world should have been a hint
Either your reading comprehension is way off, or you are just telling lies.

First, you have yet to explain how those figures were "manipulated".

Second, you failed to realise that we have already integrated electronics with the human nervous system, and dismissed it with a wave of the hand. You demonstrated that you have absolutely zero knowledge of this topic by dismissing it as a "baseless pseudoscientific claim"

And lastly, you didn't even know that somatic gene therapy existed, or that humans have already been altered with genetically modified cells. The best you could do was "eugenics are centuries old."

Seriously, step up your game, or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>3965857
Kurzweil is certainly intelligent and I'd describe myself as at least a post-humanist, but I think a lot of his followers are misinformed about the implications of his ideas, or maybe the scale. Detractors who think it's just about eternal Cyberian life are very misinformed.
anthropocene
http://www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/blog/view/582

this is sort of humorous
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/15/a-thinking-apes-critique-of-trans-simianism-repost/

>>3966013
>and I'd describe myself as at least a post-humanist
Then you are just another pseudoscientific cultist moron waiting for robojesus too.

>>3966023
why would I need robojesus when Christ is right here already?
it's laughable to say that Kurzweil isn't qualified to have an opinion or that he's a fringe thinker; he's published and invented more than you or probably anyone here will.

if I unpacked "post-human" you'd understand I'm not even talking about Kurzweil or the transhumanists following him, but you've been pretty saucy and I don't think you're interested in serious discussion

>>3966058
it's laughable to say that L. Ron Hubbard isn't qualified to have an opinion or that he's a fringe thinker; he's published and invented more than you or probably anyone here will.

>published
releasing sf paperbacks posing as science or deep&edgy philololosophy is being published now? this gives credibility to his claims? oh wow

I don't really care about the exact timelines laid out by Transhumanist writers, but think it is interesting as something people put their hopes in. If religion is rejected, science and technology become the only way for humanity to transcend humanity (conquer death, build utopia etc). The only good measure of its worth as an ideology will be if its predictions come true. If it doesn't, that will not reflect positively on humanity.
Transhumanism is the logical outcome of humanism and its failure would be the failure of humanism.

>>3967079

>he's published and invented more than you or probably anyone here will.

What the fuck? So did Hitler, should I bend over and fellate him too?

>>3967114
Yeah it is cool to think cool things but some people have enough decency to not proclaim their science fictional fantasies as 100%-To-Happen-Scientific-Truth-Buy-My-Books

Transhumanist is a religion itself: it has its own dogma, narrative, canon of memes and tropes, gurus, prophets, true believers, The One and Only Truth, god aka robojesus aka singularity, rejection of death and immortality fantasies, promise of paradise with energy too cheap to measure, promise of wishfulfilliment through utility nanomists, delusion of being the chosen people aka True Believers (just see this thread), prophecies of cornucopian post-scarcity abundancy, rejection and dismissal of actually feasible methods of solving problems and their substitution with fantastical dreams of geoengineering and nano-guano miracles, claims of achievements of others as its own. Just a new age religion. Thats why I call it a cult.

>The only good measure of its worth as an ideology will be if its predictions come true.
yeah and in the meantime when we patiently wait for robojesus to appear or not let the world rot. Let the discourse about science and technological progress be stunted, lets all wait with the dismissal of the crazy, biased, evidenceless ideas of internet cultists - and since they can't be dismissed because the goalpost is and always will be moved 20 years into the future - just like lord Kurzweil has been doing for decades, lets sit on our assess. Lets ignore the pressing need to address the ethical issues of emerging technologies and politics that surround it - with real issues experienced by real, already existing people. Because we've got transhumanism and it claims to be THE way to see TEH FUTURE. Everything that we create, everything that we plan for must be seen through the lens of transhumanism bcuz it's all flashy and media gurus talk about it and omfg new iphone! so close to the future! And the fact that the fake pundits are always willing to dismiss and shun the real issues that don't promote their shitty biases and agendas of self-aggrandizemen, their countless pseudo "institutes", "unviersities" and "think tanks" just strongly enough, it all makes the practicality of such discourse even more promising. Reality doesn't fit the cultish narrative? Well, too fucking bad.

There are numerous similarly absurd narratives yet you don't give them any attention. Why not wait 20-50-100 years for the second coming of Christ, it might solve all our problems with technology and shit?

All this energy spent of wish-fullfilling fantasies, all funds donates to those hucksters could be used on actual fucking pressing issues relating to technology, policies and planning.

>>3967166
Wow, you are pitifully hopeless. Only robojesus can save you now.

>>3967190
can't argue with your arguments, I yield

#rekt

>>3965222
>>3965328
>>3965723
>>3965765
>>3965842
>>3965857
>>3965917
>>3965954
>>3966013
>>3966058
>>3967114

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QOXcoz6Z44

>>3965307
The whole idea of 'burden of proof' is bullshit. Thinking in terms of whether or not something is 'proven' means that you are limiting yourself to non-probabilistic kinds of logic applied only to a form of binary belief state. This fails to take into account degrees of uncertainty and how new information may affect this.

>>3967256
Yes, it is a heuristic and it is necessary for a human to function. What you propose is giving every claim a chance when you have limited resources of time and energy, which is unworkable. There are infinite number of possible claims, you just don't give heed to them all so stop pretending.

>>3967262
I'm certainly not suggesting that you have to consciously take into account every possible thing that could alter the likelihood of a given thing being true. I'm simply saying that there's no reason to imagine oneself to be certain when only probabilistic evidence exists. Believe that you can't be certain you know anything.

I'd argue that your heuristic is a poor one that is unnecessarily limiting to thought.

>>3967166
You have yet to provide a single valid argument. You have some vague idea of a "robojesus" but have no idea what you are supposed to be arguing against.

The fact is that at some time in the future the human brain will probably be directly merged with technology in such a way as to drastically enhance our cognition.

Nobody is saying this will happen with 100% certainty, but every neuroscientist says that it's completely possible, and probably will go ahead unless their is government intervention to prevent it.

>>3967310
>The fact is that at some time in the future the human brain will probably be directly merged with technology in such a way as to drastically enhance our cognition.
>The fact is that
>fact
>Nobody is saying this will happen with 100% certainty

cultists and their idiocy

>>3967312
Do you live in Africa?

>>3967310
Nah, the burden of proof is on your to prove that "the human brain will probably be directly merged with technology in such a way as to drastically enhance our cognition". Also while you are at that, first find out what cognition actually is before you plan what you will do with that.

>>3967312
>The fact is that at some time in the future the human brain will probably be directly
It is a fact that it will probably happen

Please. I'm interested in a decent discussion. The reason that people have spent the whole thread laughing at you is because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

You entire argument is "dumb cultist robojesus hogwash".

If you disagreed with my statement, at least explain why every neuroscientist is wrong and you are right.

>>3967320
Cognition is obviously our entire mental process. This thing called "cognition" has been shaped significantly by technology in the past few decades. It's not so unfeasible that new tech will rapidly interface with us even more. You need to get your caveman ass ready because the future is fucking coming.

>>3967316
>resorting to racism

>>3967323
>fact
>probably

i hope it's this same conviction that brought you to the side of transhumanism

>>3965110
Dunno, but have you heard about russian cosmism? Pretty cool.

>>3967320
>Nah, the burden of proof is on your to prove
Fine, I'll bite. One example for you:

Pic related is a neuron. The white bulbous bit is the cell body, the largest white arm is the axon, and the smaller arms coming from the cell body are called dendrites. The human brain is made of multiple neurons, and multiple types of neurons. With me so far?

Around the middle temporal area of the brain we have an area called Brocca's region (beneath the orbital lobe) that has a few million retinal ganglion, and retinal bi-polar neurons, the axons of which extent down to behind the retina. Neuroscientists have already managed to intersect the axon of this neuron with an electronic component (it's a type of modified polar diode), not one but over fifty times in a single person.

Your "The burden off proof" demand isn't really needed in this situation, as neuroscientists have already merged the human brain with technology, and in this case, enabled the blind too see.

If you had read a single book on the subject, you would know that the same thing is easily achievable with mesencephalic and cerebellar neurons, and oligodendrocytes. If you're are claiming that it's not, the burden of proof is on you to refute the data.

Once again, at least demonstrate that you have some knowledge of this subject at all, otherwise we can't take you seriously.

>>3967323
>every neuroscientist
Citation needed.

>>3967352
Not everyone needs wikipedia all the time.

>>3967347
Another example for you with another neuron.

Neurons extending out from the safety of synaptic clefts (the ones that pass through microglial cells) are sometimes branded 'afferent' and 'afferent' due to their polarity. These types strongly interact with neuroglia (and astrocytes at the dendrites back in the Gray matter input zone) and are responsible for feeling sensation and movement.

Not only has the axon been intercepted (in numerous repeatable experiments in labs all over the world), neuroscientists have managed to attach terminals to the basil clusters and take control of the patients motor control – picture a guy sat in a chair, and wiggling his big toe everytime someone clicks the left mouse button.
---

Your very eloquent and insightful "robojesus" objections are right in that this hasn't been done with the pre-frontal cortex yet (other than a few brutal Japanese experiments on prisoners), or set up in such a way as to provide 'artificial memories' yet; but can you provide one reasonable objection for why it would be impossible, and the neuroscientists planning it are wrong? The fact is that we have integrated technology with neurons; we have control of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and motor control, and can also remove certain regions of the brain to impact cognition, shows that we are making progress. This was impossible a couple of decades ago.

You have to remember that this is a very new field, and it will take years before all the potential experiments and proposed interfaces have been made. To simply write everything of as "robojesus" and refusing to look into it is very ignorant.

If you are interested, there is some wonderful experiments being done in Germany to do with hijacking motor control of Parkinsons patients.

>>3967403
>>3967347
Thanks for this. Could you tell me what is actually achievable in the next 20 years or so, or what breakthroughs we could expect?

>>3967361
> Aaaand the point went over his head completely.
Dude, you really are laughable.

>>3967320
it seems reasonable to me that we'll keep doing this sort of thing. Why stop? books and media are memory and prespective enhancing technology. we extend our senses and our control of our physical environment all the time. I suspect we'll go on doing that.

I'd also argue that most of these things have improved cognition, and to an extent we've always coevolved (and coadapted) to accomodate technology and available resources. As Toffler pointed out, we seem to hit a watershed event on something or other ever ninety days or so now. I bet there'll be some lag to most of these improvements, but you can't deny the possiblity of something truly emergent. I'm surprised people are going so far as to make up words like transehuman, thought seems like what people have been doing since the first one picked up a stick and knocked an apple pff a limb with it. we change it, it changes us. that's how its always worked.

>>3967498
Sure. Keep in mind that while many areas are seeing a rapid progression, there probably wont be any bio-tech interaction for the consumer market within those 20 years.

>sight
With the exception of hearing, our sensory augmentation probably won't progress past our biological standard within that time. Yes, we can easily "hack" retinal neurons and photoreceptor cells, but we wont be able to isolate every cell until the procedure is automated, and we can restructure neuroglia concentration around the implants (though one hopeful prospect has been demonstrated whereby we can stimulate the production of glial cells to a predertimed structure) Basically this means we will continue to give sight to the blind, and improve this process, but probably won't be able to improve the sight of a normal person in 20 years.

>Hearing
This is one area where we will see us going past our biological limitations. As opposed to sight, it is relatively simple to augment the axons going to the pseudounipolar neurons in the dorsal root ganglia. We can already give someone 'better' hearing than they are born with, and change the audible wave frequency. Stil, this probably wont be available to the public within 20 years unless you are rich.

>motor neurons.
Another area you can expect to see major advancement in. Due to the very small number of efferent neurons, we expect to have total control over them within 10 years. Current experiments have almost full control already, but the procedures - again without automation - are very costly. You can expect things like prosthetic limbs to be able to replicate and progress past convention limbs.

>Neuro-tech interfacing.
The main problem facing neuroscientists is that while we can access a few million neurons in the external grey input/output regions, we can't yet access the white matter, or penetrate deep into the brain without causing a lot of damage. One solution is to have a neurologist implant surface arrays, but everyone in the field is incredibly reluctant to perform such invasive surgery for a test procedure. The solution that everyone wants is wireless, but so far it's only unidirectional – we can track electrical activity externally, but we can't accurately input electrical signals without invasive surgery.

Yes, it's highly feasible to wire someone directly to a computer to let them access thoughts and expand their mental capabilities, but it probably wont happen in 20 years. Besides, the tech we have now is far too primitive. Once we have the EU simulation of a brain, and a neuromorphic hardware replication, we will be in a better situation to asses our options - as we will then have tech that can handle the complexities of 'thought'.

I'm not saying it wont happen in 20 years (especially as the American military is involved), but it's like trying to predict google glasses from the 1050's.

I don't think we should be so ready to rule out the idea of a robot jesus however.

For one thing, we could make a lot of them: the original jesus only covered a small area of the middle east,(with excursions to north america and england occasionally reported) we could mass produce these things, and the ability to heal the sick, and raise the dead would be really handy. Also, the loaves and fishes trick could be expanded to include nachos and pizza with a few tweaks, and lager, brandy and porter might be included in his water transformation repertoire.

I understand he might be good at ethics education and amusing storytelling, which could come in handy for babysitting, and the ability to walk on water would certainly be useful in search and rescue.
We might need to attach a notice indicating no actual salvation or eternal life is garaunteed by express or implication, though if we can get papal endorsement, that might be worked in too (as above, so below, after all) Also,we might need to do something about that pesky three day turnaround for repairs

>>3967556
Out of interest, did you study psychology?

>>3967600
Did you study psychology?
No, this is my course:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/sse/ug/courses/sse-ug-meng-artificial-intelligence.aspx

>>3967600
I wasn't being sarcastic or disparaging - you're probably just not used to sincerity on 4chan

yes, I do study psychology - 3rd year undergrad in neuroscience. just found what you wrote earlier interesting. got any links?

>>3967632 is supposed to be for >>3967619

>>3967556
>One solution is to have a neurologist implant surface arrays, but everyone in the field is incredibly reluctant to perform such invasive surgery for a test procedure. The solution that everyone wants is wireless, but so far it's only unidirectional – we can track electrical activity externally, but we can't accurately input electrical signals without invasive surgery.

Our biochem corpus is far in advance of theirs, as is our electronic sentience, and their... ethical inflexibility has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider.

>>3965575
No, if someone said that back in the 70's, the reply would be, so like Dick Tracys wrist television and an electric archive. That's cool!

And please keep in mind that the PLATO computer system that was scrapped in 2006 ran for almost 40 years and had all of the stuff we take for granted (instant messaging etc) back in the days.

And don't you fucking ever forget that this is how the pleb-treshold for sci-fi looks.

written - comics - video games - television - film

It only takes a couple of pages of text to dash out advanced concepts, because the reader is doing the hardest work. But the more expensive a production is, the more must it be simplified.

With that said, I prefer an average episode of TOS or TNG over any "deep" sci-fi novel. But the "waowaw, if people coudn't imagine a cell phone in the 70s (they basically did in TOS) then the future must be full of exciting things".

>>3967658
>things"
just doesn't cut it. Sorry.

So yes, transhumanists are a bunch of commie plebs that neither can appreciate the advances we already have nor can advance technology any further. Because it is SOOO much easier to hit the gym and looking fab at 40-something and yapping abouy cyborgs.

>>3967347
>>3967403
Awesome, you posted some irrelevant trivia about human anatomy everyone and his mom can read with one google search. Your post is a silly attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you are already heavily invested in conclusions about human brain, conclusions which are not supported by the scientific consensus. Any scientist that would do that would have his reputation forever ruined within the community. From the scanty knowledge we have you impatiently draw parallels with the only thing you know - science fiction novels or crypto-novels with pseudoscientific ramblings of techno gurus like kurzweil et al. Ok we know _a little_ about brain and its processes. How does it make uploading and robo-techno-omfg-neuro interfaces so feasible? Why aren't you cheerleading for Dianetics, aren't we going to achieve high OT levels of with all that edgy neuron schematics?

>You have to remember that this is a very new field, and it will take years before all the potential experiments and proposed interfaces have been made. To simply write everything of as "robojesus" and refusing to look into it is very ignorant.
Yeah it is a very new field yet you all fuckers have reached your conclusions without research being done, without scientists providing evidence, without scientific consensus being established. You arrogant fucks have no shame - but thats good, it is the best way to differentiate your cult from sane people.

>If you are interested, there is some wonderful experiments being done in Germany to do with hijacking motor control of Parkinsons patients.
You conflate even this with transhumanism and your fixed narrative? Yes its so close now! I can nearly touch it! Infinite power and beyond!

>>3967551
>u can't deny the possiblity of something truly emergent
another example of moronic theistic logic or rather lack thereof, bb-b-but you can't deny the possibility of

muh jesus second coming next friday, so fucking what?

>As Toffler pointed out
Alvin Toffler, that retard that rambled about teh singularity and teh futuer?. Great rhetorical move invoking that clown, way to gain credibility in anyone's eyes. Fuck yeah robocultists and their self-refenrencing circlejerk club.


>>3967498
And here we see a new cultist in the making. All those cool sounding technical terms that are 24-7 at your hands' reach with fucking internet yet no one gives a shit. Yet if you conflate them robo cultism, with all of its promises of robobodies, enchanters, infinite sex in cyber heaven n shit suddenly gullible suckers start pouring in. What a coincidence!

>>3967700
Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up. More than one person has destroyed you ITT and asked you questions that you refuse to or can't answer, yet you keep on with your inane babbling. Come back when you have read a book.

>>3967700
Have you taken your meds today?

>>3967706
>>3967712
you aren't clapping hard enough, retards

robot jesus can't hear you yet, he might not come after all

but you do the work of robogod, by dissing sceptics on the internet you will be rewarded with those shiny cyber penises all those ai-whores to fuck for all eternity

>>3967706
sonny, point me to someone who has destroyed me ITT, i must have missed the post

>>3967700
Why are you attempting to debate technology and neuroscience with a guy who understands it when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?

>>3967720
He's either a very shitty troll, or genuinely retarded. It's actually quite painful to watch him.

>>3967720
I have the basic human decency to abstain from this pathetic pissing contest of pasting shit from wikipedia. There is no reason to even get down to technicalities when those morons have their shit ass backwards and work out evidence from their conclusions, like a good theists they are. Scientific consensus HAS NOTHING to say on the feasibility of the idiotic fantasies of transhumanists. Why am I to discard the consensus and listen to no name internet dunning-kruger suffering shitstains? Because they read a book by a fringe crackpot and can copy/paste trivia about human anatomy from the wikipedia? Haha, oh wow.

>lololo fag u r lele trolle
amazing arguments from heavy weight intellectuals, i know it works in your cultish circle but not with me

>>3967736
>amazing arguments from heavy weight intellectuals
Is this irony? Why did you ignore this guy >>3967347 >>3967403 and start screaming about your robojesus?

Just be honest, you really don't understand this subject. You have made an absolute fool of yourself and you should feel ashamed.

>>3967700
This is what you guys mean by butthurt right? It's like you can hear the screams of incoherent rage and the whimpers and see the froth at the mouth.

It's truly awe inspiring that someone can get so heated about an internet discussion. I'd assume he was drunk off his ass if it weren't that his typing skills seem okay.

I sort have came in late here, so can someone tell me

-what has jesus got to do with emergence?

-when did Tofler predict a singularity and what was he talking about?

-is this guy mad about some actual religion or is it something he's made up? Is there a cult of transhumanism or whatever, or is he just railing against the idea of predicting the directions technology might take or something

-is anybody actually trying to gain credibility of some sort by posting on this board, or is that another one of his things?

I tried to figure it out by reading back but I'm still sort of in the dark. Any chance of clarification?

>>3967700
>>3967715
Is this what /lit/ has come too? Even the intelligent posts are met by a toddler's tantrum.

>>3967736
list a few of these fantasies. This is the first I've heard of them. What do these "transhumanists" actually believe? do they have a website or a manifesto or something?

>>3967743
Just ignore him. Unfortunately this guy has been lurking /lit/ for years, and starts screaming about a robojesus whenever technology is mentioned. As you can see from a few different posts here, people try talking to him rationally, but he's completely immune to civil discourse.

>>3967750
yessss, ignore the dissent, don't try to investigate. We are THE science, we are THE technology, everyone else is just a pretender. Don't let the heresy tain your faith. Only true believe and your loving jerkcircle will give you peace.

>>3967748
>What do these "transhumanists" actually believe?
There have been a number of people claim that technological is progressing and may be heading towards a 'singularity'. Which is a point in future where the human nervous system and mind will be integrated with technology to give us greater neurological abilities than we already have. This is what that guy hates, and associates any form of technological progression with a robojesus.

Some guy gave some examples of neurons already being integrated with technology, and the robojesus guy went ape shit.

>>3967750
yeah, retards in this thread outnumber sensible people 3 to 1, but have no fear: outside of your obscure internet portals you are basically non-existent, no one gives a damn about your delusions, especially not the scientific community

>>3967756
the stick i picked up from the ground gives me greater neurological abilitiy, is that singularity yet?

>>3967756
so... he's just saying "sure all that will probably happen, but gradually instead of in one big event, and probably not for a longer period of time than some believe?" An addressable point, I guess. But why all the yelling? and he seems to think there are people yelling back at him. Are there really "transhumanists" or whatever harrassing and persecuting people who disagree with them, or is this just another "jewish menace" thing? is it just him?

>>3967756
This.

The funny thing is he doesn't even know what he is raging against. He has a rough idea of his 'robojesus' which only seems to cover dildo's and sex dolls, and refuses to identify anything further. Everytime he states a specific objection, someone tells him why he is wrong, and he gets livid and starts shrieking again.

He seems to have no understanding of technology or neuroscience, no solid idea about the concepts he's attacking, ignores all scientific consensus, and stamps his feet and screams.

He has been doing this for years too, you would have thought that he would have at least done a little research in that time.

>>3967750
>whenever technology is mentioned
You haven't mentioned any technology yet, bro. All you've done so far is demonstrate massive butthurt and sling shit like an ape.

>>3967756
It's funny but even this short shitty post shows the biases and forced narratives of those cultists: humans develop technology since the dawn of man, yet those tards draw an artificial line in the sand: some of the newest nerdy gadgets and developments suddenly show that we are on the unmistakable way to Teh Singularity. And since we aren't gonna suddenly stop developing technologies it conveniently makes the claim unfalisfiable

Under what conditions would your claim be false? Under what condition would you proclaim singularity impossible? I already know the answer and it makes me laugh at your idiocy even harder.

>>3967760
an excellent example. Yes. that's an emergent event. so sure. That's a singularity. I would think that would be obvious.

>>3967771
transhumanists in a nutshell, thanks for proving my point

>>3967767
>so... he's just saying "sure all that will probably happen, but gradually instead of in one big event, and probably not for a longer period of time than some believe?"

I'm not quite sure what he's saying. He never really says anything conclusive. From what I have gathered, he seems to think that anyone who believes the human brain can interface with technology, or might in the future, is a "cultist who waits for the robojesus".

He confuses multiple concepts like the singularity and transhumanism; futurism and posthumanism, mixes them together with all technological advances, and says anyone with an interest in these things is a "robojesus cultists who wants cyber dildos."

I think he is just really angry at something, and technology seems to be his outlet.

>>3967768
someone needed to tell you this:
1. you have no understanding of neuroscience
2. you do howeve,r in your egotistical mind, claim such knowledge; you suffer from denning-kruger
3. there are countless people on this board that deride your delusions, i am not even a forchin regular
4. no one in this thread told me I was wrong; mostly because I make no claims, you on the other hand make countless, baseless claims
5. there is no difference between your hogwash and scientology ramblings about thetans in outsiders eyes. Both you and them invoke scientific terms to mask their ignorance and delusions, what you are doing is called scientism

#420 r3kt

>>3967785
>1. you have no understanding of neuroscience
I don't, neither do you, but the neuroscientist you ignored did.
>2. you do howeve,r in your egotistical mind, claim such knowledge; you suffer from denning-kruger
I have never claimed such knowledge
>3. there are countless people on this board that deride your delusions, i am not even a forchin regular
Everyone is mocking you. Do you really not see it?
>4. no one in this thread told me I was wrong; mostly because I make no claims, you on the other hand make countless, baseless claims
Everyone has laughed at you, tried to explain concepts to you, and tried to engage you in discussion. You seem totally unable to discussing a topic.
>5. there is no difference between your hogwash and scientology ramblings about thetans in outsiders eyes. Both you and them invoke scientific terms to mask their ignorance and delusions, what you are doing is called scientism
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, the buzzwords are a little to thick.

>>3967774
well, how would you define emergence, then? a stick in the hand of a man extends his reach, and his striking force. Standing on a rock and cupping his ears increases the range of his senses. All these things are "singularities" in the sense of watershed events. But they're humn, not "transhuman". Remeber everytime you pick up a pen, a cellphone or log on to the intenet, you're participating in a human-technology interface, which is by it's nature pregnant with potential singularity, or emergent possibilities. The same is true everytime you strike a match or whistle. There's nothing transhuman or relgious here, it's just how people interact with things.

>>3967783
i think you may be right.

the anger is the hardest thing to understand. Does he feel threatened by these phantoms he perceives in some way? Does he think these, what futurists or whatever are a danger to something important to him?

the coherence isn't high, sort of like the conspiracy things you see on /pol/ sometimes, but it's suggestive of some meaning, it's just the hatred or fear or whatever seems to prevent him from bringing his points forward rationally.

>>3967798
>the neuroscientist
he isnt a neuroscientist you gullible fool, he is a noble-prize winning nuclear physicist cum neurobiotechnologist. Posting on forchin for all of us to learn.

i sense great skeptical skills within you, you will be a great robocultist

>Everyone is mocking you.
the terrible mocking from 4-5 basement nerds believing in baseless bullshit and 2-3 sycophantic high school kids that dream about all that wikipedia-based buzzword throwing skills? It's an honor, sir.

>Everyone has laughed at you, tried to explain concepts to you
not a single fool in this thread has explained anything. But you ignoring all this and jumping on a bandwagon perfectly fits the image of a delusional cultist I have of your sorry ass.

Is "human brain will merge with [techno-babble buzzword] soon/ever" claim even falsifiable? Prove to me it is falsifiable, you sure must have the argument ready, right?

Is a lobotomy an example of human brain mergin with ..technology I guess?

>>3967826
>Is "human brain will merge with [techno-babble buzzword] soon/ever" claim even falsifiable?

Not in all cases, because as this guy said >>3967347 in that post post and the others, that it has already happened in many different areas. How would you falsify it when it's already been done?

Also he gave you a way to falsify some of the future claims: "The same thing is easily achievable with mesencephalic and cerebellar neurons, and oligodendrocytes. If you're are claiming that it's not, the burden of proof is on you to refute the data."

>>3967847
>How would you falsify it when it's already been done
Yes, a lobotomy has happened a century ego, warmth providing hats are probably milennia, so I guess we are late with all this transhumanism stuff? Don't you see how ridiculous this narrative is?

>>3967855
>Yes, a lobotomy has happened a century ego
Exactly. So you would look just as stupid trying to falsify the premise that a lobotomy is possible.

>>3967860
look at the claim:
>a brain merging with technology

>the brain
is a buzzword since we don't know shit about the brain yet, we have residual knowledge about some processes, some elements of the brain, some relations and changes.
>merging
is a buzzword - what does it mean to merge? where are the boundaries, what are the methods, how do you define a technology/brain that merged and a technology/brain that hasnt? who sets the rules? why even set such rules?
>technology
is a buzzword, every human invention and ingenuity is part of the technological process, hair on your body is technology, human gut bacteria is technology, natural language is technology. You can't artificially seperate those things, where do humans being and where do humans end, where does the technology start and where does it end? all those distinctions are artificial and meaningless

this claim is meaningless, pointless, redundant, it is a manipulation

>>3967883
(therefore the claim is unfalsifiable, you can construe it to mean just anything)

>>3967883
>unfalsifiable
is a buzzword...
>pointless
is a buzzword...
>manipulation
is a buzzword...

>>3967891
so your point is.. two wrongs make a right?

>>3967891
if you have problem with those words I can provide you the meaning I intended them to have, technocultists on the other hand can't, because their whole ideology and claims of scientific basis rely on ambiguity

>>3967898
You know exactly what "the human brain interfacing with electronic components" means.

Claiming the "brain" is an incoherent buzzword, is you wriggling around and acting like a fool again.

>>3967906
>You know exactly what "the human brain interfacing with electronic components" means.
oh yeah, i know all about a drill interfacing with a brain during a lobotomy

keep dodging

>>3967920
"Physically using electronic circuitry to intercept, regulate, or change the membrane voltage charge of neurons, and augment neurological function to a predefined outcome."

BTW, a drill is not an electronic component.

>>3967936
ok so lobotomy is a passe not-trendy enough interfacing and circuits are cool high-tech interfacing and that makes them transhumanist?

>>3967945
It's not because they are 'cool', it's because they improve a biological function and add something to the way a human interacts with reality.

>>3967952
really? that's the only criterion? so nutrition, drugs, supplements, basically anything that goes inside your mouth is therefore now transhumanist? A hat providing warmth is now transhumanist? An electroshock is transhumanist?

Weren't we through with this bullshit already? Don't you see the stupidity of such narrative?

>>3967906
picking up a cellphone and answering a call is an excellent example of the brain interfacing with an electronic component in exactly this way:

>"Physically using electronic circuitry to intercept, regulate, or change the membrane voltage charge of neurons, and augment neurological function to a predefined outcome."

i'ts just that the body and senses are part of the interface. Lot's of mebrane potentials are altered, regulated, intercepted and changed as a result of the action which the ringtone physically created.

just using technology to alter potentials in the brain is not that new: it's just that the techniques might be getting more direct, right?

and i think the confusion about the lobotomy thing is based on confusing "electronic" with "electrical"

>>3967960
>so nutrition, drugs, supplements, basically anything that goes inside your mouth is therefore now transhumanist?
In some cases yes, in others no. It generally wouldn't be regarded as 'transhumanist' to bring a deficient body up to normal. So taking B12 or 5HTP to supplement a deficit, or meet a requirement wouldn't be. To go beyond the biological limitations would; so taking AAS would be perceived as transhumanist.

>A hat providing warmth is now transhumanist?
It always was.

>An electroshock is transhumanist?
No, not necessarily.

4 months ago, a cancer research centre in NY announced that they had genetically altered the T-cell genetic makeup of five patients with Leukemia; in all five patients the cancer went into remission. Now that is not transhumanism - they are not going beyond 'human'. If the centre started changing the genetic makeup of infants to be born with the improved genetic makeup, therefore immune to that type of leukaemia, that would be transhumanism.

>>3965276
lel

>>3967964
no, most lobotomies were conduced with no electricity, that's beside the point

what i am hinting at is that their definitions and distinctions are ambiguous, they are rediscovering the wheel by attributing transhumanism to the millennia old processes

why can't you just leave hats alone? why can't hats be fucking hats, what do you gain by forcing this narrative at everything and everyone? It has no explanatory power, it has no informational value, it is vapid and pointless

I know the answer of course, I've been following all the transhumanist and singularitarian circles for years. There is the rosy transhumanism of wikipedia-surfing useful idiots who after reading a sentence here and there think it is just some ambiguous "process" like in the last few posts or some movements are basically just benign "science clubs" for geeks and other science enthusiasts. This is the public face of transhumanism. The other, the real transhumanism is the amalgamation of badly-masked cults, with a panteon of hucksters like Kurzweil, Yudkowsky et al that simply make money out of it while promoting batshit crazy ideas and distortions of science and its processes. As I said earlier there are actual fucking self-declared transhumanist religions, the most prominent one I think being the mormon derived one, just visit transfigurism.org

>>3968004
he wasn't warned for his opinion, he was warned for his shitposting

>>3968028
Are there any other linguistic terms you crusade against?

>>3968048
>linguistic terms
you missed the part about the cults being badly-masked behind "linguistic terms"? you conveniently skip the most important part, hopefully not everyone is as retarded as you

>>3968028
The problem I have here. is that I don't know anybody who describes themselves as a transhumanist, or attemds any of their services or meetings or whatever. I know people who call themselves atheists and skeptics and whatnot, but the transhumanist thing seems to be a name other people call someone. It would be really usefull if there were a set of "You might be a transhumanist if you believe" things.

It might not actually work though: "You might be a skeptic if you doubt" works, but a lot of the transhumanist stuff seems to be more about "when" than "if". If you believe the world will end eventually it's hard to argue with you. maintain it will end in this generation by the devil's hand and someone might legitimately call you a cultist. Do transhumans adhere to a creed specifying and order and a timeline, like dispensationalists do? Is there anyone here who identifies as a transhumanist who will supply it?

>>3968066
>Do transhumans adhere to a creed specifying and order and a timeline, like dispensationalists do?
No, the Kurzweilian exponential increase is something separate. Transhumanists say that humans have been advancing themselves for ages, will continue to do so, and some of them "hope" that there is a point in the future where we have advanced so far that we are unrecognisable by todays standards.

There is no creed or doctrine. Just the understanding that we have advanced and are advancing.

>>3968066
>Do transhumans adhere to a creed specifying and order and a timeline, like dispensationalists do?
Yes. They even draw ridiculous graphs with timelines and exponential curves and dates.

In fact, a self-identifying 'transhumanist' posted one such graph in this thread's previous incarnation. (Too lazy to dredge it up, but you can google for it yourself.)

>>3968066
most of transhumanist movements are membership-based - there is no ambiguity here about who is a transhumanist or not; some goes for the religion-transhumanim abominations; google search is your friend

your point about skepticism is actually moot as well; for the last decade "skepticism", especially in the US, has became a movement, with their own conferences, communitites, and a circle-jerk of self-proclaimed leaders and pundits making money off pagehits, not much different from transhumanist cult leading Gurus. Skepticism in those circles has become not so much an aproach to life and a certain way of problem solving, but an identity-policy and a movement

>>3968082
So it's basically "behold, I teach you the superman"?

>>3968089
well, both my points are addressed then, but I know you can be a skeptic without joining a group: it's a way of thinking. You can be askeptic about advertising claims while keeping an open mind about the sex-appeal of your cologne, for instance. no body asks you to show a card. But it looks like to be a transhumanist you have to actually join something and subscribe to it. I've been called a transhumanist in this thread, as I suspect have a lot of others who might not even be aware of this distinction. So I ask: any registered transhumanists here?

>>3968066
>Is there anyone here who identifies as a transhumanist
Yes, I am a transhumanist, though I usually stay out of these threads because of the robojesus shitposting.

The main premise is that our use of tools and technology has been taking us beyond what it means to be a human; whether this is speeding across the surface of the planet at 100mph, extending your hearing and voice over continents with phones, or using a stick to extend your reach to the top of the tree. The second premise is that technology will improve how we play with reality, simplify the menial tasks in our everyday lives, and maybe extend our health and lifespans.

Check out Jason Silva. He's the poster-boy for transhumanism at the moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzFtWNOOOU

>>3968164
>what it means to be a human
what does it mean to be a human? who decides, your lord and saviour Kurzweil?

also I like how you declare to avoid threads that criticize your pet ideology, thats fucking enlightening

>We Are Already Cyborgs featuring jasum silvah
yeah, we've been "cyborgs"(need more buzzwords) since the first homo sapiens

>>3968164
so you think the OP is mischaracterizing a basically simple perspective on human trends and potential, or just focusing on the extremes?

I mean, if you said communism was the inevitable result of all societies, it might be argues, though most people would just take a "wait and see" attitude. But if you were advocating for the revolution, then they might object, or at least ignore you. It seems like OP is sort of confusing marxist theorizing with radical revolutionary policy. Would you agree that the timeline is the thing that bugs him the most? That if "imminent" was replaced with "eventual" he might not be so..., angry, hurt, horrified? it's hard to tell...

>>3968201
>also I like how you declare to avoid threads that criticize your pet ideology
Nah, they don't criticize it. There is just one robojesus guy you who spends the whole thread shouting and making discussion impossible for everyone else.

>>3968238
ruining your pseudoscientific dunning-kruger circlejerk, am I? You have your shitty hivemind portals where you jerk each other off all day, you could always just contain yourself to them

>>3968212
Not necessarily. OP takes two separate concepts (transhumanism and the singularity) and merges them with a collection of other concepts to create a single jumble of things that he can attack all at once.

>Would you agree that the timeline is the thing that bugs him the most?
The singularity countdown seems to be his biggest problem, yes. But he also hates anyone making predictions about the future, despite the topic being way outside his realm of understanding.

>>3968267
I am not the one merging anything. Try exploring those movements further than the wikipedia page and you will find behind the veil of vapid rhetoric what the reality actually looks like.

>>3968267
>The singularity countdown seems to be his biggest problem, yes. But he also hates anyone making predictions about the future, despite the topic being way outside his realm of understanding.
I don't understand how one guy can get so angry about this though. He's worse than Libertarians and Marxists going at each other.

>>3968274
You still seem to be railing about a miniscule minority, or maybe generalizing that minority's characteristics into a whole, heterogenous population. I think thats what most of the accusations add up to.

It's sort of like someone from /pol/ meeting (or imagining) a jew who was azionist, wanted to conquer the world, worked in finance, favored communism and wanted to exaggerate claims of atrocities and started treating all jews like they were that one guy.

If you find the claims of certain transhumanists to be offensive, or ridiculous, why not list them, and we'll all read them and decide which ones we agree with and which we don't. It might turn out that you are not really arguing against a real group. At least on 4chan. Also, elaborate on this robojesus thing. Is taht a real idea? some sort of supernatural technological thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXARrMadTKk

intro to LessWrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ku9b-fPa1s

>>3968290
It's fear. He's terrified of what he doesn't understand, which in his case is a lot. He also has a particular mental image that he has created, and feeds this somatic marker every time a subject like this is discussed. It has a negative conditioning effect on him. He can probably look at a word like Digital Transcendentalism and the hairs on his neck stand on end. This has snowballed to such a severity that he needs to attack anyone he perceives as "the other" to assuage the negative emotions he experiences. Along with this is process he created a toybox of conceptual devices to help him - robojesus, robocultist, cyberdildo, AIfuckdoll, Science™ - which seem to grow every time I encounter him.

He's a very interesting case study.

>>3968316
Yes I am terrified. I am terrified of countless brainless runts like you that believe batshit crazy ideas and have the ability to vote and spread the cancer. I know much more about your own your cult since you are so indoctrinated you can't see outside of the box.

>>3968316
he seems not unamenable to reason though. He's not like those guys on /pol/ who still cling to beliefs that were outdated in the twenties. It seems to be a variant perception. He's interpreting certain things as too optimistic and he dislikes boosterism or the technological equivalent. Maybe a bitter sixty-ish guy who saw all the predictions of colonies on mars and such and doesn't want to be disappointe again.

>>3968324
Well, it's the rage and foaming at the mouth rhetoric that hurts your case. Try a little more calm and reasoned approach, and also state what exactly youre afarid of as the ultimate outcome, and what you think would be a beter, or more likely one?

>>3968274
I've mentioned a lot of transhumanist loudmouths in this thread, look at the reaction of fanboys rushing to defend their gurus with by high-fiving and patting each other on the back (to be followed by circle jerk)


>>3968334
aww look at the babby being hurt by words, don't like it don't read it, can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen

>>3968324
>I am terrified of countless brainless runts like you that believe batshit crazy ideas and have the ability to vote and spread the cancer.

>mfw

transhumanism is misguided and we'll sooner destroy ourselves than reach the singularity.

it's just not going to happen. if it does, it'll be an abomination of catastrophic proportions

>implying im not gonna write a short story about it

>>3968343
Lol. Looks like Steve Mann.

>>3968342
now, how do you get hurt or anger out of that question?


>Well, it's the rage and foaming at the mouth rhetoric that hurts your case. Try a little more calm and reasoned approach, and also state what exactly youre afarid of as the ultimate outcome, and what you think would be a beter, or more likely one?


The question invites you to respond with calmness and reason and asks you to elaborate on your case. I think you're the only one here that perceives any heat. You're certainly the only one that seems hurt or angry.

and it's a reasonable request. Why not state what you're afraid of in plain language, and what you'd consider a more hopeful, or likely outcome?

Before i read your stuff I would have said that no one older than twelve had been hurt or angered by anything on the internet since 1997.

seriously, nothing here is real, or that important. don't let it get to you.

Has anyone seen the new digital tattoos?

"Researchers at the University of Illinois have figured out how to embed flat, flexible, stretchable electronic sensors into tattoos that can withstand wrinkling, bending and twisting of the skin. These micro-electronics, which are thinner than a human hair, are used to provide irritation-free monitoring of electric signals produced by the heart, brain and muscles.

The tattoos are used to monitor heart arrhythmias, sleep disorders and the heart activity of premature babies; stimulate muscles; and serve as a human-computer interface when applied to the throat by using vibrations from the vocal chords to control a computer. Additional detectors, transmitters and receivers can also be included on the tattoo.

Currently powered via solar cells and a wireless transmitter, the developers are working on a device that will be able to interpret a range of chemical information from the body."

>>3968380
I bet the NSA would use this to track everyone and then say, "Hurr durr if you're not evil why do you care?"

>>3968363
it's just your butthurt selves that have been pushing the idea that I am somehow hurt or angry, the expletives are just my style, are you new to the internet?

It's been a hilarious 200-post ride of laughter and sneering for me, I feast on your delusions and denial
8/10, would post again

>>3968395
why are you such an angry luddite? do you want to stop the future?

>>3968354
I just looked this dude up. Apparently he beams a laser into his eye so he can have a computer monitor displayed on his retina. He reads through emails and shit just by blinking.

>>3968416
what about using his hands? not transhumanist enough?

>>3968395
>I feast on your delusions and denial
As do we on yours.

>>3968421
Why would he use hands? If he gets an urgent email when cycling to work, or wants to detour and change his Sat Nav, using his hands would be impractical and would waste time.

>>3968433
reading mail while cycling, 2013 darwin awards

>>3968441
Yes. He's not using his hands. He's quietly cycling along in the park, and glancing at his emails with one eye. What's wrong with that?

>>3968441
I use the phone and text when cycling and driving. Though I slow down to text when cycling.

>>3968451
distration while on a road
>I use the phone and text when cycling and driving
it's illegal in most civilized countries

>>3968407
well, you have to realize that your style is all we have to go on. Other than capslock and exclamation marks you've done all you could to affect impotent rage and bitter anguish. If this is just a prose style, you should consider writing fiction. It's extremely convincing.

and you never told us what you'd consider a more likely or more positive alternative to what the futurists propose. Too late for that?

>>3968497
>and you never told us what you'd consider a more likely or more positive alternative to what the futurists propose.
You can't predict the future, it's impossible. You have no idea what will happen tomorrow.

>>3968519
Well, people still like to plan for it. I'll feel like an idiot buying groceries if the world ends tomorrow, maybe, but if it doesn't I'll want that cauliflower cheese.

it seems odd to get angry (or fake being angry) just because somebody else thinks something is likely, or not. Do you go on sports boards and disparage everybody's world cup picks?

And just because you don't predict something doesn't mean you don't have some idea or hope as to what might happen. Sample of your style:

Me: "I really hope they have Green Arrow in the Justice League movie, and it looks like they might."

You: " Your a fool! Green Arrow is stupid! And they'll never make a Justice League movie! You comic book nerds are living in cloud cuckoo land! The Avengers movie is irrelevant! They'll stop making movies before that happens! And they should!"


At least that's how it comes off from this end. It's sort of like that "Douchey McNitpick" character, though I mean no offense, or even a general parallell.

Or other by this guy.

>>3968549
you naively imagine that transhumanism is just a feel-good idea in people's heads. Have you been reading the thread? I provided plethora of info for the ignorant to see what transhumanism actually stands for: organizations posturing as "research" or "educational" institutions, self-proclaimed gurus, siphoning of donations from gullible fools, misapplication of funding from wealthy, egotistical scum like Thiel, promotion of pseudoscience, distortion of the discourse of actual science, those hucksters are actually gaining press and access to political power, Kurzweil has now a position at Google, Yudkowsky has access to silly valley venture capitalists and influential corporate suits. Don't you realize this discourse can actually influence policy making? Don't you realize there are political and economic forces driving this kind of narrative? Ever wonder why this is the only kind of narrative that is being pushed down everyone's throat? Why do you need me to open your eyes, why happened to due fucking diligence before embracing an idea?

>>3965161
>>3965923
>>3965946
>>3966023
>>3967166

Oh look, it's that r0b0jesus lunatic again.

>>3968613
>Kurzweil has now a position at Google
Yes, he's director of engineering. About fucking time too. Now he has billions of dollars to play with.

This is only related in the most tangential of ways but I didn't think this question deserved its own thread.

Could someone explain to me what late-captitalism means?

>>3968613
What actual pseudoscience has been promoted? In what direction are ideas being sold, and who benefits, at what cost? What is a response to this?

>>3968622
Oh look, another drone with a striking lack of arguments, do you babbies reproduce by budding?

+10 points for his holiness Kurzweil. Do you expect the fellow cultists to jerk you off now?

>>3968622
>>3968613
And he's still fucking here. Jesus. Ctrl+F robojesus

>>3965161 (Wed)11:47
>Robojesus

>>3965799 (Wed)16:17
>Robojesus

>>3965923 (Wed)17:23
>robojesus

>>3967166 (Thu)03:20
>robojesus

>>3967190 (Thu)03:37
>robojesus

>>3967700 (Thu)10:05
>robo-techno-omfg

>>3967783 (Thu)11:00
>robojesus

>>3968613
Well, I've read the website and I agree it's silly for the most part, though most of what's being discussed will certainly be possible sooner or later, like flying cars whether there'll be any point in implementing it when it does arrive is debateable.

I think you mistake its importance or significance to the mainstream: It's your favorite bugbear and you see yourself as a jeremiah (sorry for the mixed metaphor) But to most of us it's a trivial issue: we aren't policy makers and pay very little attention to those who claim they are. The one part of your argument you've neglected to fortify in depth is the potential for harm that a few kooks who want iron man suits or whatever are likely to have on society. We invent these things out of curiosity and implement them based on market needs and human preferences. There's no policy at stake here.

The big question remains: what would be the worst that could happen if these people are right, or wrong? And how would those funds and talents and resources be better spent? what bad thing is likely to happen? and how can we avaoid it?

>>3968680
Do you tard really believe I came up with the term and am the only person using it in this thread? You cultists are so allergic to criticism you don't even realize how commonly derided you are

comedy gold

>>3968686
>like flying cars whether there'll be any point in implementing it when it does arrive is debateable.
There are already two types of flying car on the market, fairly cheap, and available for anyone to buy.

>>3968680
why are you still here you argumentless butthurt drone?

>>3968690
>am the only person using it in this thread?
Yes you are. We can tell from your writing style and seething rage. Plus, you always throw in a couple of bonus buzzwords to identify yourself with.

>>3968693
>argumentless

Level 10 irony unlocked.

>>3968686
>There's no policy at stake here
Even if that was the case, which is, as I've already pointed out, wrong, the only way to diminish the influence of those scammers is to explose them. Look at all the suckers in this thread, all they've got is an echo chamber of their cultish sites. The moment they leave their lairs they experience a culture shock, just look how they react to common-sense skepticism: with accusations of (lol) luddism, that is if they even attempt to justify their empty outbursts

>>3968699
>Yes you are.
if you repeat it twenty times in your head it will become true!
just like with teh robo jesus and your cybersex prosthetix!

took your pills yet?

>>3968701
>Level 10 irony unlocked.
lolo level 9000 pathetic oneliner irony right fucking there, son

>>3968707
After reading through the thread, the only coherent posts were made by one guy actually explaining how biology and technology interact. All of your posts (and most of the others) have all been pure bullshit. You haven't presented a single, not one, piece of legitimate criticism. You keep talking about hucksters and hogwashes, cultists, robojesus, and a range of other things, and have nothing to say other than 100 different variations on how angry you are.

>>3968719
I don't think you are qualified to say what is coherent and what is not in a subject you don't know shit about. Just sayin'

>>3968719
It's impossible. I tried putting questions to him, and re-feeding him questions he ignored from other people, but he wont answer.

>>3968722
If you honestly believed that, you would delete your thread and shut the fuck up.

>>3968722
>a subject you don't know shit about
>robotjesus guy

>I don't think you are qualified to say
>a subject you don't know shit about.
>robotjesus guy
>Just sayin'

>>3968719
Samefag go home.

>>3968725
I am not the one to answer question you retard, you are the ones that make outrageous claims without a shred of evidence. 200 posts in and you tards still are struck at the burde of proof phase, holy fuck.

>>3968726
hurrpa durrp non sequitur, but thats expected of tards like you

the default position is that robo jesus is coming, thats what i learned from your insightful posts

>>3968730
>you tards still are struck at the burde of proof phase
"Fine, I'll bite. One example for you:

Pic related is a neuron. The white bulbous bit is the cell body, the largest white arm is the axon, and the smaller arms coming from the cell body are called dendrites. The human brain is made of multiple neurons, and multiple types of neurons. With me so far?

Around the middle temporal area of the brain we have an area called Brocca's region (beneath the orbital lobe) that has a few million retinal ganglion, and retinal bi-polar neurons, the axons of which extent down to behind the retina. Neuroscientists have already managed to intersect the axon of this neuron with an electronic component (it's a type of modified polar diode), not one but over fifty times in a single person.

Your "The burden off proof" demand isn't really needed in this situation, as neuroscientists have already merged the human brain with technology, and in this case, enabled the blind too see.

If you had read a single book on the subject, you would know that the same thing is easily achievable with mesencephalic and cerebellar neurons, and oligodendrocytes. If you're are claiming that it's not, the burden of proof is on you to refute the data.

Once again, at least demonstrate that you have some knowledge of this subject at all, otherwise we can't take you seriously."

>>3968728
what do you mean i don't know anything about this stuff? I am a nuclear scientist with ph.d in rocket laser science just like the wikipedia copypasting retard you morons religiously fixate on in this thread. You had the chance to read my reply to him yet all you've done is shitpost oneliners

this is a fucking deja vu of how you retard got into transretardism in the first place: a loudmouth moron throwing around a bunch of technical terms you don't know shit about but makes you feel all warm and sophisticated inside, see Kurzweil et al. Learning from the best i see.

>>3968737
Don't encourage him.

This fucking thread has been on the front page for hours.

>>3968742
>You had the chance to read my reply to him
You didn't "reply" you ignored his posts and shouted about cyberdildos again.

Worst thread in /lit/ history.

>>3968759
He'll only make it again in a few weeks.

The mild joy from attention this troll got will subside, and he'll yearn for a platform to preach the evils of robojesus again.

>>3968769
one does not simply preach against the robot jesus

>>3968772
one can try

>tfw Order of The Cosmic engineers is now defunct
>tfw our brave champions for the robogod are back in their basements playing second life and fapping to loli tentacle rape

>tfw totally-not-a-cult Church of Turing hasn't invented robot god yet
>tfw a Christian Transhumanist Association is going to fix it
http://turingchurch.com

>tfw our lord and saviour Yudkowsky quitely saved the world and no one is giving him any money for that
send monies plix
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

>>3968839
I know that feel. Don't worry though, there are atheist transhumanists, and those that model future technology using accurate empirical data.

>>3968863
>there are atheist transhumanists
Most transhumanists are atheists.

>>3968890
yeah, lord Kurzweil and his likes took place of god in those circles

>>3968863

>tfw World Transhumanist Association realized they are a laughing stock to the public and changed their name to ambiguous Humanity+
>tfw our righteous champions have to hide their true power level for the sake of robot jesus
muh martyrs

>>3968894
Lord Kurzweil is not God, he merely talks of the rapture.

>>3968890
>Most transhumanists are atheists.
[citation needed]

>tfw the Singularity Institute of our prophet Yudkowsky had to change name to Machine Intelligence Research Institute to disassociate itself from its own crackpot leading idea to fool potential donors and confuse the public
the length our champions have to go for the robot god... muh heroes

>>3968923
"Asking about political self-identity, there are only marginal changes from 2003 The percent of the respondents who consider themselves left-wingers of one sort or the other increased from 36% to 39% while the percent who were libertarians (including Euro-liberals, Objectivists, and anarcho-capitalists) remained at 22%. Conservatives remained only 3-4%, but those who consider themselves “far right” declined from 1.2% of membership to 0.4%. The percent apolitical declined from 15% to 12%

In regards religious views, the 2005 respondents are again almost identical to the 2003 respondents, with slight down ticks in both secularism and religiosity, and an up tick in “none of the above.” Only one quarter of the respondents are religious in some sense, "

- Report on the Interests and Beliefs Survey of the Members of the World Transhumanist Association

>>3968934
but the whole point is, transhumanism itself is a new age cult, you know, a religion that hasn't gained tax exemption status yet

• Do you believe that people have a right to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives?
• Do you think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it?
• Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?
• Do you think it would be a good thing if people could become many times more intelligent than they currently are?
• Is your concept of "the meaning of life" derived from human responsibility and opportunity rather than divine revelation?
• Do you believe women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies?
• Does your ethical code advocate the well-being of all sentient beings, whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals?
• Do you think it would be a good thing if people could live for hundreds of years or longer?
• Would you consider having your mind uploaded if it was the only way you could continue as a conscious person?
• Should parents be able to have children through cloning?

>>3968936
No, you are thinking of transfigurism.

Transhumanism is an umbrella term for many people. The majority of which are rational scientists whose only aim is to advance humanity within the boundaries of science. The only religion is the 'denialism' of the opponents who reject emperical evidence.

This thread.
Transhumanists: 1
Robopreacher: 0

>>3968951
>The majority of which are rational scientists
>scientists
my orbit has reached the sides

>>3968952
this thread
circle-jerk and back-patting: 1
voice of reason: 0

>>3968939
>Do you believe that people have a right
No
>Do you think that by being generally [one way or another]
No
>Do you expect human progress
No
>Do you think it would be a good thing
No, none of that
>Is your concept of "the meaning of life" derived from human responsibility and opportunity rather than divine revelation?
Neither this
>Do you believe women should
No
>Does your ethical code
Nope
>Do you think it would be a good thing
Nuhuh
>Would you consider having your mind
Not since way back and I'm not even sure that would happen since, no.
>Should parents
Neither this

>>3968968
you will burn in robohell for that

>>3968972
none of these either.

>>3968952
>Transhumanists: 1
They're up to at least 20

>>3968939
>• Do you believe that people have a right to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives?
Yes, of course.
>• Do you think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it?
That's too difficult to dissect in this post.
>• Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?
The former, though define "grace".
>• Do you think it would be a good thing if people could become many times more intelligent than they currently are?
That's to difficult to dissect in this post.
>• Is your concept of "the meaning of life" derived from human responsibility and opportunity rather than divine revelation?
Neither
>• Do you believe women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies?
Yes.
>• Does your ethical code advocate the well-being of all sentient beings, whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals?
I extend the same view to all beings, and adhere to the legal system of the society.
>• Do you think it would be a good thing if people could live for hundreds of years or longer?
Sure, why not. From my perspective it would be a good thing if I could.
>• Would you consider having your mind uploaded if it was the only way you could continue as a conscious person?
It depends. If it was a computer 'clone' of my mind then I wouldn't see it as being me.
>• Should parents be able to have children through cloning?
Sure. Mr. and Mrs. Jones can birth fucking wolverine if they want, just keep it away from me.

>tfw no one understand the transhuman prioneers of totally-not-a-cult Zero State
>tfw no one wears their t-shirts and therefore robot god descent is forever delayed
http://zerostate.net/