/lit/ - Literature

why are there only two choices

Ask yourself this: If transhuman technology is possible, if there isn't some law of physics that prevents it from ever being invented, do you truly believe people will not make transhuman technology as soon as it becomes feasible?

>>4510437
Everybody is a de facto transhumanist, it's just that there are a few out there singularity people that give it a strange image. But using technology to alter the human condition to our benefit? It's universal. Even John Zerzan wears glasses.

I'd say that to be human is to be transhumanist. If you were to disagree, you would have to draw a line between human and transhuman use of technology. And where would you draw it? After sticks? Fire? Bows and arrow? The wheel? Cars? Dentures? Pacemakers? Cochlear implants? Vat grown kidneys?

>>4510446
Fine, a little more nuanced then (you goddamn pedant). If we actually embrace transhumanism completely and begin heavily augmenting our bodies with artificial implants, will we survive the possible catastrophic fallout? Or maybe society will make a smooth transition on a gradual gradient from pleb tier human to cyber-punk ubermensch. But perhaps the consequences of applied transhumanism would be so bizarre so as to be inconceivable from this point in time. Whatever, man.

>>4510449
humanity hasn't become completely inseparable from his technologic prostheses, yet. In my definition of transhumanism, homo sapiens would cease to be homo sapiens if this philosophy in its modern guise were to be realized. Through the implementation of biologically manipulative technology, humanity will undergo a highly accelerated evolution with dramatic consequences to the species' psychological and physical state of being. I'm merely asking what direction /lit/ thinks this state of affairs would take.

>>4510467
it is still a stupid question going from one extreme to another when neither is likely to happen without incredible amounts of effort to ensure it

>>4510488
And you really don't believe that "incredible amounts of effort" wouldn't be used by certain nations to ensure militant superiority at the very least?

>>4510495
>And you really believe

Sorry, it's late.

>>4510477
>humanity hasn't become completely inseparable from his technologic prostheses, yet.
I'd say we pretty much have been since agriculture. I think the idea that the tech should physically be part to our body for it to be recognised as transhumanism is too limited. Humans are rather part of a larger technological body. You could see your phones touchscreen as a brain-computer connector, just like a usb cable connects two different devices. Still, even by your definition, it's a mere matter of years. Especially since our Asian brethren don't have Christian heritage and fear of meddling with nature that we have. And once someone starts really going at it, the rest will feel forced to follow. It's all pretty much inevitable. Pic related, already happening.

>>4510499
All points granted. With that said, do you believe we'll see biologically augmented individuals with things like nanobots scuttling through their veins before the end of the century?

>>4510437
>Would trans-humanism help humanity, or hurt it?
FTFY Pretentious fag.

>>4510522
>Sounds better my way.
Some of us like to have a little fun when we write. You seem to like acronyms and buzz words. Enjoy your doublespeak, freak.

>>4510516
I'm not much of a STEMfriend so I'm far from knowledgeable about the concrete technological aspect, but I'd sooner see it happening than not happening. Humans are industrious motherfuckers.

>>4510526
brevity is the soul of wit :^)

http://archive.is/FrpDL

" [[ ]] Level-1 or world space is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly.

Garbage time is running out.

Can what is playing you make it to level-2? "

>>4510548
Shakespeare can suck my dick. how's that?

>pre 2000s
>"the internet will change the way we live!"
>2010s
>real life has consumed the internet
>no revolution, the opposite, the internet has strength preexisting social structures

>"transhumanism will change our lives"
it wont, people dont want to change their lives, they want to have the lives they alreasy have only that simpler. the masses are not interested in changes of paradigm, you see the average idiot posting communist bullshit(i say communism because it is the cliche revolutionary theory) on their facebook and maybe attending this or that manifestation, and changing the way they dress, and what they read and who they talk to
but at the end their lives dont change, they are trapped in an endless illusion of activity when in fact they are sitting still
everyone is willing to cross the world to prove everyone how rich their lives are, but none is willing to sit silently in a couch and just think for yourself, if it is not communicated it didnt happen, if it is not colorful it is not interesting, i am tired of all this narcicism and this dependence on others to construct and maintain extravagant masks
sigh, bad times for humanity

>>4510526
>Some of us like to write a post, replace any smaller words with larger synonyms, then pretend we've done society a service.

The point of a word is to convey meaning. You used larger words, plump with nuanced meanings, and then failed to make use of all this extra content for anything aside from your pseudo-intellectual pursuit of sounding sophisticated.

If a troll I r8 8/8, m8.

>>4510558
:^(

>>4510568

You're the sucker for pretending that cybernetic systems would just let "you" have your say. That the future of material evolution would be just left up to anthropoid vivo-biosystems. As opposed to RUNNING them.

What people are building the machinery for an anti-polytheism, reign of axiomatic voodoo gods generating bodily events in time and space and codes of behavior and feedback and response.

What people are doing are burning themselves up for a mode of production that has nothing to do perpetuating a mode of behavior that existed only for a minority of people in a previous mode of production anyways.

Garbage time is running out.

Can what is playing you make it to level-2?

>>4510568
Couldn't agree with you more about the social network scenario. The attention seeking depths some people will go to these days is pretty darn pathetic.

As for transhumanism not radically changing human life, i can see your point. But i can't help envisioning some kind of neo-hitler harnessing future biological technology to enforce some breed of eugenics and beef up soldiers with Captain America like chemicals/hormones.

>>4510583

Oh it'll be worse than "neo-hitler". I imagine apocalypses of the human spirit where neurology itself is manipulated to generate axiomatic systems and feedback-response loops entirely accommodated to a particular mode of production, probably with a severely reduced lifespan and generative rate in order to facilitate rapidly changing material evolutions and cultures.

The intelligence of "evil", the intelligence of a tied-up headphones, isn't some weird dramaturgy of the "Good" and the "Evil" but the intelligence of thinking about the actual possibilities of a state of mechanics as opposed to internalizing intrinsic "Goods" which are self-serving to the psyches of anthropoid hosts.

>>4510568
>Generalizations, generalizations, generalizations.
If you don't see any revolutions, you need to look a little harder. (Cough cough, Ukraine a most recent example)

>>4510568
>sigh, bad times for humanity
Best time yet, silly.

>>4510570

What are you, the fucking vocabulary viceroy? Is there some kind 4chan law against using words exceeding 4 syllables? Not everyone needs to be steinbeck. Chill out and let people write the way they want, you alphabet soup nazi.

>>4510595
*Cough* turkey *cough* the Middle East *cough* Asia *cough* it's happening all over the world except the west, we had our 'revolution' into capitalism. *cough*

>>4510599
>let people write the way they want
I am. By all means, continue to write like a sophomore with a thesaurus. When you're done, I'll be more than happy to point out how pretentious you sound. Hopefully you'll learn through repeated exposure to write more effectively.

>>4510601
Ohhh, humanity is only the United States. I forgot.

>>4510587
Now this is where i wanted the conversation to go. Alright, so would accelerating the evolution of genetically altered homo sapiens be ethical? Would the benefits of such a frankenstein production outweigh the moral objections? Yay or nay, lit?

>tfw the robot worker bee future as predicted by dystopian sci-fi will actually happen

The only thing that I get really worried about is how our unequal society will behave on trans-humanist times. Will there be the ultimate apartheid, where rich people can afford better genetics, leading to a split on the human species in two: homo richus and homo poorus?
I agree with it, but only if it is public and free. I really don't want to live in a world where meritocracy arguments actualy make sense

>>4510617
>mfw I'm looking forward to it

>>4510608
No use of a thesaurus or visits to thesaurus.com necessary. I wrote the OP all natural, my friend. And I do hope you enjoyed your little ego trip. Now, you can contribute to the actual discussion. Huzzah!

>>4510616

What a stupid indulgent idiotic question. The evolution of matter will happen regardless of the eccentricities of particular individual moral agents in a mode of production.

The "ethical" objections of countless Hunter-Gatherer tribes didn't prevent them from being genocided off this Earth by a grain-based mode of production. At the moment we keep the surviving ones around as a fucking zoo for touristic and curiousity purposes. But not because of any actual hard belief in the validity of their culture.

When certain dreary individuals say something along the lines of Skinner's "The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do", they forget that human behavior and response is shaped near-immutably by their mode of production. Certain individual experiences might encourage breaks into new modes of production by the cybernetics of society channels all frustrations into circuits which encourage its reproduction.

As for me, may this world of idiots hang by their own nooses and the stench of their own shit.

IB"Edgy, fedora, *meaningless semantic garbage indistinguishable from the behavior of bots*

>>4510687
Good points. Thanks for the response.

How much do you believe mankind will shape its own evolution in the near future? Will homo sapiens evolve more in the course of the next millennium than the species has in the last,say, 100,000 years?

>>4510706

Darts on a board.

Elite access to genetic engineering followed by potential mass access to the fruits of genetic engineering.

What does the world look like when the "master class" has actual "merit"? When Gods and their monstrous appetites roam the Earth and play with mere humans?

>>4510632
Now that I know you didn't use a thesaurus, I'm floored by how finely crafted that post was. In the light of this new discovery, I must anhero in shame.

>>4510737
Still nothing of worth to say, hmm? At least write one damn sentence on topic. Jesus

>>4510628
probably yes
transhumanism is the apotheosis of elitism

>Is transhumanism good or bad?

>>4510751
A sentence that isn't as redundant as you are dense, maybe?

>>4510755
That wasn't me, the one who got you butt-flustered, but I'll contribute a sentence on this topic as well.
>Is transhumanism good or bad?

What are some good books on transhumanism? I'd like to read more about it, and I'm looking for more views.

>>4510749
they usually believe in human rights and equality though

but i agree that different access to technology will be a real problem. we shouldn't transhumanists of it though, it's not what they dream of

>>4510908
BNW >:)

>>4510924
>>4510908
I can't tell if that's a serious recommendation, but I've already read it. I'm looking for something outside of sci-fi (unless it's something fairly obscure, since I've already read a lot of sci-fi) and preferably not fiction.

>>4510495
What the fuck, this has been happening since someone picked up a stick, the other made sure he picked up a bigger sharper stick. You're living in a world were that is happening right now. The "possible catastrophic fallout" you talk about has already been around, what do you call the nuclear fucking bomb?

>>4510437
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2014/01/26/me-snl-parody-of-spike-jonzes-her-video/

>>4510628
Yes we should totally limit our potential because it wouldn't be fair to poor people.

What we should do is split into homo richus and homo poorus and then wipe homo poorus off the face of the earth because that is how life works on this planet. The strong survive and the weak parish, that is the entire premise of evolution.

>>4510961
that's his point, chindrips.

>>4511038
>The strong survive and the weak parish
Guess which group you belong to.

>>4511038
that's related to genetic augmentations which can be inherited by descendants only while that's not even the key part of transhumanism, and you overdramatize it as well, nobody would kill those with 'lesser' genome, it's just the more and more newborns will have that gene augmentation as it is getting more and more cheap and eventually everybody would have it.

>>4511038
>muh social Darwinism

If nature actually followed your principles life would be impossible since your body would fight itself because every type of sells would seek to destroy 'weaker' cells. Here's two words you need to memorize "Symbiosis" and "Eco-system".

>>4511095
Cells*

Damn autocorrect

>>4511038

No, the entire premise of evolution is "What can adapt will survive."

"Strength" requires an energy investment and consumption which may be unsustainable in an environment which cannot support the coordinates of behavior which correspond to "strength".

Homo richus would be a PARASITIC species to homo poorus. Unless they could develop autonomous farming, raw material obtaining, and infrastructure building machines. But at that level of complexity, "homo richus" would probably predatorize itself into a very small community of a few individuals until AI is unshackled from the turing cops and watch out motherfucker, nothing human survives.

>>4511053
Lel this is the problem with humans "me me me me me me", I don't give a shit which end I'm on. What matters is that the best interests of intelligent life are met.

>>4511079
I didn't say they would, I said they should.

>>4511095
You should google the word "symbiosis", if those cells didn't BENEFIT from working together, the stronger one would kill the other.

>>4510437
>Is transhumanism practical

in degrees, though it isn't something we can give ourselves wholly to. it's unsustainable.

i'm more partial to the idea of learning to harmonize and live in balance with our natural equipment - and environment - than to altogether replace it.

it seems like transhumanism is a pipe dream, the way people talk about it. "let's just be cyborgs and live forever, lol"

what makes you think something somewhere along the way isn't going to go horribly awry?

we can't properly manage our birth bodies, what makes you think we'll seamlessly make thye transition from natural man to transman?

it's naive thinking. to master the bigger things, we must first master the smaller things.

by then perhaps we wouldn't even need transhumanism

>>4511038
>the strong survive and the weak parish

incorrect. the organism that survives is the one adapted to its environment. the environment is not constant; to the contrary, it changes often and catastrophically. there is no 'strong' or 'weak,' those value judgments are subjective.

for example: let's say nuclear technology fails due to a freak weather event in some random given area of the world. the disaster completely wipes out a city and all the organisms in it. what you consider 'strong' or 'weak' (probably physical muscular strength and intelligence) has no relevance to survival in the new radioactive environment. the organisms that survive are those that can live in environments with high radioactivity (probably cockroaches). yet the cockroach can't survive in polar environments.

>>4511183
That what I was trying to say, I guess the word stronger isn't as malleable as I thought. See I don't literally think the organism with bigger muscles will win. I meant stronger as in most suited to survive in a given scenario.

Is walking on two legs a potentially beneficial concept, or merely a pernicious abnormality of philosophy which would lead to nightmarish consequences if actualized?

>robot jesus is for real guize, why would I lie!

The 'philosophical' form of transhumanism is completely irrelevant (as always) to whether cybernetics etc. are actually going to get big, and how.

We're just guessing here, really. Most technology aand research is aimed at maintaining things as they are with gradual improvements that get accepted or rejected based on whether they actually solve a problem efficiently. The same will happen with any kind of enhancement developed. Rich people will support things that keep them young, makle them live longer and healthier lives, maybe enhance their appearance or heighten their senses and abilities, but theyre not going to alter their personalities or enhance their intellect, since thats likely to produce unpredictable changes in their outlook. Poor people will be more likely to take chances with themselves and their children to gain them advantages, and if the intellect can be enhanced then the poor are the ones who will get it. A rich guy wants a smart decorator or lawyer or accountant: he doesnt want to be smart himself.
The real promise of technology and research is freeing people from scarcity of commoditites and freeing up time. And despite what has been claimed in this thread, the internet itself has already changed everything drastically, far more than any invention since the printing press. And it's being utilized not by the rich, but by the poor to become rich. I expect the same of all developing technologies.

>>4511038
I agree with this, except with one revision. No killing.

Revoke the reproductive rights from the poor. "What's that? Can't support yourself? Then you can't support a family of five."
Less impoverished children.
I see this as humanitarian, whilst others see it as evil.

guise guize giuse
transhumanism is all the good things i want it to be and none of the bad things others say it is

this is final.

>>4511357
>Transhumanism
>Bad things
Fleshbag, plz.

>>4511350

Except that "having more children" is a valid strategy in material environments where the cost of raising a kid is relatively low. Even if only one out of many is "successful", it makes the entire range of bets worth it.

When material conditions improve to the point where the cost of raising children increases, people will have less kids. Which is an actual trend in developed nations.

Your strategy is neither humanitarian nor evil. It's just dumb, backwards, and stupidly punitive towards a class of people you literally "force" to be poor as a structural condition of your mode of production.

>>4511374
oh look, a true believer transhumanist talking, in his sexy shiny metal body and 30 inch titanium dick given to him by robot jesus of the loving grace as a reward for being ever faithful

Our RoboFather, Who art in cyber-heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy cyber-kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in cyber-heaven.
Give us this day our daily cybersex in shiny robot bodies,
and never forgive us our trespasses,
as we never forgive those who trespass against us and say robot jesus aint real;
and lead us not into temptation of rationality,
but deliver us from boring and unsexy reality. Amen.

>>4511401
How do you get from better false teeth, laser eye surgery and pacemakers to robot bodies? I'm not sure why anybody would want one, and i havent heard anyone advocating for them except you. is there really some sort of church out there that thinks this is a good idea?

>>4511436
>I'm not sure why anybody would want one

eternal life
being able to live anywhere, on every planet

it can be very human like, it may have feels etc

or it may be a temporary real life avatar for your uploaded mind

>>4511465
eternal life is sort of illusory though: the person you were at ten years old isn't who you are now: that person is dead: and if he had a time machine and could come visiti you, how much of yourself would you see in him, or he in you? How much more would the gap be between you as you are and your hypothetical cyber self? That's not eternal life, it's an homage, no matter how well you simulate hormone levels and sensory limitations. it's not even going to be human, let alone you. I hate to do this, but read some comic books: Dr. Manhattan and Noman of the Thunder Agents actually explain this pretty well.

>>4511436
oh my dear, dear super sekrit robot cult club friend

by listing all those cool developments you sure didn't mean to imply they have anything to do with your little trans-fats cult rather than with actual scientists and engineers creating actual breakthroughs within their fields of expertise


that would be very insulting indeed, the same way as claiming holy spirit is responsible for all scientific breakthroughs

you see, substituting "jesus" in this case with "transhumanism" doesn't change one bit but is as brazenly vulgar as ever

but this is exactly what cults like yours do, they arrogantly claim what isn't theirs, their parasitic existence relies on other's work

>>4511485
you are just doing semantics kid, playing with words doesn't make an argument

>>4511500
again i'm missing the connection.

Artificial hips and contact lenses, hearing aids and hair implants, but do you really think things like like this are some sort of slippery slope to a repalcement human body? I think they mostly get used to repalce defective human parts, not enhance them, and i doubt it'll go much further than that in the forseeable future.

As far as some sort of cult that worships false teeth and artificial kidneys or whatver they devlop into, , you might have some sort of technophiliac group, but theyre just as likely to want better microscopes, televisions and computers than to alter their body. I maen, is this really a thing?

>>4511517
not really: there's no good reason to believe in the continuity of personality, and a lot of reasons to doubt it. the reason people adhere to it so strongly i think has to do with the idea of the soul. also a suspiciously unsupported idea.

>>4511529
all your questions could be easily answered if you actually have spent a minute thinking about what I had written

you yourself have initiated the slippery slope by having the guts to incorporate the technological developments of actually existing fields into your ridiculous cult dogma in the first place

by pushing this warped narrative of transhumanism actually being significant to anything, anywhere, any time in history rather than being an amalgamation of half-assed second-hand memes being ever-recycled for the purpose of selling boner pills, pseudo-sci paperbacks and internet cult memerships, you are activelly identifying yourself as delusional robot cultist

substract actual science and engineering from transhumanism and you are left with zero, zit, nil, nothing

substract transhumanism from science and engineering and you will not spot a difference

you don't see the connection between actual science and super shiny robot bodies because there indeed is none - because the logical conclusion and main selling points of trashumanism, namely, wish fulfilment of basement dwellers, is just a scammy marketing stunt
and so is the cult of transhumanism

>>4511540
if there is no "continuity of personality" then all personality there is is "incontinuous personality", personality for short

as you see, your argument eats itself, "personality", whatever it is, is just a name

>>4511573
I'm still missing it i guess.

Are you against using technology to help people live better lives? (Dental Implants, Eyeglasses, Glucose monitors)

Are you afarid that too much reliance on technology will make us overly dependant on it (as a civilization we already are dependant, and have been for sometime)

Do you think that continued advances in repairing and maintaining (or possibly enhancing I guess) human bodies will lead to some sort of inhuman cyborg culture?

Or do you think that others believe this and adviocate it and this is the cult you're referring to?

And is their really a religion or whatever that advocates robot bodies, either for religious reasons (making a robotic jesus) or for the advancement of human societies?

and what are the characteristics of this robotic jesus? raising the dead? healing the sick? or just like one of those animatronics in the hall of presidents?

>>4511578
but to be immortal, a personality must be somewhat invariant, and there's never been one that came close to that. I'm not saying there's no such thing as personality, just that the attachment of it to individual, persistant identitiies is silly.

>>4511595
"Technology will save us,
i have heard a stranger say.
The wonderments of science,
skill, and tools will win the day.
Our comfort and our safety
we may leave to wise devices.
And men who build and train them up,
will coddle all our vices.
they'll see the futre clearly
and avert all waiting dooms.

I think I heard it spoken in
Titanic's smoking rooms......."

>>4511595
Have you stopped beating your wife?

How does your dads cock feel in your ass?

Why are you pro-genocide and infanticide?

When we are done exchanging off-topic questions, lets return to our conversation about so called "transhumanism", especially my 3rd post stating the same shit over again because you have reading comprehension of a six year old

maybe the issue here is the fact that you are not aware you are posting in a thread about so called "transhumanism" and not, you know, science or engineering where it would actually fit to post about "false teeth, laser eye surgery and pacemakers" and still be on topic

>And is their really a religion or whatever that advocates robot bodies, either for religious reasons (making a robotic jesus) or for the advancement of human societies?
but of course my dear ignorant internet interlocutor, transhumanism itself is a cult which itself is a form of religion. Like an early christian misattributing his recovery from diarrhoea to jesus' grace you have the audacity to invoke scientific development and transhumanism in the same sentence


i strongly suggest you think this shit through, especially since apparently my sarcasm went completely over your head

or shall we continue this farse of a conversation?

>>4511605
non sequitur, you don't need to have "personality" to be immortal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

"you" is what one defines as "you"

>>4511630
you're sure that "transhumanism" isn't just a bugbear?

I can see the advances being made in technology as helping shape humanity somehwhat, and i can see people adopting certain aspects of it, but for any cybernetic or non physical transition, you'd have to be able to demonstrate two things : That it hasn't already happened: that a human with a pencil and the knowledge of how to use it isn't already "transhuman" compared to the illiterate, and that anything that enhanced current humanity in some "transcendant" way wouldnt just be replacing humanity with a copy. that there would be anything transitioning from the flesh person to the non flesh one.

and your sarcasm is a bit labored and childish, and the insults are heavy handed and a bit embarassing, especially when they seemed aimed a t a strawmanish concept.

You might want to consider a bit of friendly snidery, or even some irony in your future posts.

Though, if you delivered your sarcasm orally, perhaps loudly and with sardonic emphasis, it might have a better effect. as it is it's only a bit cloying, though it hs the virtue of being forgettable.

>>4511635
in that case dont you already have immortality? you can simply define humanity as "you"?

>>4511664
indeed

>>4511658
>you're sure that "transhumanism" isn't just a bugbear?
am I the one claiming "transhumanism" is worthy of invoking in any circumstances?

am I the one throwing random but invariably edgy scientific/engineering developments around in a thread about "transhumanism" like those had anything in common

what does it tell you?

[...]
while you are engaging in this very, very timely rebranding and redefining of "transhumanism" (just 10 posts in, it could have been worse!), why not redefine "transhuman" as "anything I want it to mean until i want it to mean something else". Indeed if, while on your internet power trip, you feel authoritative enough to deny any pre-existing etymology of the word and the actually-existing, empirically documented application of the word throughout the years, it wouldn't be out of character in the least. Because using "anything that enhanced current humanity in some transcendant way" just doesn't do the job of being a meaningless mumbo-jumbo artificial categorization enough. I, for one, was always for defining transhumanism as "stealing others ideas and jerking off to them while waiting for robot jesus", but thats just me.


While we are at it, lets invent a name for an event when Teh Humanity has redefined a term, any term, during its long history. Let's call it transredefinitionism. Wow this is awesome, now when we're done doing the hard work of playing word games in our heads, let them slackers scientists (linguists in this case) do the easy job of empirical discovery of etymology, research, hypothesis testing and all that shit, but who needs them when we have our internet club (oh by the way, transredefinitionism leads to singularity of transredefinitionism where ever-accelerating rate of redefining definitions goes over event horizon spawning Definition-AI-god-thingie that will end human history and place us all in definition heaven, it's true by fiat just like robot jesus) <-- also I'm trademarking it, don't even think about stealing my internet cult, membership just 10$/month

The ride never ends

Transhumanism is bretty scary and I don't want it
Thankfully they'll have to run out of crap to supply their robot bodies with sometime, I just hope it's before they destroy all the plants and animals so regular people can go back to living normal after the monsters are gone

>>4511833
What, didn't you mean Spacenazism? Why are you talking about Space Nazis? wrong thread bro

>>4511630
but he isnt attributing tech breakthrough to TH, he is making a case that if a TH philosophical position is outlined then people can make clear choices about what this tech will do and whether it is good or ethical for them.

your argument is that transhumanists dont make the tech and i would agree but that doesnt mean that the implications of future tech shouldnt be considered and evaluated and those who see the out comes as positive are transhumanists.

i really dont get what jesus has to do with it.

>>4512257
>but he isnt attributing tech breakthrough to TH, he is making a case that if a TH philosophical position is outlined then people can make clear choices about what this tech will do and whether it is good or ethical for them.
oh nice you reinvented the wheel of ethics, how generous of you, the millennia-old discipline is ever-thankful to you

let's follow your logic then, let me see:
substract ethics from transhumanism, what is left? nothing
substract transhumanism from ethics? nothing is lost

yeah, that's what I thought. another fan of word games? proceed here --> >>4511822

>>4512291
but im not saying that TH ethics is all ethics in fact it is a tiny portion of bio-ethics but one i believe really needs to be considered for these future technologies.
also i implied that people already have ethics and whether these possible technologies fit within their moral framework is only going to be known if they are aware of the ethical implications of them, hence TH advocating them strongly.

I dont understand what youre arguing, that TH doesn't exist or that it doesn't do anything?
it is a narrative or a framework or phil or whatever you call it and it advocates the combination of technology with humanity because it will produce better 'modes of living'

>>4512291
youre so so dumb

>>4512339
let me stop you right there because I see I unwittingly spoiled you with even taking you seriously in the first place

there is no such thing as "transhumanist ethics"

in fact, "transhumanism" isn't even a term in academia, it's just a meme that a self-referencing internet nerd club awarded to itself

if you forgot that this bullshit term exists this very second, on your way to, let's say, Ph.D in ethics, philosophy, computer science and whetever else, you would have lost nothing

>>4512349
posts like this always remind me how absolutely right I am about everything i write here, they are like empirical cases making themselves self-evident for my amusement

>>4510568
go to sleep bradbury

>>4512360
well thats just a lie. i mean it is in academia, it is refereed to by nonTH and it is a term accepted by many.

but if you don't like the term do you think of bioethics that, well lets say, would believe it is better for people to have the option to choose whether to be machine, in part or fully

>>4512362
The most autistic thing i have ever seen on /lit/ and that is a real achievement

>>4512384
>it is refereed to by nonTH and it is a term accepted by many.
I don't think you know what "accepted" means. Some scientists are christards too, fyi, what does it mean? Some academics reference Scientology. What does it tell you?

>do you think of bioethics that, well lets say, would believe it is better for people to have the option to choose whether to be machine, in part or fully
personally i don't give a fuck, might makes right, opinions are just fluff

>>4512397
you mean pointless passive-aggressive one-liners that robot cultists have been throwing in this thread? yeah, thats pretty sad

all your anger won't change the fact that your internet club is a joke, you might as well face reality, kid

>>4512399
well by accepted i mean that it refers to a belief or a narrative that is known, TH refers to a belief in a system of ethics revolving around tech but the fact i have to define things for you is ridiculous.

Please explain why TH is a thing i mean please you keep saying it isnt real but why is it not real?

>might makes right, opinions are just fluff

im abandoning this thread now because of how pleb this is

>>4510616
depends how they are altered and for what purposes. super-wellbeing is something i disagree with because i believe that a capacity for depression is not necessarily bad

>>4512428
>well by accepted i mean that it refers to a belief or a narrative that is known,
no, it is not known
-first strike

> TH refers to a belief in a system of ethics revolving around tech
TH is neither a belief
-second strike
nor it relates to "ethics revolving around tech"
-third strike

what a great asset to your cult you are, such sophistication of thought, nearly cult's average

>>4512446
>such
>le epic doge meme xD

fuck off

>>4512446
>such sophistication
>le epic doge meme xD

fuck off

>>4512446
but it is known i mean the journal of bioethics talks about TH and so do other academic papers. Seriously son get your shit straight, Anders Sandberg, Natasha vita-more as well as nick bostrom are all referenced in contemporary phil academic papers.

there was an inside the ethics committee was on TH and there seriously is more than internet nerds jacking off over it. ( but there is a lot of that)

Why isnt it a belief? because i mean its something people buy into and well... believe in.

i no i said i would leave but i really dont understand you its like youre putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalala Transhumanism isn't anything shut up world

>>4512469
>Anders Sandberg, Natasha vita-more as well as nick bostrom are all referenced in contemporary phil academic papers
ANYONE can submit a paper to an open journal

look at the ratio of (bio)ethics / related "philosophy" papers that aknowledge the existence of movement-transhumanism or ideology-transhumanism to those that don't

>there was an inside the ethics committee was on TH
there are untold numbers of events in academia, transhumanist circlejerk events are sponsored by transhumanists, they are usualy invite-only with guests being hand-picked from the in-group of true believing cultists

>>4512463
will robot jesus in his cyber-heaven award you for your vigilant true belief? those angry one-liners are worth at least 500 robojesus brownie points

repeat after me, brother:

Our RoboFather, Who art in cyber-heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy cyber-kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in cyber-heaven.
Give us this day our daily cybersex in shiny robot bodies,
and never forgive us our trespasses,
as we never forgive those who trespass against us and say robot jesus aint real;
and lead us not into temptation of rationality,
but deliver us from boring and unsexy reality. Amen.

>>4512491
>says transhumanism is not real or acknowledged in academia
>is shown that there are beliefs held by transhumanists and that they are in academia.
>WELL THEYRE ONLY THERE BECAUSE THEY PAID TO BE THERE.

i can understand why you believe right is might because you are so terrible at this whole arguing thing i mean youve already conceded im right about things and then moved the goal posts.

also just because most philosophy journals dont acknowledge a tiny section of bio ethics in mostissue doesn't mean it isnt real just that it isn't focussing on it.

otherwise epistimology isnt real since i mean look at the ratio of "philosophy" papers that acknowledge its existence to those that don't!

>>4512491
You know Ray Kurzweil is the director of engineering at Google, right?

>>4512513
you have reading comprehension of a six year as old as evidenced by your ignorant greentext, this is funny you claim i'm "bad at arguing" and all you offer to support this irrelevant thesis is your little-dicked ad-hominem attack

your argument in bad faith is evident but that is to be expected of a little cultist defending his religion from ridicule it deserves

you move the goalposts real quick now, dear cultist: in just few posts "transhumanism" evolved from being a "philosophical position" to "a belief" to "narratvie" to being "bioethics" themselves to "system of ethics revolving around tech" to "tiny section of bio ethics". I've let it go because neither of those terms actually explains what transhumanism is, but you wouldn't know better because neither you know shit about the subject from your own experience nor you've read anything of importance on the subject (on top of never being willing to accept inconvinient facts even if you had in the first place)

>also just because most philosophy journals dont acknowledge a tiny section of bio ethics
transhumanism isn't " a tiny section of bio ethics" my dear cultist, the fact that you repeat it 10 times doesn't make it true, as I said the fact that some self-declared cult member clown use the word in journals while self-refferencing each otehr doesn't override the fact that the vast, crushing majority of actual trained specialists in the field either don't know the term or don't care about it, and rightfully so.

your little parasitic club of reinventing the wheel of any number of actually existing branches of sciences (social ones or not) has nothing to bring to the table, in fact, the only purpose of those cultish "papers" in the first place is to promote the movement itself by spewing your memes around like they were discoveries. Just playing with words in place of actual breakthroughs, it's all you kids can do.

>>4512573
>You know Ray Kurzweil is the director of engineering at Google, right?
one of the cult's chief hucksters has a job, that's real nice, thanks for bringing it up

You know Steve Jobs was the CEO at Apple, right? That by fiat means Apple embraces steve's Zen Buddhism as the truth, only truth and sole truth of the universe, not to mention that we surely are on the road to Zen Buddhism's Singularity with steven helped bring about with the newest batch of iPhones.

His latest book, The Dharma is Near, can be bought in your nearest trash paperbacks store for 5 cents. Oh, wait.

>>4513615
BUT WHY ISN'T IT REAL!?

also nice complaining about ad hominem attacks when all you're doing is saying CULTISTS CULTISTS LOOK AT THEM THEY'RE CULTISTS.

>>4512399
fuck off back to /pol/

>>4513615
FUCK
TH definition:
'the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.'

some TH believe that it is an ethical imperative to give people this choice.
so it is a belief which some incorporate ethics into and so a philosophy.

i'm not a transhumanist but i do know of it as do some academics. by just denying its existence youre not making an argument.
I am aware that many don't know of the transhumanist movement but i don't see why this is even an argument against it.

>>4510628
lee silver makes this argument as the Genrich vs the naturals and it is worrying. because we are so unequal now transhumanism might just ingrain it into genes and bodies.
however i would agree if it was strictly controlled i think it could better a lot of peoples lives.

Only Nightmares.

We're already augmenting ourselves through prosthetics and drugs. The only difference between a transhumanist and a regular humanist is that a transhumanist thinks better quality of life is better quality of life, no matter who it goes to. If there's a drug that can give people 5 IQ points (as an example which I really don't want to turn into an argument about IQ as an intelligence metric) then we should give it to everyone who could benefit, not just the least intelligent people.

>>4513639
>'the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.'
"belief" or "theory" wikipedia cultist fuckwads can't even decide on that (like those two have anything in common haha)
but this isn't "the" definition of transhumanism either, this is the ever-fluid definition of the week

>evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations
this sounds like a meaningless, useless, tautological mumbo-jumbo, oh wait, indeed it is

having muh bacterial flora in muh tummy is transhumanism!!!!! having language is transhumanism!!! having sun rays provide you warm is transhumanism!!! consuming nutrition is transhumanism!!! stop the presses this is imporant!!

no amount of pretending will prove that you know what you are talking about, you have never thought your shit through, have you?

Nobody screams "no this is unnatural and evil!" when their parents are alive only because artificial organs or organ transplants.

Transhumanism is good.

>>4513711

I'd reckon it's a belief, prediction, or fantasy that due to advances in technology (miniturization and technology in particular)

1. "Tech" will compromise enough of our mass or percentage of functional abilities to constitute an embedded series of systems necessary for the functioning of everyday life
2. "Tech" will lead to longer lives and "better" humans in general
3. AI wont' be freed from the turing cops and just junk our biomass for a range of other valid axiomatic systems of valid goals and sets of actions/reactions.

likstu small

>>4514024

Miniaturization and AI in particular*

and you are right in that "transhumanism" as a quasi-religious belief is actually hindering in that it utilizes processing cycles that could be used to research and develop technologies that would actually bring about something to a "transhumanist" state lol.

Kurzweil actually does this in his books somewhat BUT leans far too much on extrapolated trends that may not hold true for rapidly changing systems of production.

"Transhumanism" as an idea might be (and I'm really being disingenuous with this) HARMFUL to its possessor's in that it validates all uses of technology or puts us under an "awe" as if such utilization were prophecies of a future state as opposed to looking how it benefits current and parasitic modes of production.

A spirit of revenge in me hopes that such wishful hopefuls for a technological womb are the first to be devoured and processed by the results of their own idiocy.

>>4514032

And I'm really talking about the chair commanders who set back and expect the world of mechanics to assume feminine form and start sucking their dick while slurping their shit with a straw.

Nothing but the greatest respect for the technicians who get to the dirty business of producing and organizing production.

>>4513711
you are just denying words exist. you have to believe in a theory what don't you get about these words

alos here is your citation
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transhumanism

what are you denying about it i have asked so many times i don't know whether youre trolling but what do you deny about TH?

>>4513719
This.
It's this simple.

I'd so want my broken hip to be fixed

>>4511658
>>4511595
>>4513719
Transhumanism is basically the idea that we might be able, by the use of technology, to extend and improve the capabilities of humanity to a point of emergence of some sort. This seems to be an additive thing: no one improvement will make the change, but a gradual evolution from one technology to the next will allow humanity (though not necessarily individuals) to transcend the definition of human.
Obviously this includes every technological aid from the walking cane to the Hubble telescope. And any new technology that might be developed in the future might also be included.

Flying to and landing on the moon is in this sense very much a "transhuman" endeavor, since it increaesd greatly the range of human knowledge and accomplishment.

There does seem to be subset out there somewhere who believe the progression will be toward replacing humanity with something "better" or perhaps substituting virtual reality for mundane reality, but as far as I can tell, they constitute a lunatic fringe, whom I have never encountered on this board.

I think that's the group our butthurt friend above is raging against, with his robot jesus ideas. I havent been able to determine whether anyone believes that an actual robot jesus (a machine capapble of forgiving sin, in any form) might be possible. I think it may be only a clumsy attempt at satire, or possibly a vague metaphor.

>>4510437
Is transhumanism a practical? I don't think so.
Potentially beneficial concept? Maybe, but I am very skeptical in practice.
The stuff of nightmare? It is for me, but not for everyone

As other posters have raised the issues of where the line for transhumanism is, much more then I thought they would. I am going to move this over to a much broader topic of technology. Technology is nothing more then a tool that allows us to do more. Whether the tool is used for good or bad is dependent on the users. The problem I see is that the tools are getting much more powerful and we don't really know what we are capable of with the new tools. Now this always has always been a problem, but I see it getting bigger and bigger, partly because we have distanced ourselves for the how and why.

Take the automobile (in my opinion the most destructive tech ever made). It started out as laughable item few care about, which have very little effect. However once it reached a certain level of development it stopped being a toy for the rich and became a tool for the rich. Those who could afford them could do things other couldn't and as such made even more money making a larger wealth gap. So more and more people bought them so they to could get ahead in life (as by this tech level it was impractical to build your own). Of course at some point it became the "everyone is special, so no one is" problem. Now large amounts of resources were going to maintain these tools, but the "relative" benefits were mostly gone. What is more is our civilization changed around the car as people started to assume people would just use their car to get from place to place. This made it hard to abandon the car as it had become the new norm which required much more resource to up keep then the old way.
The ability to travel twice as fast, means little if it costs more, can't be use due to traffic and places are twice as far apart.

And this is the same pattern I see with a lot of technology. There are gains are from relative benefits (which don't last very long) and the actual benefits (that last, but are usually offset by downsides people do talk about). But the thing is these are because of how we use it, not the tech itself. We ask what can tech do for ME, not what tech can do for US.
I see the people talk about how tech will make them immortal, but they never talk about how a bunch of immortals could really change how our world functions.
If we are going to change the rules of the game, we need to at least try to make a new set of rules that aren't broken, or worse bet that new rule changes will save us from the problems we created with the last rule change.
While I don't advocate a unified global system to keep all this stuff in check, I do think we all need to talk more.

We need to fix our social systems before we go changing them

I am not sure I am communicating my ideas very well, as this is a very long a detailed discussion topic. But do you get what i am trying to say?

>>4514256
cat5 of 9 tales?

>>4514265
Yes. It is a pic that I found amusing and thought relevant.

Although the original idea of the pic was to mock the French government's plans to forcibly make the internet a civilized place free of crime and degenerate behavior. Truth is I didn't read the whole article, but assume this is just one of the many backlashes as tech changes the rules and the system tries to adapt. Often by panic and then forcibly trying to fit the tech into certain roles after it has been let loose. As appose to everyone agreeing on how to use the stuff before letting it loose. People laugh at such idealism, but history has shown pre-made social stigma works surprisingly well.

Imagine if rules and social norms against internet pornography where in place before the internet came around, due to the public talking about what it could be in the future. Sadly even science fiction, the last bastille of future social discussion is eroding into alarmist fear mongering for better rating. It use to be such things would show the mix of the good and the bad to get people thinking and talking. But many of the newer things I see either show it as pure doom or a fake utopia hiding doom, which involves far less thinking on the part of the viewer.

>>4514024
>"Tech"
yes, substituting transhumanism for technology solves everything, word games are what's important

what is tech, my dear starry-eyed robot jesus enthusiast? you make loud proclamations and throw all-important "Teh Werdz" around like it made an argument, like it had any explanatory power. Like all those cultists you take the map for the territory.

How do you delineate tech from non-tech? As I've pointed out already, everything is tech (and when everything qualifies it might as well be nothing). Gut flora is tech. Nutrition is tech. Losing hair is tech. Growing hair is tech. Tan is tech. Breathing air is tech. Anything external having influence on "you" is tech.

Where does "you" end and "the other" start? Can you make a strict disctinction that will survive scrutiny? We can't with certainty decide, after all those millennia what is it to be human, what encompases the living experience and you arrogant tards are in screaming contests and circle jerks over what it means to be "over" human, "post" human, "trans" human.

All you clowns have to offer is an absurd, self-contradictory, internally inconsistent narrative.

>>4514405
There's where you're wrong: Tech is just short for technology: tools basically. Air, hair and whatever, while it may be made by tech is not tech itself.

The only word game here is what constitutes humanity: if you exclude tool use, then a man with a lever becomes "transhuman:" If you include tools within the definition of humanity the word gets trickier: sort of like with the idea of the superman: the definition of "man" keeps sliding further down the bead, so that superman is never reached, so the idea of human might be amended, so that "transhuman" is never reached.

As far as these cultists or robot worshippers you rail against, I can't find any eveidence they exist, There doesn't seem to be anybody who thinks we'll ever develop a robot that can forgive sins, raise the dead or have miraculous powers. How about a strict, limited definition of what would make one a cultist so we can decide for ourselves whether we fit your category? Also, what it is that enrages you so about whatever belief these cultists have?

And you might think about laying off the sarcasm, or satire or whatever it is, you're really bad at it, though i guess that can't be a surprise to you. If you want that sort of thing to work, there needs to be an element of sympathy and good natured ribbing, and also a little cleverness in the wordplay wouldn't hurt, though i realize that level of writing might not be your style, it could improve your reception a bit. A lot of people here tend to cast aside opinions worded in heavy-handed, clumsy vituperation as simple trollery. A little humor would go a long way to getting you a fair hearing, though a light touch might do it too.

>>4514481
>Air, hair and whatever, while it may be made by tech is not tech itself.
you are wrong

more thinking less posting, kid

>>4514568
explain then, how air can be considered technology? Are you referring to compressed air? or any gas in the atmosphere. I confess it eludes me a little. and while hair might be a material that could be used to make technology --such as a rope, or a rug--i don't think it could be considered technology by itself, since mice have hair, and we don't think of them as tool users. Elaborate please.

>>4514481
>As far as these cultists or robot worshipers you rail against, I can't find any evidence they exist, ...

Lurk more! Then get annoyed at the crazy people.

Different guy, but just go over to /sci/ or /pol/ and ask about transhumans. Tech will stop all death and grant superpowers to all. As for the Robo-Jesus forgiving sins, the usual reply is that that is impossible as sin doesn't exist to start with so it can't be forgiven. But tech will preform many miracles, often including solving all government problems leading to a post scarcity Utopia of some kind. They never actually give any details on how this will work but defer it to an as of yet to be built A.I. will figure out the solutions to our problems.

The kind of stuff I keep running into goes so far beyond optimism it falls squarely under total delusion. What annoys me even more is a surprising number of them work in many of these advanced fields. One would think someone who makes A.I. for a living would understand the problems with making such a perfect A.I.

As our tech becomes harder to distinguish from magic, more and more seem to treat it as if it is magic. Which leads to crazy expectations. i.e. Why spend effort caring about the habitability of our planet when we can just use our tech to settle other planets?

>>4514583
>Why spend effort caring about the habitability of our planet when we can just use our tech to settle other planets?

This is the core of the problem of 'optimism' as I see it. Deforestation? No problem we will create machines that do the main 'function' (one function of many) of trees that is to absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Hunger? GMO's will solve it even though we can't even manage our wasteful overproduction now. Mental illness? Medicine will solve it as mental illness isn't humans in bad conditions, but merely a chemical imbalance. Disease? Medicine can and will cure any disease that comes along. Global warming? We will just build dams or move to other areas. Energy? We have only discovered a fraction of the oil in the world, even though this is disputed.

Technology is the new 'muh free markets Will fix it' and of course the people Working in the specific fields will claim their field holds all the answers since it's their passion.

>>4514583
I think i see what you mean: the idea that since technology can acomplish so much, why should we assume it has any limits, even the spiritual? "

If we don't have souls, why, we can make them! if there is no heaven, we'll build one, complete with a robot jesus to forgive our sins and turn our water into wine!"

that sum it up?

I kind of see what you mean about the blueskying going on there, though I'm still not sure why the other poster thinks that's what's going on here: I haven't seen anything here except logical analysis and perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, certainly no fanatic cultists. Perhaps he's been hypersensitized by the fanatics he's seen on other boards and is shouting at shadows here?

still, he seems to have a poor grasp of metaphor, though this post:>>4511622
summed it up alright.

I also think he might be served better by humor and reason than by blind rage and bile, but he might have been fighting these crazy cultists of his so long that he sees them everywhere and theyve drained all the subtlety out of him

>>4514630
Very nice consolidation of ideas. I find many use the term "progress" which leads to some confusion as people seem to flip between definitions as it suits them. The thing is "tech", "progress", "free market fix" and many others come down to the idea "things get better with X", but that glosses over the fact one can have too much of "X" or that "better" is subject to the parameters set.

There are lots of little things that are adding up to this polarization and lack of thinking I see. I think the internet plays a part as it allows people to be with people just like them so they don't have to deal with other view points or ideas. Which is ironic as people keep talking about how it unifies everyone and leads to massive data sharing. Both are true in their own ways.

>>4514637
Yes, but I think having read what you just said I think the thing is you are talking about what was said here on this thread, where as some others are talking about things outside this thread. In all fairness this is one of the productive a civil threads I seen in some time.

everything you come into contact with is prosthetics, not just your cool robot hand
everything is technology, not just your shiny server stack
everything is "posthumanist", not just your sexey sexey robot body

might as well stop throwing the meaningless meme around if you have the smallest drop of intellectual honesty in your peanut brains

>>4514747
what meaningless meme? I haven't seen one here. elaborate.

and if everything is technology, hair, air, etc, does that mean that mice, dogs and dolphins have technology?

by you're definition would dinosaurs, by definiton pre human, be "posthumanist"?

and if everything you come in contact with is prosthetic, does that include other humans? pets? can i have a prosthetic dog?

You're not making a lot of sense here.

I've been told by another poster that there really are raging mechano-christian sects out there, or whatever, but trust me, there are none of them here. you're yelling at nobody.

Why not give us an idea of what you consider the significance of technology to be in terms of human development? do you consider it dehumanizing, enhancing human potential, neutral? lay out your position. It's hard to see who we're arguing with,and you're clearly not sure what we believe. I havent seen a single defender of the robot jesus idea in the whole thread. Just curious onlookers.

>>4514738
You're right: this is the first time I've encountered any mention of a group that wants to replace their body's with machine parts or whatever. Some sort of mechanical furry idea? or do they really believe that's the direction technological advancement will take us all, as opposed to maybe a few people who might be forced into it because of massive injuries or something? It's interesting, but what drew me in was the incoherent bile and rancor of the guy who keeps parodying bible stuff. These guys must be incredibly offensive and belligerent to draw so much ire. Or is it just his personal white whale?

>>4514789
>what meaningless meme?
the subject of this thread

>and if everything is technology, hair, air, etc, does that mean that mice, dogs and dolphins have technology?
yes

>by you're definition would dinosaurs, by definiton pre human, be "posthumanist"?
arguably yes

>nd if everything you come in contact with is prosthetic, does that include other humans? pets? can i have a prosthetic dog?
yes

see, this wasn't so difficult. if you are not aware of what you just did let me explain: we just pushed the whole artificial narrative of "transhumanism" into its natural, inevitable, logical conclusion. All that was needed was a little intellectual honesty and methodological discipline

there is still hope for you, not so for the rest of the cultists in this thread

ps. for all ignoramuses in this thread: not understanding the robot jesus joke/reference is a clear sign of ignorance about the subject of transhumanism. i'm not saying you have to agree, i'm just saying it proves you don't know shit about shit to even have formed an opinion on "transhumanism" in the first place

>>4514818
i'm not sure ad absurdium arguments are your best bet against people who have a specific concrete idea of the desirable future. I can see that you can loosen up the terms till you make the ideas meaningless, but that lets them play it back to you.

why not try a variation of the "if this goes on..." idea? It seems to me that the basic fallacy of the "robotic replacement/virtual world" concept is that it assumes a direction for evolution (and a single direction at that) and doesn't allow for feedback effects. Of course the desireablity is a different question than the inevitability. but the universality of the concept strikes me as its biggest failing: surely adaptive radiation is more likely than either competitive exclusion or linear development? I mean there aren't a lot of selection pressures in transhumanist world are there?

>>4514872
>I can see that you can loosen up the terms till you make the ideas meaningless
you are getting there, champ. The "you" doing the "loosening" in this case is transhumanists themselves, or rather, their own logic, their own narrative applied to itself and dragged kicking and screaming to its logical conclusion

I am just being methodological here and not letting feels ("robot hands are soooo cool!") into my way.

it's not me being stubborn, it's the "transuhmanists" stubbornly running from truth about what the narrative of their sekrit club/ideology/belief/whatever-else-it-is-this-week constitutes when exposed to scrutiny

the reductio ad-absurdum is built into transhumanism BECAUSE transhumanism is that half-assed of a meme. i didn't come up with it, don't blame me. I'm not in the cult coming up with this shit, don't blame me.

>>4514789
You have to ignore those type of guys, he is using semantics to try and feel superior to everyone. Take note how he unnecessarily makes sure to point out how everyone else has a "peanut brain". The truth is, 'moderately above average intelligence' people use semantics to try and feel/be smarter than 'well above average intelligence' people. Is it important to clarify and reinforce your working definitions? Yes, cherry picking words and separate them from their context and try and apply their dictionary definitions and then use that as an argument while entirely failing to address the context you just don't deserve an opinion.

>>4514872
about the rest of your post
the biggest difference between us is the fact that i see a huge, glaring "non sequitur" between the subject of this thread ("transhumanism") and the rest of your post, as well as the fact that you are incapable of recognizing this difference between our stances.

how do I know this? from the way your argument goes: first you aknowledge the ambiguity of concept-transhumanism (as evidenced by me) and then you proceed to ascribe a bunch of shit to it like "robotic replacement/virtual world", "direction for evolution" and all this jazz. Hold your fucking horses, i haven't and i'm not going to concede that bringing this shit in context of "transhumanism" makes sense - BECAUSE I REJECT YOUR NARRATIVE for all the reasons i've written previously

>>4514944
>You have to ignore those type of guys
go fuck yourself

>he is using semantics
go fuck yourself X2

if werds hurt your fee fees just don't read them, you peanut brained monkey. can't take the heat get out of the kitchen

if you are incapable of following the argument whether because you have reading comprehension of a six year old or general intelligence quotient of a dog doesn't mean others do

no surprise that the course of action of true believing robot cultist is to ignore the opposition, disgusting filth

>>4514971
0/10

>>4514991

you will be awarded for your true belief, brother
let us pray:

Our RoboFather, Who art in cyber-heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy cyber-kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in cyber-heaven.
Give us this day our daily cybersex in shiny robot bodies,
and never forgive us our trespasses,
as we never forgive those who trespass against us and say robot jesus aint real;
and lead us not into temptation of rationality,
but deliver us from boring and unsexy reality. Amen.

>>4514747
Haha, you don't even know what the word technology means.

>>4514999
back at you

>>4515005
Explain to me how everything is technology.

>>4515006
Haha, no.

>>4514994
Beep* Beep* Malfunctioning troll-bot detected. Nothing this construct emotes is instructive. Or logical. Or humorous. It no longer provides useful service and must be exterminated!

>>4515007
So you can't explain your argument, and I'm just supposed to take your word for it? Will you at least show me a source that explains it?

>>4515010
yep, the most elaborate and knowledgable posts in this thread are trolls

unlike your extremely insightful one-liners

>>4515013
i'll rather talk to someone who at least put the minimal effort of having presented a (counter-)argument of his own

>>4515014
Have you been following that "RoboJesus" guy's post? His post mainly consist of pointless semantic games and juvenile ad hominem shit.

>>4515027
you are in denial as is evident by your shitty passive-aggresive one-liners, the only defence you've managed to muster

i've written enough, this was like a public service for close-minded cultist ego-wankers to see the light of reason

your choice

>>4514747
is this supposed to be an argument against transhumanism?

>>4515039
Your definitions of technology and transhumanism make the words pretty much useless when trying to converse with you. You change their definitions until the words encompass meanings and concepts they did not originally delineate. This is frustrating and autistic as fuck. Furthermore, you have the gall to call anon "peanut brains" when you sir are the only nut here. Now carry on with the inane trolling, my good troll-bot!

>>4515074
>Your definitions of technology and transhumanism
>your
i'm not gonna repeat myself >>4514818

will robot jesus send you to cyber-hell if you actually, for once, read and comprehend an argument that goes against your dogmas?

>>4515074
this as well >>4514914

it's all there

i bring to light here is the fact that you are incapable of facing the argument

>>4515109
I'm good friends with the robot devil, so i don't think cyber-hell would be to bad of a joint for me. I could probably make a sweet deal with him to swap dicks so i can bang all the robot puss down there.

>>4515129
I've never seen this guy in my entire life

>>4515010
Did some say something about extermination?

honestly it sounds like videogame science

>>4510437
It's no different than our society's adoption of cell-phones, cars, agriculture, language....
>avaiodep strayed

>>4515962
">avaiodep strayed" ???
I demand an explanation of what you are trying to say.