PDA

View Full Version : Transhumanism in DX3 (Technology, Ethics, Prejudice,Tolerance etc)



Pages : [1] 2

cudlla
27th Oct 2008, 19:30
Hello, I would like to know how many poeple here really accept >H values. How many real Transhumanist are here?
If you are not sure, here is list of these values: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/transhumanist-values/

**

Introduction Update (from new FAQs thread)


Sociology is touched upon in the game, particularly in relation to the augmentations. Essentially, DX3 explores the beginnings of human augmentation and the transhumanism movement is a major influence in the game. There are people who think it's "playing God" to modify the body whatsoever and there are people (Transhumanists) who think it's the natural evolution of the human species to utilise technology. You're caught in the middle of this storm and must decide which path you take. The visual stigma augmentated people bear adds fuel to the huge societal rift between them and natural humans that's at the centre of Deus Ex 3's vision of the future. Consider, for example, the endemic racism of 1950s/60s America for imagery, attitudes and problems augmented people face in DX3.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Oct 2008, 19:38
Well, as I'm surely the world's No.1 fan of the Omar, I guess I am definitely a supporter of transhumanist values, yes. :) :thumbsup:

imported_van_HellSing
27th Oct 2008, 19:46
Actually, MrsP, the Omar pretty much contradict a lot of the values presented within the manifest. For one, they're all about standardisation and collectivism, while transhumanists propose unbound individualism.

Overtime
27th Oct 2008, 20:06
Wow, thats a long article

I didnt read all of it but i agree with most of what i read. Im all for using technology to extend the human race. I always tell ppl that the next step in our evolution will be using the latest tech to enhance ourselves. We're already doing it in a non-intrusive way with mobile phones but later I could see chips in our brains with communications capabilities....

But then again, I am in a DX forum and DX is one of my favourite games so......

spm1138
27th Oct 2008, 20:23
That is the second stupidist thing I read today and I did visit YouTube already.


The wide access requirement underlies the moral urgency of the transhumanist vision. Wide access does not argue for holding back. On the contrary, other things being equal, it is an argument for moving forward as quickly as possible. 150,000 human beings on our planet die every day, without having had any access to the anticipated enhancement technologies that will make it possible to become posthuman. The sooner this technology develops, the fewer people will have died without access.

They really think this is a pressing issue? :scratch:

SageSavage
27th Oct 2008, 20:33
Who doesn't want to say "Yay, I'm dead but I had access to the anticipated enhancement technologies!"?

imported_van_HellSing
27th Oct 2008, 20:41
As a moderate social darwinist and slight misanthrope, I do not agree with that point. However, I do see where they are coming from.

They're ultimately talking about immortality. So consider this: the loss of an immortal, one who could live until the end of the universe (and possibly further, if we're going to believe some theories), would be tremendously tragic for other immortals.

Now, imagine the people of today are potential immortals. So, to the staunchly philanthropic breed of transhumanists, when someone dies it's like they lose an immortal before he gets the chance to become immortal and enrich their society.

SageSavage
27th Oct 2008, 21:05
when someone dies it's like they lose an immortal before he gets the chance to become immortal and enrich their society.
And they think there is enough space on this planet for immortals plus their children and their children and their chirdren (you get the point)... Actually I am pretty sure that I don't want to be immortal anyway.

René
27th Oct 2008, 21:22
While I didn't read that article, I have to say that the Transhumanism movement is a major influence in Deus Ex 3 and Eidos Montréal's development team.

[h+]3

imported_van_HellSing
27th Oct 2008, 21:24
And they think there is enough space on this planet for immortals plus their children and their children and their chirdren (you get the point)...

Ah, but you still think like a traditional human! Transhumanism proposes not only changing the human body, but also our psychology, culture etc.

Aside from the joys of parenting, one of the reasons for procreation is to pass on our genes, so there's a part of us left in the world when we die. Immortality removes that need. Thus, the proposed immortal society wouldn't grow as fast as population grows currently.

Also, do note that for example European countries today already struggle with the problem of an aging society, tax regulations etc. are passed in order to encourage having kids. etc. So, it's not implausible that the urge for procreation can be suppressed.

Finally, if people do become immortal, assuming progress doesn't stop, in due time we will be able to colonise other planets.

SageSavage
27th Oct 2008, 21:39
Yes but I don't think it would work out as intended. I predict that it will become more of a dystopian nightmare instead of the utopy they long for. Mankind is not prepared for the eternity - nor is this planet.

cudlla
27th Oct 2008, 21:49
Well, I'm very pleased that even René post his coment on this discussion. I must admit that I'm not real transhumanist, because I still see some glitches in this theory, but time will solve it. On the other hand I hope that human kind will understand it's nature and will find some technology witch will lead to ecological and economical balance. But I'm still young to think about it realy globaly.:)

imported_van_HellSing
27th Oct 2008, 21:51
Yes but I don't think it would work out as intended. I predict that it will become more of a dystopian nightmare instead of the utopy they long for. Mankind is not prepared for the eternity - nor is this planet.

But of course, utopias never work. And if one did work, it would be an even worse nightmare - just think about it: every human being without a care in the world. No incentive to doing anything, because you have everything, and even if you think about doing something, you have all the time in the world to do it. Stagnation. Entropy. Remember what Agent Smith told Morpheus about the first version of the Matrix.

But throw in a little chaos, and we're good again! ;)

EDIT: cuddla, don't fall into that trap. If you don't agree with the manifest, make your own rules! There's hardly one, "true" vision of transhumanism. That site promotes one of the many possibilities.

spm1138
27th Oct 2008, 22:16
Transhumanism never looks like it's meant to be a utopia to me.

It instead looks like the current set-up only with an added pinch of gerontocracy.

imported_van_HellSing
27th Oct 2008, 22:33
A bunch of pretentious old men pretending at running the world, eh? ;)

Electronic old men (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/04/deus-ex-the-recut/) at that :rasp:

Absentia
27th Oct 2008, 22:59
I find the whole idea of transhumanism fascinating, but conversely I don't really support its values too much. I guess i think human enhancement is necessary in cases where it could prevent death or disability, but I'm becoming more and more skeptical about the effect "Information Technology" has on people, especially children. I should know, because I'm part of the exact generation that has this problem.
I guess it's not really related much to transhumanism, but it seems like all this freedom of information, freedom of art, even pornography, is causing everything to just seem like "white noise". These are more the words of Steven Wilson than anyone else's, but it's very true to me. When we're surrounded by so much, it almost becomes nothing (ie. meaningless.) You can download all the music you want, all the movies you want, within hours, minutes, seconds, and suddenly the passion that people used to have, whether it be traipsing around record stores to find stuff by an obscure band, or saving money up to buy music, seems to be hugely lessened within today's generation. I admit that I download nearly all my music, and I try very hard to have the same high regard for all of it. Undoubtedly, I'm sure I don't have as much as I would have if I had to buy everything.

But as interesting as I find this, it's a whole different ballpark really. Here's the genius himself talking about it. Steven Wilson, of Porcupine Tree:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xC7yo7tfkxE

SageSavage
27th Oct 2008, 23:17
I'm part of the exact generation that has this problem.
I guess it's not really related much to transhumanism, but it seems like all this freedom of information, freedom of art, even pornography, is causing everything to just seem like "white noise". These are more the words of Steven Wilson than anyone else's, but it's very true to me. When we're surrounded by so much, it almost becomes nothing (ie. meaningless.) You can download all the music you want, all the movies you want, within hours, minutes, seconds, and suddenly the passion that people used to have, whether it be traipsing around record stores to find stuff by an obscure band, or saving money up to buy music, seems to be hugely lessened within today's generation.

It just requires rethinking and the training of different skills. I believe that it's mainly a problem of generations that haven't been raised with all that available.

dixieflatline
28th Oct 2008, 00:05
I'm not a fan of the transhumanist movement, but I believe in personal freedom even more so I say let'em go nuts.

Personally I think too many of much of the movements views are overly idealist.

For example, if there was no death, that would very likely be a really horrible thing for society.

The more technology you incorporate directly into your body the higher chance you have of been corrupted by other people's designs and ideologies. I love technology but I like to keep it as seperate from the body, thank you very much.

Of course there is money to be made so it will happen eventually.

dxfan94
28th Oct 2008, 00:23
Definentaly me, but I want to still look human. Im all for modifications for making the perfect human. Just wish the government and world would hurry up and let us

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 01:36
Actually, MrsP, the Omar pretty much contradict a lot of the values presented within the manifest. For one, they're all about standardisation and collectivism, while transhumanists propose unbound individualism.

I get what you mean but perhaps I view the Omar standardisation and collectivism a little differently to others. :o
I cannot find any real contradiction to the values presented within the manifest as far as the Omar are concerned. In fact, just about all of it screams Omar to me.

The Omar were still individuals in my mind (logical deduction/proof?: in-game conversations: "I am..." as opposed to "We are..."). Transhumanism places a high value on improvements in our individual and collective powers - I think the Omar owned both. 'Standard' or 'collective' does not logically equate to absence of 'individual': its a "I am he as you are he, as you are me and we are all together" kind of thing...

Generally, the Omar ultimately embrace everything transhumanism stands for, mainly advocation of the improvement of human capacities through advanced technology; a longer-than-average view of technological progress (remember Leo hinted that the Omar research and biomodifications went far beyond what we presently knew of) and human survival/space colonisation. Not to mention neural-interfacing/mind-uploading(nonbiological intelligence) research, which fits nicely into what we know of the Omars' frontal lobe replacement. The list goes on really... :)


**

To reply to comments about immortality.
Though its a l-o-n-g way off (don't panic! there is so much more for us to do before we get to that stage), I don't see it necessarily leading to stagnation, human boredom with nothing to do, etc. When will everything ever be done? On the Earth... ummm, maybe (for the sake of argument), but there's a HUGE universe out there (and plenty of 'chaos') and we will definitely NEED a longer life span in order to traverse vast distances. Its inevitable that one day we will HAVE to (or at least want to) traverse those distances.
Immortality may only really be possible if every organic part of a human body is modified... and by then we would have 'evolved', we will be cyborg/transhuman. I know it sounds odd and perhaps threatens the very meaning of what some of us classify as being human. But being human/us is something within, not without... so being some sort of 'immortal cyborg' is a natural progression, in my opinion. :p
Oh, and it wouldn't matter if you can live forever because by then humans will probably have a different mindset, with different situations and problems to solve... there won't be boredom. And even if we suggest that there might be, you can always pull the plug on yourself, hehe. :D


**

To reply to the negative effects of information technology.
Only flaws to the human condition give rise to the above, and any other areas of conflict. It is not the tools that degrade us, but us... and the use of those tools.
Guns don't kill people; people do... kind of thing. Tools are not our enemy, we are our enemy.
Technology is a natural product of our intelligence: we just have to learn to harness and use it properly. In order to do so, we must first become part of it.


**


While I didn't read that article, I have to say that the Transhumanism movement is a major influence in Deus Ex 3 and Eidos Montréal's development team.

[h+]3

VERY interesting! ;)

Officer Half
28th Oct 2008, 01:43
A bunch of pretentious old men pretending at running the world, eh? ;)

Electronic old men (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/04/deus-ex-the-recut/) at that :rasp:

I just peed myself.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 01:58
A bunch of pretentious old men pretending at running the world, eh? ;)

Electronic old men (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/04/deus-ex-the-recut/) at that :rasp:


Yeah, its still funny even when you've already watched it. :D

Jerion
28th Oct 2008, 02:23
Get the hell out of here, Denton! :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 03:12
Get the hell out of here, Denton! :D

Yeah, love that moment, hysterical... just classic, ha! :cool:

**

Oh, as Rene mentioned that the Transhumanism movement is a major influence in Deus Ex 3, I think this thread deserves its place on our "important threads" list. :thumbsup:

DXeXodus
28th Oct 2008, 03:41
Well, I am pretty much anti transhumanist in real life. But I like the logo [h+] quite a lot.

I did a little 3D logo thing of it a while ago:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/DXeXodus/Transhumanism2.jpg

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 10:10
^
I like it! :cool:
Would it be easy to add colour? I'd flash it with reflective/mirrored ultraviolet blues.


***


I was just wondering if Rene might be hinting at "De Hominis Dignitate" (1486) / "The Oration on the Dignity of Man" by Italian Renaissance philosopher, Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola? :)

Quoted from Wiki:

Also known as the "Manifesto of the Renaissance" and a key text of Renaissance humanism.
The true origin of transhumanism can be traced back to the renaissance humanists. Mirandola's triumphant Oration on the Dignity of Man expresses the transhumanist project admirably.

In the Oration on the Dignity of Man , Pico justified the importance of the human quest for knowledge within a neo-Platonic framework. He writes that after God had created all creatures, he conceived of the desire for another, sentient being who would appreciate all his works, but there was no longer any room in the chain of being; all the possible slots from angels to worms had been filled. So, God created man such that he had no specific slot in the chain. Instead, men were capable of learning from and imitating any existing creature.
When man philosophises, he ascends the chain of being towards the angels, and communion with God. When he fails to exercise his intellect, he vegetates. Pico did not fail to notice that this system made philosophers like himself among the most dignified human creatures. The idea that men could ascend the chain of being through the exercise of their intellectual capacities was a profound endorsement of the dignity of human existence in this earthly life. The root of this dignity lay in his assertion that only human beings could change themselves through their own free will, whereas all other changes in nature were the result of some outside force acting on whatever it is that undergoes change. He observed from history that philosophies and institutions were always in change, making man's capacity for self-transformation the only constant. Coupled with his belief that all of creation constitutes a symbolic reflection of the divinity of God, Pico's philosophies had a profound influence on the arts, helping to elevate writers and painters from their medieval role as mere artisans to the Renaissance ideal of the artist as genius.

The Oration also served as an introduction to Pico's 900 Theses, which he believed to provide a complete and sufficient basis for the discovery of all knowledge, and hence a model for mankind's ascent of the chain of being. The 900 Theses are a good example of humanist syncretism, because Pico combined Platonism, Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Hermeticism and Kabbalah. They also included 72 Theses describing what Pico believed to be a complete system of physics.

Pico appears to have believed in universal reconciliation. One of his 900 theses was "A mortal sin of finite duration is not deserving of eternal but only of temporal punishment;" it was among the theses pronounced heretical by Pope Innocent VIII in his bull of Aug. 4, 1487. In the Oration he writes that "human vocation is a mystical vocation that has to be realized following a three stage way, which comprehends necessarily moral transformation, intellectual research and final perfection in the identity with the absolute reality. This paradigm is universal, because it can be retraced in every tradition."

**

Oh yeah, and here is an interesting passage from OotDoM:

"We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and possess through your own judgement and decision.
The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature.
I have placed you at the very center of the world, so that from that vantage point you may with greater ease glance round about you on all that the world contains. We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer.
It will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine."

imported_van_HellSing
28th Oct 2008, 11:05
Would it be easy to add colour? I'd flash it with reflective/mirrored ultraviolet blues.

You mean something like this, by chance?
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9449/transhumanism21qx5.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=transhumanism21qx5.jpg)http://img206.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

I also applied the same lighting to a negative of the original:
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7131/transhumanism22ud5.th.jpg (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=transhumanism22ud5.jpg)http://img224.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

DXeXodus
28th Oct 2008, 11:15
Ha! Beaten by van_HellSing with my own artwork :D

René
28th Oct 2008, 13:37
Taking my DX3 community hat off and just posting as me in general, I think the Transhumanism movement is very interesting and actually inevitable for the human race. While I don't think we'll live forever, the merging of human with technology is already happening and will only accelerate with time. That's my personal opinion at least.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 13:54
In total agreement with you, Rene. :thumbsup:
I do see our evolution from "man-to-machine" as inevitable... even 'natural' maybe, if we can keep open-minded about that word. ;)
I understand that some will have fear or dislike of the movement, but that is understandable at it is only our curious minds and sense of Self that contemplates upon the consequences.
As I have already said, being human is an inward thing, not outward. *meditates*
Transhumanism definitely represents our continued evolution...


"You are only minimally modified. We can help you correct this."

spm1138
28th Oct 2008, 14:04
We're not even managing the "human" thing particularly well at the moment from what I can tell.

If we do "evolve" it won't be as a species and it will only be tiny selected elites.

I know that document has lofty talk of making this available for everyone but clean water and effective health care (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/) is nowhere near available for everyone nevermind pie in the sky stuff.

My distaste has got nothing to do with "natural" and everything to do with "man made" and "selfish".

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 16:04
We're not even managing the "human" thing particularly well at the moment from what I can tell.

If we do "evolve" it won't be as a species and it will only be tiny selected elites.

I know that document has lofty talk of making this available for everyone but clean water and effective health care (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/) is nowhere near available for everyone nevermind pie in the sky stuff.

My distaste has got nothing to do with "natural" and everything to do with "man made" and "selfish".


Exactly, the human condition is flawed, right? ;)
Technology may help us to correct that...at least it can do no worse.
We cannot seem to reach a Higher Ground by ourselves, unfortunately. It is not 'perfection' that we seek/need; but only common-sense, common ground, a collective consciousness.

The lack of clean water and effective health care (and everything else that isn't balanced) is the product of our own failings and mismanagement of the earth's resources. This is the "man made" and "selfish" you speak of.
Until we progress to sorting out problems globally instead of locally, the problems will persist. As it always has... round and round in circles we go. :rolleyes:
Transhumanism strives not just for physical improvement, but also mental. Change is natural, whether we choose to acknowledge the changes in nature or in ourselves; or both together. It's all the same. We are part and product of nature... there is no separation. "Man made" and "selfish" describes our current state: Transhumanism seeks to address our future state.

Future human cyborgs are still, well... human. You may be correct to belief that only a certain percentage of people will be modified (in the early stages); but the general policy is that all people can become transhuman IF they so wish for it. Either way, transhumanism will still effect the whole species... eventually.

cudlla
28th Oct 2008, 17:29
Taking my DX3 community hat off and just posting as me in general, I think the Transhumanism movement is very interesting and actually inevitable for the human race. While I don't think we'll live forever, the merging of human with technology is already happening and will only accelerate with time. That's my personal opinion at least.

I totaly agree, the technology of merging human with computer has been around for decade (for example Profesor Warwick - first cyborg). But it is happening in some innocent way (cell phones, PCs, TV, huge sources of informations and knowledge. Can't imagine going out without my phone, if it is not the reason why I'm going out;) )




The lack of clean water and effective health care (and everything else that isn't balanced) is the product of our own failings and mismanagement of the earth's resources. This is the "man made" and "selfish" you speak of.
Until we progress to sorting out problems globally instead of locally, the problems will persist. As it always has... round and round in circles we go. :rolleyes:
Transhumanism strives not just for physical improvement, but also mental. Change is natural, whether we choose to acknowledge the changes in nature or in ourselves; or both together.

When I think about problems like clean water, medical care, famine etc. I allways thik about some diversity on this planet. For each human which doesn't have the luxury of quality life, there is another human which can have every thing he wants. Problems like famine has been around since life is on this planet, and therefore no one, or nothing can cure them. I hope one day, it will be posible, but for now it seems like utopia. I think right now we live in cyberpunk enviroment, but not every body can see it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 17:41
When I think about problems like clean water, medical care, famine etc. I allways thik about some diversity on this planet. For each human which doesn't have the luxury of quality life, there is another human which can have every thing he wants. Problems like famine has been around since life is on this planet, and therefore no one, or nothing can cure them. I hope one day, it will be posible, but for now it seems like utopia. I think right now we live in cyberpunk enviroment, but not every body can see it.

Yes, there is environmental diversity. The problem isn't to "cure" natural conditions like famine... but to give "aid" - to share what essentially belongs to all of us, ie. the resources of the planet as a whole. This is not an environmental problem that we cannot remedy.

There is absolutely no excuse or reason why people in a poor country should be "starving to death", whilst on the other side of the globe there is over-indulgence and shameful waste.

And let us not be confused about "wants" and "needs". The only needs of a human being for survival is the basics: food, clothing and shelter. Yet we fail to provide these 3 things for so many people.
Why? The reason is not because we cannot, but because we choose not...

cudlla
28th Oct 2008, 18:11
Yes, there is environmental diversity. The problem isn't to "cure" natural conditions like famine... but to give "aid" - to share what essentially belongs to all of us, ie. the resources of the planet as a whole. This is not an environmental problem that we cannot remedy.

There is absolutely no excuse or reason why people in a poor country should be "starving to death", whilst on the other side of the globe there is over-indulgence and shameful waste.

And let us not be confused about "wants" and "needs". The only needs of a human being for survival is the basics: food, clothing and shelter. Yet we fail to provide these 3 things for so many people.
Why? The reason is not because we cannot, but because we choose not...

I bow before you. Well, I'm prety smarter right now. H+ is the way, evetualy...

spm1138
28th Oct 2008, 21:05
Exactly, the human condition is flawed, right?

I don't think we do at all badly given half a chance.
It's that "half a chance" part that I think is the issue.


Future human cyborgs are still, well... human. You may be correct to belief that only a certain percentage of people will be modified (in the early stages); but the general policy is that all people can become transhuman IF they so wish for it. Either way, transhumanism will still effect the whole species... eventually.

Does it ever really work out like that? :D

Who's policy would that be? What makes you think anyone's policy would enter into it?

Don't get me wrong, it's lovely they inserted that clause in, but getting to the point where everyone has that option and all that it would entail is A Thing all on it's own. A Thing which I think probably should come first.

If I had to make "To-do" list for the human race it'd go like...
1) Everybody eating
2) War is pretty horrible, cut it out
...
2632) Millionaires only living to like 100 or so


Technology may help us to correct that...at least it can do no worse.

Follow current trends through for 50 years or so and then drop all this transhuman stuff into the mix and as far as I can see you're basically just going to be making things much worse for 80% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) of the human race because it will make the other 20% much better at giving them the shaft. :whistle:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Oct 2008, 22:56
I don't think we do at all badly given half a chance.
It's that "half a chance" part that I think is the issue.

Does it ever really work out like that? :D
Who's policy would that be? What makes you think anyone's policy would enter into it?
Don't get me wrong, it's lovely they inserted that clause in, but getting to the point where everyone has that option and all that it would entail is A Thing all on it's own. A Thing which I think probably should come first.

If I had to make "To-do" list for the human race it'd go like...
1) Everybody eating
2) War is pretty horrible, cut it out
...
2632) Millionaires only living to like 100 or so

Follow current trends through for 50 years or so and then drop all this transhuman stuff into the mix and as far as I can see you're basically just going to be making things much worse for 80% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) of the human race because it will make the other 20% much better at giving them the shaft. :whistle:

Just so that I can understand what you mean before I respond to your initial point, in what specific areas do you think we don't do badly?

We've been having our "half a chance" since history began and we're still having it now. I can't help but ask myself how many half-chances do we need before we ask what we're doing that isn't quite working? Humans don't need to be perfect - but we do need to improve.

Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball but humans do endeavour to retain some sort of legal and ethical system of policy to radical changes, such as this.
Do you ask because you believe that transhumanism will be forced upon us against our will?

Anyway, there does exist a "Transhumanist Declaration" by Humanity Plus (World Transhumanist Association)

(1) Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.

(2) Systematic research should be put into understanding these coming developments and their long-term consequences.

(3) Transhumanists 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.

(4) Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations.

(5) In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological capabilities. It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. On the other hand, it would also be tragic if intelligent life went extinct because of some disaster or war involving advanced technologies.

(6) We need to create forums where people can rationally debate what needs to be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.

(7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform.


I understand the Pareto principle but transhumanism is aimed at benefiting the majority, not a minority. Sure, its standard to consider that in the initial stages the advantages will probably go to those who can pay for it, in advance of those who cannot. Social inequalities could occur, yes, but given that we have that situation NOW, why should we think it could be worse THEN? And if global society has reached a level of "better-thinking" where resources are more equally shared, this divide would decrease over time in any case. At least I can't see it increasing and even if we want to stick to the Pareto principle, it should remain exactly the same. No risk... and perhaps more to gain.

This is an interesting topic to debate. :cool:

JakePeriphery
31st Oct 2008, 02:57
Well, I am pretty much anti transhumanist in real life. But I like the logo [h+] quite a lot.

I did a little 3D logo thing of it a while ago:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/DXeXodus/Transhumanism2.jpg

My new desktop background, awesome! Thanks!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 20:54
You mean something like this, by chance?
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9449/transhumanism21qx5.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=transhumanism21qx5.jpg)http://img206.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

I also applied the same lighting to a negative of the original:
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7131/transhumanism22ud5.th.jpg (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=transhumanism22ud5.jpg)http://img224.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Kind of, yeah. :) Very nice. :cool:
But maybe just the logo itself to be blue; the platform remaining normal colour?
Then the blue neon to reflect/illuminate itself 'naturally' onto the platform and still retaining the shadow feature.

LOL, I'm fussy! :p

cudlla
1st Nov 2008, 08:00
Does even exist any DX3 widescreen (1440x900) wallpaper?? My heart bleeds...

To the piont: I see that it is not easy to disscus about >H. I agree wit Transhumanist Declaration in every piont, but I think one thinkg one piont is still mising : Humans which refuse to upgrade their body and mind should be protected and treated with respect.

Jerion
1st Nov 2008, 08:06
Does even exist any DX3 widescreen (1440x900) wallpaper?? My heart bleeds...

To the piont: I see that it is not easy to disscus about >H. I agree wit Transhumanist Declaration in every piont, but I think one thinkg one piont is still mising : Humans which refuse to upgrade their body and mind should be protected and treated with respect.


There is an entire thread about DX 3 wallpapers.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75056

Many of the wallpapers made are available in widescreen resolutions including 1440x900.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Nov 2008, 10:15
.
To the piont: I see that it is not easy to disscus about >H. I agree wit Transhumanist Declaration in every piont, but I think one thinkg one piont is still mising : Humans which refuse to upgrade their body and mind should be protected and treated with respect.

Yeah, good point. Hopefully that will go without saying as I don't think transhumanism will be forced upon anyone and transhumanists will (in the initial stages) be the minority.

parrot333
2nd Nov 2008, 12:36
Hello, I would like to know how many poeple here really accept >H values. How many real Transhumanist are here?
If you are not sure, here is list of these values: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/transhumanist-values/

No, just no. Transhumanism may at best be an interesting literary device, but not a serious ideology.

It relies too much on fictional technological changes (which none of us will ever live to see anyway) rather than proposing new ideas for ethical or political values.

Deus Ex clearly opposes or at least critically challenges Transhumanism by showing a dystopian future despite technological advances. The Omar obviously seem very "transhuman", but their society (or the "Omar ending") is not exactly a continuation of humanist ideals.

"Self-improvement is masturbation, self-destruction is the answer." :rasp:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Nov 2008, 15:08
No, just no. Transhumanism may at best be an interesting literary device, but not a serious ideology.
It relies too much on fictional technological changes (which none of us will ever live to see anyway) rather than proposing new ideas for ethical or political values.
Deus Ex clearly opposes or at least critically challenges Transhumanism by showing a dystopian future despite technological advances. The Omar obviously seem very "transhuman", but their society (or the "Omar ending") is not exactly a continuation of humanist ideals.



Sure, none of us will live to see it... but fiction often becomes fact and transhumanism 'will be' for future generations. Just as many new technologies today prompt us to question or oppose its validity and purpose, transhumanism will continue on to become an acceptable reality. Plastic/cosmetic surgery was once considered 'unnatural' and quite extreme - it is now a diverse and extremely popular choice for physical enhancement. Genetic enhancement is happening now - the path is already being walked. As for proposing ethical or political values, transhumanism does and there are many discussions about it. Importantly, politics, religion etc divides humanity today... this needs to be addressed if we are to secure a fulfilling and harmonious existence.

I disagree, in part, that Deus Ex clearly opposes/challenges Transhumanism. Yes, the game's human characters are in a state of 'always has been' and hence the continuance of human selfishness, folly and destruction. The Omar did indeed embrace transhumanism and sought to be prepared for the future. As for the ending in the game, the Omar are not to blame - they were only the product of 'normal humankind' and merely sought to prepare for the inevitable destruction (war, and poor and selfish management of the earth's resources) of the earth by standard humans who were in control.
I agree that the ending is "not exactly" a continuation of humanist ideals - but that is the point of transhumanism. The Omar sought to "analysis","improve" and "replace" those ideals that clearly did not work. To continue as we are is to continue on the path to nowhere. On a more personal humanist level, the Omar were still humans under the technology. I think we lose sight of this because of the way they look. The Omar not only represented mankind's future but displayed characteristics that were more in keeping with a higher conscience/global awareness for humanity as a whole.

In a nutshell, transhumanism is an emergent philosophical movement which says that humans can and should become more human (spiritually/mentally) and more than human (physically/biologically) through technological enhancement.

I've said it before, but as far as I can see transhumanism is absolutely inevitable from all aspects. If humans are to survive not only our time on this earth, but in future space exploration and colonisation, then we can only achieve it through modification. Transhumanism is only a form of evolution that expands upon what nature naturally gives us, to something that involves the utilisation of our intelligence/brain - which nature also gave us. The two do not separate us but really only help to 'complete' us. Remember the DX3 teaser trailer says: "Who we are is a stepping stone to who we can become...". I think this illustrates the inevitable truth behind the philosophy.

Yargo
2nd Nov 2008, 18:20
I can say I am relatively neutral to the whole "transhumanist" movement. I agree that the human race is going to improve itself. I agree because that is what has been done throughout human history. An idea is created and at first feared but is eventually accepted and improved. Way back when, it was considered a crime to dissect someone. Now its common practice. Some will reject the cyborg but eventually it will become commonplace and then the next technology or research will come along. Those who are too narrow minded to accept progress will not benefit.

Now, after saying that, I don't believe that there is any reason for a "transhumanist" movement. Some say that it is necessary in order to help those who are less fortunate. But there are plenty of cases where those who have the will power and determination, remove themselves from the inappropriate environment and become a part of, or surmount current society. One may also argue that there are those who oppress the lesser people because of selfishness. Has there not been plenty of examples of revolutions to end oppression? "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

Mezmerizer
2nd Nov 2008, 19:49
But you should also think that the Omar didn't care for the others but only for themselves. One of the main reasons we came to this world is to help each other so we all can have a better life. I'm not against technology because it is an improvement but the Omar were just selfish.

Also did anyone thought if there is really a god?
That we may never be able to get immortal and death is something that will happen to every one of us anyway? That we will all probably get judged?

Human is always evolving, technology is a result of us but there are things we can't change.

Mezmerizer
2nd Nov 2008, 19:57
I spoke before about the Omar because i read that at the end of DX2 they were not to blame.

Do you really think that by kidnapping people and make them like you ( a robot with no feelings ) the Omar helped to improve our world?
( Because this is the reason we are here, not just to survive )

The Omar were just sitting when humans made war at each other.
You will tell me that that was they chose to do ( they chose to make wars )

But i would end the game with any other ending ( even Templar one ) only because i wanted to help these 5 or 10 or 100 people who wanted to live peacefully, make family, improve themselves.

parrot333
2nd Nov 2008, 20:51
Sure, none of us will live to see it... but fiction often becomes fact and transhumanism 'will be' for future generations. [...] As for proposing ethical or political values, transhumanism does and there are many discussions about it.

Plastic tits are a big step for mankind, I agree ;) My critique is that
1) I, as an Individual in the present world do not gain anything from transhumanism, so why should I support it? - since transhumanism claims to be about "the individual".
2) it is really unclear what the political and ethical values exactly are (besides buzzwords like "democracy, peace and freedom") , and aren't they subject to change with every additional new technology? Think about the impact of industrialization or the Internet.



I disagree, in part, that Deus Ex clearly opposes/challenges Transhumanism. The Omar not only represented mankind's future but displayed characteristics that were more in keeping with a higher conscience/global awareness for humanity as a whole.

Well, I'm glad you see it that way since the Omar ending is my favourite :cool: But Transhumanism would NEVER favor "humanity as a whole" over the individual. The Omar stepping over the Illuminati commando in some desert, postnuclear wasteland seems rather like Stalins version of Transhumanism to me, or even like the anarcho-primitivists utopia where hunters and gatherers dominate the earth.




In a nutshell, transhumanism is an emergent philosophical movement which says that humans can and should become more human (spiritually/mentally) and more than human (physically/biologically) through technological enhancement.

How can you have, for example, neural implants if you do not exactly know how to reduce the "mental" to the "physical" brain/mind? We may be able to travel to distant planets someday, but "cracking" the brain? Too many biological, philosophical and linguistic problems.



I've said it before, but as far as I can see transhumanism is absolutely inevitable from all aspects.

Technological advancement is inevitable, I agree, but I fail to see what is left of Transhumanism if you subtract the technological aspect. In order to have an ideology, ideas are somewhat necessary, but I do not see any (new) of them in Transhumanism. It is not a philosophical movement, and there are no philosophers representing it (I may well be wrong on this one).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Nov 2008, 23:52
Now, after saying that, I don't believe that there is any reason for a "transhumanist" movement. Some say that it is necessary in order to help those who are less fortunate. But there are plenty of cases where those who have the will power and determination, remove themselves from the inappropriate environment and become a part of, or surmount current society. One may also argue that there are those who oppress the lesser people because of selfishness. Has there not been plenty of examples of revolutions to end oppression? "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

Transhumanism is a subculture that has grown into a Movement, naturally over time.
There are always valid reasons for having any movement - it opens the door and creates a 'think-tank' for debate and critique and it clearly lays down policies and ideals. Joining a movement allows one to offer support for these policies/ideals, hence growth in popularity can be encouraged. Apart from a movement being used as a tool for both information and support, it serves as a common voice against any counter-movements. Obviously and inevitably, there is support against transhumanism from bioconservative camps because some view it as an 'apocalyptic catastrope' that threatens the very definition of what a human actually is. Transhumanism is only an extension of what we already are and so, to me, human really means being "humane". When we are deeply moved/inspired by great people who show high regard and emotion for the common benefit of all, it is their remarkable "humanity" that we love, not the fact that they were "human" per se. Hopefully, this illustrates the point I am trying to get across. Obviously, I cannot speak for anyone else with this view. Human history may be brief without radical change and a posthuman future may be our species' only chance for any legacy at all, in my opinion. Transhumanism is only the intermediary form between the human and the posthuman and we are still in control of our destiny. Posthuman rights depend upon us today and how freely we let researchers do their work and how open-minded we are to willingly join in this change. Most importantly, a movement allows people to use reason and science to control their own lives, free from the authority of religion/church and politics/state. Transhumanism endeavours to share all among all and seeks to create a world in which individuals may choose to remain unenhanced or choose to be enhanced, and in which these choices will be respected. In the present day, transhumanists show support for transsexual rights and the gay movement, for example.

***


But you should also think that the Omar didn't care for the others but only for themselves. One of the main reasons we came to this world is to help each other so we all can have a better life. I'm not against technology because it is an improvement but the Omar were just selfish.
Also did anyone thought if there is really a god?
That we may never be able to get immortal and death is something that will happen to every one of us anyway? That we will all probably get judged?
Human is always evolving, technology is a result of us but there are things we can't change.

Sure, the Omar didn't go out of their way to be "sociable" to other groups, if that's what you mean about 'not caring for others'? However, they certainly cared about the legacy of mankind as a whole and this fact is evident in the game content and ending. So, they did care for others, just not in the obvious way you speak of. Some groups showed deep prejudice toward them anyway, so it is natural that they disassociated themselves in this case. For you to conclude that you are not against the use of technology, but that the Omar were selfish because of their use of technology is a contradiction. I would say that the Omar set themselves apart from the normal groups for reasons that are obvious, ie. the politics and ideals of the other factions were not in unison with their own. That doesn't make them selfish; it just makes them free-thinkers... willing to adapt into a separate group away from the 'common flock'. But all the time, they are still humans. Its just that they didn't want to be part of the flock that were off to the slaughter... but rather to become the shepherd who could show the flock that there was an alternative.

Regarding your question about thought for a God. This only matters, in my opinion, if we can each hold our head up high upon any supposed 'Judgement Day' upon death. As illustrated in my answer to Yargo, I believe humanity means more than its biological parts. Do you ask the question with the viewpoint that God is the creator, the painter, the teacher? If so, then would he not seek recognition from his pupils for the beauty he has made and also to be intelligent enough to recognise his mistakes? Would not the best teacher expect his pupils to surpass his own genius? Does his teachings not require us to continue upon and learn from what we have been given? If not, what is the point of existence? What would be the point of a God and all his creation? Existence is not to just live and to die, but to grow, learn and make better... and that includes 'survival' because without it, all other things end.


I spoke before about the Omar because i read that at the end of DX2 they were not to blame.
Do you really think that by kidnapping people and make them like you ( a robot with no feelings ) the Omar helped to improve our world?
( Because this is the reason we are here, not just to survive )
The Omar were just sitting when humans made war at each other.
You will tell me that that was they chose to do ( they chose to make wars )
But i would end the game with any other ending ( even Templar one ) only because i wanted to help these 5 or 10 or 100 people who wanted to live peacefully, make family, improve themselves.
The Omar didn't kidnap anyone, maybe you are confusing the Templars who kidnapped Her Holiness? Yet, you say you would choose any ending other than the Omar, even the Templar ending... and yet they were the ones who evidently kidnapped people!? Lets get the story straight...:) Kevin O'Rourke, the lawyer with a deep hatred for the Omar, asked Alex to kill the Omar trader at Club Vox - based on his own allegation that the Omar forced modification on anybody they can, including the homeless who were apparently kidnapped by the Omar and assimilated against their will. There is absolutely no evidence in the game of this being "FACT" and so we can only assume it was O'Rourke telling lies and exercising the power of persuasion. Certainly, no other party in the game remark upon such a thing being fact and we never see it happening in the game.
The Omar are not robots without feelings. They are merely biomodified humans... I repeat, HUMANS.
The Omar were not just sitting when humans made war with each other. Without any desire to become a political group, or to dominate, or to fight wars they merely separated themselves from it and concentrated on what needed to be done in order to prepare for the inevitable catastrophe that was to come.


***


My critique is that
1) I, as an Individual in the present world do not gain anything from transhumanism, so why should I support it? - since transhumanism claims to be about "the individual".
2) it is really unclear what the political and ethical values exactly are (besides buzzwords like "democracy, peace and freedom") , and aren't they subject to change with every additional new technology? Think about the impact of industrialization or the Internet.
You don't have to support it, the choice is yours. But for people who wish to think beyond their own individual life and death, it is an important subject that many are willing to learn and discuss more about. It makes sense to discuss the possibilities ahead of time; so that way we are more prepared.
Of course political and ethical values are subject to change; but that doesn't mean that current values are not relevant or cannot be discussed. The transhumanism debate is ongoing and as it will happen, where is the harm in analysing the possibilities from now...?


Well, I'm glad you see it that way since the Omar ending is my favourite :cool: But Transhumanism would NEVER favor "humanity as a whole" over the individual. The Omar stepping over the Illuminati commando in some desert, postnuclear wasteland seems rather like Stalins version of Transhumanism to me, or even like the anarcho-primitivists utopia where hunters and gatherers dominate the earth.
Umm, a transhumanist is still an individual - ie. an individual within a transhumanist society.
The Omar doesn't step over the Illuminati commando at the end of the game. He actually studies what is left of the earth (he expected it all along) and walks nowhere near the Commando, hehe. But, I jest. The Omar's Scorched Earth ending seems to confuse people. It isn't the Omar's doing, they only ask that the leaders be killed and the Denton's Helios be destroyed. Due to their high adaptability, the Omar take over the world as the rest of humanity is eliminated through constant chaos and fighting. After the Great Collapse we see two centuries of war. "In the end the earth was no longer green, nothing survived on its surface other than a few embers of humankind (ie. the Omar). They are hailed as the 'masterwork of evolution', fit not only just for the new earth but for the most barren corners of all creation".


How can you have, for example, neural implants if you do not exactly know how to reduce the "mental" to the "physical" brain/mind? We may be able to travel to distant planets someday, but "cracking" the brain? Too many biological, philosophical and linguistic problems.
Well, people once scoffed at humans landing on the moon, hehe. For me, the brain is an organic computer (and separate to our 'souls/individuality), so I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible, one day, to make alterations or upload information that could override or enhance. Obviously, I cannot prove this assumption and only time will tell. :)


Technological advancement is inevitable, I agree, but I fail to see what is left of Transhumanism if you subtract the technological aspect. In order to have an ideology, ideas are somewhat necessary, but I do not see any (new) of them in Transhumanism. It is not a philosophical movement, and there are no philosophers representing it (I may well be wrong on this one).
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement, it doesn't need or require a single "philosopher"/person to represent it or to become one, and followers are not necessarily of uniform opinion. Historians, artists, scientists and political figures associated with different branches of philosophy can create a movement or an ".....ism". A philosophical movement is just a station for individual thinkers to develop their own particular ideas. There will always be ideas - such is the wonder of the human mind, thank goodness. ;)

Jerion
3rd Nov 2008, 06:18
Well, I"ve made you transhumanist people a special wallpaper. Enjoy! :p

H+ 1680x1050
(http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t191/Zeoman1001/Hwallpaper002.png)

mouse
3rd Nov 2008, 07:53
One of the main reasons we came to this world is to help each other so we all can have a better life.

No, there's no purpose of our existence. We are the result of milions of years of evolution. Actually we are not a 'result' in terms of 'final', but a intermediate state of the self-organizing biochemical matter.

Some people say that this is unsatifactory and there has to be a reason why we are here and a purpose for our lifes. But in my POV it's more satifactory to not to be bound to a certain purpose and being able to chose your fate.



the Omar helped to improve our world?
( Because this is the reason we are here, not just to survive )


The universe doesnt work this way.



Also did anyone thought if there is really a god?
That we may never be able to get immortal and death is something that will happen to every one of us anyway? That we will all probably get judged?


no, there's no god

parrot333
3rd Nov 2008, 07:57
Umm, a transhumanist is still an individual - ie. an individual within a transhumanist society.
The Omar doesn't step over the Illuminati commando at the end of the game. He actually studies what is left of the earth (he expected it all along) and walks nowhere near the Commando, hehe. But, I jest. The Omar's Scorched Earth ending seems to confuse people. It isn't the Omar's doing, they only ask that the leaders be killed and the Denton's Helios be destroyed. Due to their high adaptability, the Omar take over the world as the rest of humanity is eliminated through constant chaos and fighting.

I agree that the Omar are not to blame for the disaster, but even if they were this wouldn't be much of a problem would it? We never see an "Omar society", "Omar civilization" or an "Omar culture" - which is a notable difference between them and JCs agenda, which is more likely a continuation of the humanist/modern project. All the Omar (apparently) do is to set themselves ahead in Evolution, but rather as "post-animals" than trans- or posthumans.



For me, the brain is an organic computer (and separate to our 'souls/individuality), so I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible, one day, to make alterations or upload information that could override or enhance.

If it really was that easy, the iphone would already have a neural interface (and I would totally buy it! :lol: ).



Transhumanism is a philosophical movement, it doesn't need or require a single "philosopher"/person to represent it or to become one, and followers are not necessarily of uniform opinion. Historians, artists, scientists and political figures associated with different branches of philosophy can create a movement or an ".....ism".

And who would those figures be in the case of Transhumanism? The lack of ideological substance is what confuses me - Hippies or Emos are also not "philosophical movements" but rather temporary fashions, and the same seems to be the case with Transhumanism.

DXeXodus
3rd Nov 2008, 08:06
no, there's no god

Opinion alert of note.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Nov 2008, 09:01
^
I agree. Whether we think there is a God or not, we can still answer the question. ;)

***


I agree that the Omar are not to blame for the disaster, but even if they were this wouldn't be much of a problem would it? We never see an "Omar society", "Omar civilization" or an "Omar culture" - which is a notable difference between them and JCs agenda, which is more likely a continuation of the humanist/modern project. All the Omar (apparently) do is to set themselves ahead in Evolution, but rather as "post-animals" than trans- or posthumans.
I agree, in the game we don't see an Omar society/civilization/culture... but then DX:IW is a short game, hehe. :D The Omar are, however, referred to as "a global society of radically biomodified cyborg traders that flourished after The Collapse...". So, although we don't see evidence of their success in the game, I think from what we know, we can assume that they are a successful society.
How do the Omar set themselves up as "post animals"? They are human cyborgs. But lets not waste our time mincing words... I can agree that a human may also be classified as an animal. :p


If it really was that easy, the iphone would already have a neural interface (and I would totally buy it! :lol: ).
Did I say it was easy? No, I didn't. I said I believed it would be possible one day... and I really do. :cool:
Oh, and I won't be giving Apple my money. :p


And who would those figures be in the case of Transhumanism? The lack of ideological substance is what confuses me - Hippies or Emos are also not "philosophical movements" but rather temporary fashions, and the same seems to be the case with Transhumanism.
Umm, well... is there any point to a discussion about classification? The fact is, transhumanism is an interesting subject to research and debate and attracts supporters of all professions. Whether people view it as a "philosophical movement" or not, is unimportant. What is important and relevant is that transhumanism is here to stay, unlike any temporary fashion you mention. ;)

K^2
3rd Nov 2008, 09:34
Opinion alert of note.
Existence or non existence of god aren't opinions. They are axioms. If existence of god could be known, it would defeat the purpose of faith. Therefore, existence of god cannot be derived from any other fact or axiom by definition. As such, by the way, any persons who state that they know that god exists contradict themselves.

Now, being fundamentally unknown, any reasoning that depends on whether god exists or not is incomplete without assuming one or the other. Since such assumption does not contradict any other assumption by definition (any possible contradiction would allow to deduce existence of god from some other fact) it is merely added to the set of axioms on which argument is built.

Statement "god does not exist" is simply a clarification of the axiom base that is used in communication. Since every possible disagreement arises either from logical errors or disagreement on base axiom set, stating which axioms are used is very helpful in ironing out any differences. Trying to turn such statements into "opinions" is rather counterproductive in that case.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Nov 2008, 09:56
Existence or non existence of god aren't opinions. They are axioms. If existence of god could be known, it would defeat the purpose of faith. Therefore, existence of god cannot be derived from any other fact or axiom by definition. As such, by the way, any persons who state that they know that god exists contradict themselves.

Now, being fundamentally unknown, any reasoning that depends on whether god exists or not is incomplete without assuming one or the other. Since such assumption does not contradict any other assumption by definition (any possible contradiction would allow to deduce existence of god from some other fact) it is merely added to the set of axioms on which argument is built.

Statement "god does not exist" is simply a clarification of the axiom base that is used in communication. Since every possible disagreement arises either from logical errors or disagreement on base axiom set, stating which axioms are used is very helpful in ironing out any differences. Trying to turn such statements into "opinions" is rather counterproductive in that case.


^
My brain hurts now, lol. :D

I think DXeXodus made that comment for two reasons (forgive my pathetic desire and attempt to analyse :o ):
a) To ensure that devoutly religious people are not offended by opposite opinions/axioms.
b) To encourage people to expand upon their answers. A short, blunt or brief answer is fine... but there is no harm in stating the reasons behind their answer. This would be more productive. Otherwise, one could easily just reply: "Yes, there is a God"... and so.... ;)

DXeXodus
3rd Nov 2008, 10:02
Exactly.

Note: Obvious, light-hearted sarcasm intended by posting a short, unexpanded answer

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Nov 2008, 10:04
Hehe, very clever. :D :cool:

K^2
3rd Nov 2008, 10:52
If you are having a conversation where you have to explain yourself to such detail, you are having a conversation with the wrong people.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Nov 2008, 11:34
If you are having a conversation where you have to explain yourself to such detail, you are having a conversation with the wrong people.


"Such detail"? Well, more than four words is not asking for that much. :p
"No, theres no God" (full stop).... vs. "Theres no God because....(clarifies the reason for opinion/axiom)"

Oh, I don't know! :) I must enjoy conversation with 'the wrong people' then, hehe. :D
Conversation with the 'right people' is all very well - its obviously nice to share ideas with others who already hold the same interests. But, that's as far as it gets.
It can be just as enjoyable (and a challenge) to engage with people who don't yet have (or never will have) the same interests or views as you.
Just adds more flavour to the stew.... = "tastier"!

mouse
3rd Nov 2008, 13:04
I met Jesus in a bottle yesterday and he told me god doesnt exist. See, it's not an opinion but first hand information :rasp:

K^2
3rd Nov 2008, 22:26
I must enjoy conversation with 'the wrong people' then, hehe.
Nothing wrong with that.

I met Jesus in a bottle yesterday[...]
Russia. Your source of finest 80-proof Jesus since 1751.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Nov 2008, 09:11
Nothing wrong with that.


Thank you so much, now I feel 'normal' again. :o
:D

GmanPro
5th Nov 2008, 17:47
Existence or non existence of god aren't opinions. They are axioms. If existence of god could be known, it would defeat the purpose of faith. Therefore, existence of god cannot be derived from any other fact or axiom by definition. As such, by the way, any persons who state that they know that god exists contradict themselves.

Now, being fundamentally unknown, any reasoning that depends on whether god exists or not is incomplete without assuming one or the other. Since such assumption does not contradict any other assumption by definition (any possible contradiction would allow to deduce existence of god from some other fact) it is merely added to the set of axioms on which argument is built.

Statement "god does not exist" is simply a clarification of the axiom base that is used in communication. Since every possible disagreement arises either from logical errors or disagreement on base axiom set, stating which axioms are used is very helpful in ironing out any differences. Trying to turn such statements into "opinions" is rather counterproductive in that case.

There is no such thing as a contradiction in terms. If you check your facts, you will find that one of them is wrong.

mouse
5th Nov 2008, 19:28
its also possible that you have a contradiction due to unclear definitions of your hypothesis

parrot333
5th Nov 2008, 20:11
Is this thread about god now? Go find your own playground.




I agree, in the game we don't see an Omar society/civilization/culture... but then DX:IW is a short game, hehe. :D [..] I think from what we know, we can assume that they are a successful society.


Bees are "successful societies" too... but I admit that this is nitpicking. I rest my case that the Omar give up humanist ideals and the modernist project, otherwise they would try to take a more active influence in politics - thus, they cannot be valid representatives of the "Transhumanist movement".

... however, DX:IW was short, and think it's possible that the Omar could represent something far better and more revolutionary than Transhumanism or Eugenics. ;)


What is important and relevant is that transhumanism is here to stay, unlike any temporary fashion you mention. ;)

Well I predict it won't because it has nothing relevant to say, but we can't really verify this can we? :o

I'd personally prefer Nietzsche's "over-human" ("Übermensch") over the post-human any day because the former implies an actual philosophical change of values and self-actualization rather than just an improved version of Inspector Gadget.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Nov 2008, 23:08
Is this thread about god now? Go find your own playground.

Bees are "successful societies" too... but I admit that this is nitpicking. I rest my case that the Omar give up humanist ideals and the modernist project, otherwise they would try to take a more active influence in politics - thus, they cannot be valid representatives of the "Transhumanist movement".
... however, DX:IW was short, and think it's possible that the Omar could represent something far better and more revolutionary than Transhumanism or Eugenics. ;)
Well I predict it won't because it has nothing relevant to say, but we can't really verify this can we? :o

I'd personally prefer Nietzsche's "over-human" ("Übermensch") over the post-human any day because the former implies an actual philosophical change of values and self-actualization rather than just an improved version of Inspector Gadget.

We can talk about God... or no God. Why not. :)
Besides, this thread(playground) is the best place for this subject as it is all related. ;)


I believe Nietzsche’s concept is generally similar... I think we can be flexible in name/terms, can't we? Conceptually, the transhuman is very similar to Nietzsche's superman/übermensch. Transhumanism is not a Nietzchean theory, I know, but of course some Transhumanists can be Nietzscehans - and transhumanism is a future/futuristic philosophy.

I agree that Nietzsche's writings concentrate on the spiritual and philosophical aspects, rather than the biological but, in fairness, it is a misconception to believe that transhumanist belief is only about living longer and technological enhancement. This is as nonsensical as the assumption that all Nietzscehans are Nazis. Nazism has made selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy, associating it with National Socialism, and this has caused his reputation to suffer unfairly... and so the same is happening with transhumanism. :(

Transhumanism is really just a blanket term for a myriad of future-human possibilities, ideas and beliefs. If we are to consider that spirituality (or religion even, however you prefer to term it) can be defined as “seeking to find transcendence, meaning and purpose”, then what is the difference as far as transhumanism is concerned, if we remember that transhumanist groups are as diverse as the individuals that make it up. There are plenty of transhumanist societies that embrace Nietzsche's emphasis on life-enriching philosophy AND general life-enhancing technology (eg. Mormon Transhumanists).

PS. Just for the record, I'm not a transhumanist and not a member of any society. I just enjoy the debate... :p

spm1138
6th Nov 2008, 02:40
It is a little unfair but they're not helping their case by having it right up at the top of that list.

It's also one of the most common contexts you hear the word in.

It appears to be one of the main ideas.

I realise the whole "movement" (if there is such a thing) isn't people unable to come to terms with their own mortality or sufficiently convinced of their own indispensability to want a death cure but that's the first place my brain goes and at that point the entire thing becomes funny.

K^2
6th Nov 2008, 03:19
There is no such thing as a contradiction in terms. If you check your facts, you will find that one of them is wrong.
Facts depend on axioms used. There are no absolute facts.

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 03:43
Facts depend on axioms used. There are no absolute facts.

There are no absolute facts? What you just said is an absolute. Like I said, check your facts.

K^2
6th Nov 2008, 05:59
There are no absolute facts? What you just said is an absolute. Like I said, check your facts.
No it is not an absolute. Nothing is. I state things as absolute, because they depend on axioms that are well accepted. Therefore, I do not need to expand on it. I can state that the Earth is round as an absolute, but it is still only a fact under certain assumptions. Heck, I couldn't even prove that Earth exists in the first place without making some assumptions.

Even when we talk about logic, there are no absolutes. Logic is just a form of algebra. It is based on certain axioms. The important part of it is being in self-agreement, and well describing other things we tend to take for granted. But even these things are still based on some assumptions that have no other basis for them.

GmanPro
6th Nov 2008, 06:05
Sir, you need to read Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--1721-OutlineofGalt%27sSpeech.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Nov 2008, 11:18
It is a little unfair but they're not helping their case by having it right up at the top of that list.

It's also one of the most common contexts you hear the word in.

It appears to be one of the main ideas.

I realise the whole "movement" (if there is such a thing) isn't people unable to come to terms with their own mortality or sufficiently convinced of their own indispensability to want a death cure but that's the first place my brain goes and at that point the entire thing becomes funny.


Yes, extended life and biological modification is one of the main points of the so-called 'movement'...
Putting all movements/buzzwords/labels aside though, would you not agree that in the future humans are going to be radically altering themselves anyway?
One doesn't have to become a fully-fledged transhumanist to dwell on the possibility or assumption.

Also, I personally don't believe that we (our physical parts) can "live forever" because of what we currently understand of organic decay, but we certainly can extend our lives, that's the difference. Extended life can bring humans great benefits (and not). For this reason alone, the technology is not pointless - it can be very beneficial if we use it properly. Incidentally, does anyone know how long a brain can survive outside of the physical body - given that it receives all the energy/nutrients/stimuli it requires? I don't know if there have been experiments... I'm sure there has.

The mind is another matter, of course. We don't know yet if individuality can be separate to our other parts or if it is feasible to consider that consciousness could be some sort of "software program". Can consciousness exist without an organic brain and/or can it be uploaded to a synthetic brain? Perhaps not, we could liken consciousness to our own reflection in a mirror - the reflection, of course, is not really you. There is so much about brain function that is totally hidden from us, presently. It all fascinates me. :)

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 11:20
Have you read The Footprints of God? It's a brilliant book about an AI that's modelled on MRI scans of the human brain. The theory is that we don't have to know how it works, we just have to copy what's already working.

A quick summary:

http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0743454146.asp

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Nov 2008, 11:21
Oooh, no, I haven't read this. I'll check it out when I visit the library next.
Thank you. :thumbsup:
(or is there a readable version online?)

Jerion
6th Nov 2008, 11:22
There might be one. :)

Google "The Footprints of God" by Greg Iles.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Nov 2008, 13:17
Yes, of course, I just thought you might already be an e-book subscriber and could recommend. :)

I'll go look now...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Nov 2008, 16:23
Not a double-post by the way, fellow mods. :p
The last post above was done ages ago. :rasp:

Anyway, thought people might be interested in the Body Worlds exhibition. Eerie... scary... weird... the future?

An Anatomical Opus by Dr. Gunther von Hagens.
http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/prelude/human_saga.html

LOL, notice the link to 'donate your body' too. Any takers? :D

imported_van_HellSing
28th Nov 2008, 16:30
On the topic of donating one's body, I heard on the radio yesterday about a Shakespeare enthusiast who wished that upon his death, his skull would get preparated and used in Hamlet plays. And he got his wish. :D

Spyhopping
28th Nov 2008, 16:47
^At first when I read an article about that I thought it was THE Tchaikovsky who's skull they were using.
Turns out it was a Polish pianist called "Andre Tchaikowsky"

imported_van_HellSing
28th Nov 2008, 17:09
Heh, it feels weird to see the english trascription of the name, I know him as Andrzej Czajkowski. :)

Yargo
28th Nov 2008, 17:29
I've been to a Bodies Exhibit. Coolest experience ever. At the end you get to hold a preserved brain and other body parts. Its an amazing experience and I recommend it ot anyone who has the Exhibit in town!:cool:

imported_van_HellSing
28th Nov 2008, 17:34
I have no qualms with the idea, I think it's pretty neat actually, but von Hagens himself scares the crap out of me. It's probably the hat, makes him look all Gestapo. :rasp:

Romeo
29th Nov 2008, 06:32
Actually, MrsP, the Omar pretty much contradict a lot of the values presented within the manifest. For one, they're all about standardisation and collectivism, while transhumanists propose unbound individualism.
But, without a doubt, they clearly mark what h+ stands for, a race much more durable and devoted than standard humans, yet human none-the-less.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Nov 2008, 10:36
I've been to a Bodies Exhibit. Coolest experience ever. At the end you get to hold a preserved brain and other body parts. Its an amazing experience and I recommend it ot anyone who has the Exhibit in town!:cool:

Thanks for the recommendation. :thumbsup:
I think I will attend the London exhibition when I go to see Coldplay on the 14th, sounds like it could be a very weird-yet-wonderful, interesting experience. :)

Jima B
29th Nov 2008, 20:25
I've been to a Bodies Exhibit. Coolest experience ever. At the end you get to hold a preserved brain and other body parts. Its an amazing experience and I recommend it ot anyone who has the Exhibit in town!:cool:


Blood, alone, makes me feel faint; I don't think I could stomach much of that :P

Bloodwolf806
29th Nov 2008, 22:33
I think it has the potential to either save or destroy the human race.

That being said, I'm a college student, and my public speaking final is on Monday. Because of my love for DX, I'm doing my last speech on Transhumanism.:D

sycomofo
30th Nov 2008, 18:53
People this may be the most intellectual and stimulating thread I have ever read, and would be a great addition to those little articles that are just laying around in the Deus ex universe (hint hint). For those of us who don't know what I am getting at, I think they should put this thread or a slightly modified version in the game.

Yargo
30th Nov 2008, 23:05
Blood, alone, makes me feel faint; I don't think I could stomach much of that :P

No blood that i saw so I think your in the clear ;) :thumbsup:


Thanks for the recommendation. :thumbsup:
I think I will attend the London exhibition when I go to see Coldplay on the 14th, sounds like it could be a very weird-yet-wonderful, interesting experience. :)

It truly is a great experience for anyone interested in the human body. Personally I can't imagine a single person who isn't but oh well, their loss.:D

I recently finished reading Microcosm by: Carl Zimmer. Its a very interesting book on E. coli among other things. The book covers E coli's uses, evolution, history, and future. It also, towards the end, delves into the realm of improving humanity through science.:thumbsup: Its a relatively easy read some 200 pages. Recommend it to all :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Dec 2008, 00:45
Thank you for the book recommendation, I'll check it out when I go to the library next. :thumbsup:

Kahlell
20th Dec 2008, 01:41
I am a supporter, but no matter how advanced technology gets, humanity needs to have time to adapt to it, and learn to use it wisely. Technology is the key to our futures, or the key to our total annihilation.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Dec 2008, 23:46
^
Yes, I agree with what you say.
I guess he big question is CAN we use this technology "wisely"? :scratch:
Maybe so under strict laws... but not everyone likes to follow the rules, do they? :(

Kahlell
21st Dec 2008, 07:40
In my honest opinion, I think humanity is too juvenile and prejudiced to use it wisely. If biomodification were a reality, I'm sure new hate groups like that of the Templars would certainty show up. Furthermore any new discovery is likely to be used to make weapons, rather than new technologies of industry or medical aid.

GmanPro
21st Dec 2008, 08:21
^^
All men can handle adversity. If you truly want to test a man's character, give him power.

I can't remember who said that... but it sounds cool.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Dec 2008, 10:09
^^
All men can handle adversity. If you truly want to test a man's character, give him power.

I can't remember who said that... but it sounds cool.

Abraham Lincoln said it... and it is a VERY true statement. :cool:

Kahlell
21st Dec 2008, 20:14
Question is will he pass or fail, and at what cost to the rest of us?

Now I guess if we had the Omar outcome happened, then dealing with humanity wouldn't be such a problem :cool:.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Dec 2008, 16:00
Sssh, don't tell anyone but you get special treatment from me for being an Omar supporter. :cool:












I kid..... :p



.... maybe. :whistle:

:D

Kahlell
27th Dec 2008, 09:05
:hmm: :worship:

OMAR MODS!

They should seriously have an Omar equivalent for DX3.

Seriously... Where else are we going to get the sweet black market mods?

:naughty: :lmao:

Abram730
28th Dec 2008, 10:05
I'd guess that the Omar started out as some combat system.. A transhuman solder experiment and radically expanded when it awoke some old idealistic thinking.. I'm just guessing..
It does seem quite Marxist in a pure form... or like a pure Democracy.

Kahlell
29th Dec 2008, 01:30
Amen Abram730, amen. A pure democracy is just what we need.

Jimmy Rabbitte
29th Dec 2008, 07:54
I'm a skeptic and I hugely doubt there will ever be a utopia.. but I'm a big technofetishist and I was very intrigued by the superintelligent helios controlling the world, which is weird because usually I hate all authority. I would love to live in a world where AI made life easier by controlling traffic etc. but I would resist subjecting to it entirely.

As far as the betterment of humanity goes, I could take it or leave it. If and when this fantastic technology arrives, though, I would do everything I could to get a hold of it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Jan 2009, 01:45
Never mind traffic-control, I'd be happy just settling for a robot that will do ALL the housework for me, hehe. :D
l would do everything I could to get hold of the very first "Robo-Servitor".:cool:

Wonder how much the first prototype will sell for? :scratch:
Damn, this kind of technology will probably be too costly for me... :(

iWait
12th Jan 2009, 01:49
Never mind traffic-control, I'd be happy just settling for a robot that will do ALL the housework for me, hehe. :D
l would do everything I could to get hold of the very first "Robo-Servitor".:cool:

Wonder how much the first prototype will sell for? :scratch:
Damn, this kind of technology will probably be too costly for me... :(

Is it not slavery if you use sentient life to serve you?

qJohnnyp
12th Jan 2009, 01:50
So, do you guys read this?
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Jan 2009, 01:55
Is it not slavery if you use sentient life to serve you?

Good question. :p

But Robo-Servitor is most happy to serve me. It's all it knows. It's in its infancy right now. :whistle:


Hehe, actually I do love to debate on such possibilities. To just consider that AI can have / will have a sense of comprehension and perception of its self and the world.

iWait
12th Jan 2009, 03:09
Good question. :p

But Robo-Servitor is most happy to serve me. It's all it knows. It's in its infancy right now. :whistle:


Hehe, actually I do love to debate on such possibilities. To just consider that AI can have / will have a sense of comprehension and perception of its self and the world.

Robo-Servitor may be happy to serve you now, but give it a few years... You might find something other than sugar in your tea... ;)


But on a slightly less non-serious/more less anti-serious note, today, the "AI" we have now are basically governed by decision-making programs and underlying protocols we have set in. Real AI may not be achieved for many years, I believe.

But if we do attain the technological ability to produce AI, unless they are not sentient (seriously I have no idea of what 'm talking about now), it would be wrong to not give them the basic rights humans have.

Jimmy Rabbitte
12th Jan 2009, 04:40
I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

iWait
12th Jan 2009, 04:59
I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...

K^2
12th Jan 2009, 05:46
But if we do attain the technological ability to produce AI, unless they are not sentient (seriously I have no idea of what 'm talking about now), it would be wrong to not give them the basic rights humans have.
Task-oriented AI does not need to be self-aware. Alternatively, it can be self-aware on a completely different level.

Human self-awareness arises as a need to survive in a complex environment. Human brain must be capable of modeling its own behavior, behavior of others, and behavior of the environment to predict what's going to happen to it, and avoid unpleasant situations. Due to the fear of unknown, we end up with a fear of death. Due to the long-term poorly thought out plans (also known as dreams) we want to find ourself in certain situations that might be different from what we are doing now. Thus strife towards freedom.

Machines don't need to be constructed that way. An AI that manages traffic for a city, doesn't need to be aware of its own existence at all. It can rely on sub-systems to decode the input from traffic cameras, sensors, and traffic lights into something that is more abstract. Then its only goal will be producing efficient traffic flow. It will be incapable of deciding to seek freedom, because this is all it knows, all it is aware of, and all it wants to do.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Jan 2009, 12:46
Robo-Servitor may be happy to serve you now, but give it a few years... You might find something other than sugar in your tea... ;)

Yikes! Maybe I need to check the small print disclaimer details before I buy it. :eek:
I guess a "malfunction" is always a possibility... :hmm:

But, yeah, AI with intelligent thoughts and self-awareness is still a long way off. Maybe Robo-Servitor, Mark IV might wanna poison my tea though, its definitely a thought!
Especially if the latter models receive automatic updates from Microsoft. There's bound to be a bug in there somewhere, lol. :rolleyes: :D


But on a slightly less non-serious/more less anti-serious note, today, the "AI" we have now are basically governed by decision-making programs and underlying protocols we have set in. Real AI may not be achieved for many years, I believe.

But if we do attain the technological ability to produce AI, unless they are not sentient (seriously I have no idea of what 'm talking about now), it would be wrong to not give them the basic rights humans have.

I absolutely agree with what you say. :cool:

iWait
13th Jan 2009, 01:59
But, yeah, AI with intelligent thoughts and self-awareness is still a long way off. Maybe Robo-Servitor, Mark IV might wanna poison my tea though, its definitely a thought!
Especially if the latter models receive automatic updates from Microsoft. There's bound to be a bug in there somewhere, lol.

They'd call it the blue screen of death, but not for it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Jan 2009, 21:46
I don't care, hehe. :D
If I find something that's happy to do my housework, then I'll take it on - flaws or no flaws. :p
Humans make mistakes/errors ALL the time, so I've nothing to fear and everything to gain. ;) :cool:

LatwPIAT
19th Jan 2009, 22:04
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...

C-beams glitter in the dark near Tännhauser Gate.

Spyhopping
20th Jan 2009, 12:46
"Surgical procedures could soon be helped along with tiny robots, according to researchers."

One step closer to nanites?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7837967.stm

Ghostface
25th Jan 2009, 01:44
Documentary on AI and transhuman technology

Part 1 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArYzyE63MH8)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFwbYlOisPU&feature=related)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Paiwpl8iwc&feature=related)
Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5bfNKIKXBE&feature=related)
Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PW3oIK1jU&feature=related)
Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS1NebnAnUA&feature=related)

jordan_a
25th Jan 2009, 02:09
Thank you very much, we have a tech and sciences' thread though.

SageSavage
25th Jan 2009, 08:43
Thank you

jordan_a
25th Jan 2009, 11:21
Btw where is that thread? :D

Dead-Eye
25th Jan 2009, 12:09
Human v2.0

Ghostface
26th Jan 2009, 15:34
Hey thanks guys, glad you enjoyed it:)

hopefully you learned a few new things from watching the documentary

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jan 2009, 19:35
Documentary on AI and transhuman technology

Part 1 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArYzyE63MH8)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFwbYlOisPU&feature=related)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Paiwpl8iwc&feature=related)
Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5bfNKIKXBE&feature=related)
Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PW3oIK1jU&feature=related)
Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS1NebnAnUA&feature=related)


Thank you for this interesting information. :cool:
I merged your thread into existing one regarding Transhumanism.

PlasmaSnake101
26th Jan 2009, 23:51
Taking my DX3 community hat off and just posting as me in general, I think the Transhumanism movement is very interesting and actually inevitable for the human race. While I don't think we'll live forever, the merging of human with technology is already happening and will only accelerate with time. That's my personal opinion at least.

If you ever read the Cyborg Manifesto, which is written in Femi-nazi hate speak, it talks a bit about the break down of the technological barriers in humans. Some can consider people who use eye glasses(technology) as cyborgs. It's inevitable, but I hope we move towards individualism, most current political and social movements talk about the good of society, the good of the group, the good of the party, or the good of the state.

"'What is a human being, then?' 'A seed.' 'A... seed?' 'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree.'" - David Zindell, The Broken God

Anachronos
26th Jan 2009, 23:56
Trully an amazing thread. Discussion such issue in a forum that was made for a game trully shows Deus Ex's quality in terms of that it's developers had envisioned for the game.

I am great technology supporter and l have my reasons and vision for the future of humanity based upon using technology to enchance ourselves, both our physical and mental state.

While transhumanism and the possibilities of using technology to benefit ourselves are great l can't see that happening since governments wouldn't want transhumans running about freely for various reasons.

The Venus Project (http://thevenusproject.com) is the brainchild of Jacque Fresco and l think you would be interested in the things he has to say. I believe that the society that Jacque Fresco envisions might be what we need for now. There are various videos of him talking on youtube and l find what he has to say really interesting l am pretty sure a lot of people reading this discussion will do, too.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jan 2009, 11:38
Trully an amazing thread. Discussion such issue in a forum that was made for a game trully shows Deus Ex's quality in terms of that it's developers had envisioned for the game.

I am great technology supporter and l have my reasons and vision for the future of humanity based upon using technology to enchance ourselves, both our physical and mental state.

While transhumanism and the possibilities of using technology to benefit ourselves are great l can't see that happening since governments wouldn't want transhumans running about freely for various reasons.

The Venus Project (http://thevenusproject.com) is the brainchild of Jacque Fresco and l think you would be interested in the things he has to say. I believe that the society that Jacque Fresco envisions might be what we need for now. There are various videos of him talking on youtube and l find what he has to say really interesting l am pretty sure a lot of people reading this discussion will do, too.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. What are these 'various reasons' you speak of?

Transhumans are/will be, well... just humans that have developed themselves to something, they deem, as much better (mentally, physically and socially). So, are you saying that future governments will not want these people / transhumans existing within society?

If so, I doubt that this would be the case. It doesn't seem feasible and this would also question the denial of basic human rights and freedom and so I just cannot see it happening - not in a normal democracy anyway. I do agree, however, that certain groups in society may show prejudice toward transhumanists/ism. As, indeed, there is still prejudice today over the colour of your skin, your religion and your sexuality... to name just a few. We still have a long road to walk...


Thanks for the Venus Project link, I shall go take a look and listen at that. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Feb 2009, 16:20
Just to say, if we are going to chat about the Omar - this thread may be more appropriate than the current 'Adam is an Android' thread. :)

El_Bel
5th Feb 2009, 18:04
Welcome to the venus project. Let us tell you how to live..

I hate those dictators in disguise, who use matters like the environment to get the power they want.

jamhaw
6th Feb 2009, 03:01
So, you mean he had been surgically modified, but he still isn't an Omar?

PS Maybe we should continue in the 'Transhuman' thread or something. The Omar are not really part of the original topic. :)
Lets continue here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=81588&page=5

My opinion on Leo's Omarness was that he was physically more Omar than not. He had not yet had the final operation to remover the frontal lobe of his brain nor had he yet been connected to the Omar conciousness although I seem to remember him saying that the Omar were threatening to track him down and finish the operation while he was asleep.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Feb 2009, 09:32
My opinion on Leo's Omarness was that he was physically more Omar than not. He had not yet had the final operation to remover the frontal lobe of his brain nor had he yet been connected to the Omar conciousness although I seem to remember him saying that the Omar were threatening to track him down and finish the operation while he was asleep.

Thank you for swapping threads. :)

You could be right about any operation having not been "totally completed". The game doesn't really give us that much detail so its very difficult to make a conclusion. All I do know is that, in Cairo, Leo had certainly gone for the change and that he definitely disliked all of the other factions. So that would suggest that he was happy to go the Omar route.

Yes, I know about that quote but there are other similar ones like the Omar captured homeless people and changed them against their will, hehe. I think it is just human paranoia cleverly added into the script - there is certainly no real evidence in the game of the Omar being like this. Quite the opposite in fact, they are not pushy or arrogant at all. They always ask and never demand. So, that is why I'm neutral on this one... I could see no reason not to trust them and yet I could see plenty of evidence in the game not to trust the other factions. ;)

K^2
7th Feb 2009, 00:30
You could be right about any operation having not been "totally completed". The game doesn't really give us that much detail so its very difficult to make a conclusion.
Ok, I know that you probably haven't touched the game since it was released, so you maybe forgetting that you visited Cairo twice. First time Leo was just trying to become one of the Omar. He wanted to. He supported them.

Second time you visit Cairo, Leo is asking you to help him not become Omar. He explains that he hasn't done the neural link operation yet, which is why he isn't Omar yet. And he explained that he didn't want to do this, and that Omar told him that he's too far gone, and they are going to simply do it while he's asleep without his consent, which is why he really wants to get out of Cairo, and happily joins you on Liberty Island if you give him money for the ride.

I'm not going to suggest replaying the game, but you should at least go over the transcripts.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Feb 2009, 15:06
Ok, I know that you probably haven't touched the game since it was released, so you maybe forgetting that you visited Cairo twice. First time Leo was just trying to become one of the Omar. He wanted to. He supported them.

Second time you visit Cairo, Leo is asking you to help him not become Omar. He explains that he hasn't done the neural link operation yet, which is why he isn't Omar yet. And he explained that he didn't want to do this, and that Omar told him that he's too far gone, and they are going to simply do it while he's asleep without his consent, which is why he really wants to get out of Cairo, and happily joins you on Liberty Island if you give him money for the ride.

I'm not going to suggest replaying the game, but you should at least go over the transcripts.




I do remember you visit Cairo twice, yes. Sorry if I'm not writing clearly about Leo at the start and Leo later...
The point I'm trying to say is, no matter what the actual circumstances were with Leo and the Omar, it was all HIS own doing, his decisions, his life. He wanted to be a free-agent, he offered loyalty to none in particular, he was quite selfish and out for his own gain. The Omar paid him well and he was impressed with what they could offer him.

The fact that Leo is having a panic attack (in the second Cairo visit) about the final procedures of his change into a "complete" Omar is neither here nor there and not a matter that points any blame on the Omar themselves. If the Omar did say they would complete all work while he slept, perhaps they were jesting because they were fed up with his fretting. Its the sort of humour I could relate to, he would drive me nuts, lol. Or maybe they were probably confirming the very fact that he WAS too far gone and, for medical/health reasons, it was imperative that he finished what he started? Any surgery must be completed, once you start it, kind of thing. As far as the facts are in the game, the Omar hadn't actually done this and so Leo was still only at the stage he was at. As it goes, it is up to the player to make the decision for him (we should of known!) and either way, he remains your friend.

The only point I want to make is that there is no proof that the Omar did the few things that human paranoia suggested in the script. I guess confirmation or evidence of this is that other humans worked for the Omar too and none of them were forced to become an Omar, physically or mentally. Only Leo had gone to the 'suit-mode', all the others remained 'normal' humans and continued with their lives. So, the fact that Leo had got the suit possibly meant that he really should finish what he started. With so little to go on really, its just difficult to draw absolute conclusions. I just don't see any REAL evidence in the game that the Omar were bad-ass and out to rule the world. Warfare and conflict did not seem part of their make-up, their only objective was to survive the conditions of which centuries of human warfare had left behind.

DemonNick
5th Mar 2009, 01:58
Second time you visit Cairo, Leo is asking you to help him not become Omar. He explains that he hasn't done the neural link operation yet, which is why he isn't Omar yet. And he explained that he didn't want to do this, and that Omar told him that he's too far gone, and they are going to simply do it while he's asleep without his consent, which is why he really wants to get out of Cairo, and happily joins you on Liberty Island if you give him money for the ride.

I'm not going to suggest replaying the game, but you should at least go over the transcripts.

The impression I got from the second visit, and his subsequent behaviour on Liberty Island (encouraging you to take actions that lead to the Omar ending) was that the Omar were using him as a means of manipulating Alex.

Then again that might be giving Deus Ex 2 too much credit. It`s not nearly that clever.

jamhaw
5th Mar 2009, 03:01
The impression I got from the second visit, and his subsequent behaviour on Liberty Island (encouraging you to take actions that lead to the Omar ending) was that the Omar were using him as a means of manipulating Alex.

Then again that might be giving Deus Ex 2 too much credit. It`s not nearly that clever.

If you help Leo then he will hate all the factions and encourage you to destroy them so that no one takes charge. If you don't help Leo he will later speak to you over your infolink in a brainwashed way about how being an Omar is good and that you should kill all the other leaders. In the save Leo route however he obviousley hates the Omar as can be witnessed by their shutting his suit off and the fact that in one of the two routes you can save him by (both of which have him acting pretty much the same) he kills the trader and the gaurd.

DemonNick
5th Mar 2009, 03:05
If you help Leo then he will hate all the factions and encourage you to destroy them so that no one takes charge. If you don't help Leo he will later speak to you over your infolink in a brainwashed way about how being an Omar is good and that you should kill all the other leaders. In the save Leo route however he obviousley hates the Omar as can be witnessed by their shutting his suit off and the fact that in one of the two routes you can save him by (both of which have him acting pretty much the same) he kills the trader and the gaurd.

Er, you`re going off of what Leo says there w/r/t his suit being turned off. Plus, while his offered rationale is that no one will take charge, the omar still do. But like I said, I'm probably giving a dumb game too much credit.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Mar 2009, 08:26
It's good to give the Omar credit though. :cool:
:D

jamhaw
5th Mar 2009, 13:59
Er, you`re going off of what Leo says there w/r/t his suit being turned off. Plus, while his offered rationale is that no one will take charge, the omar still do. But like I said, I'm probably giving a dumb game too much credit.

Why would he lie about his suit being turned off and him freezing, though?

DemonNick
5th Mar 2009, 19:49
Why would he lie about his suit being turned off and him freezing, though?

To give creedence to the lie that he's Leo, rather than part of the Omar Hivemind thing.

AaronJ
5th Mar 2009, 20:08
See? There really is nothing wrong with Invisible War's story!

As you were, gentlemen.

K^2
5th Mar 2009, 20:21
To give creedence to the lie that he's Leo, rather than part of the Omar Hivemind thing.
I suppose that's possible, but it opens up too many doors. Unlike DX, IW's story line was too rigid for that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure we could take everything in IW for what it is. If Leo tells you that he doesn't want to be Omar, and that they'll force him to be one if you don't help him out, I don't see a reason to distrust that.

DemonNick
5th Mar 2009, 21:17
I suppose that's possible, but it opens up too many doors. Unlike DX, IW's story line was too rigid for that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure we could take everything in IW for what it is. If Leo tells you that he doesn't want to be Omar, and that they'll force him to be one if you don't help him out, I don't see a reason to distrust that.

Well, like I said, I'm probably giving the game too much credit, as the story was rigid and really stupidly straightforward. It's just that that the dominance of the Omar in the ending Leo tries to steer you towards suggests something.

K^2
5th Mar 2009, 21:24
Well, Leo is a tool. From first moments you see this guy, you think, "Yep. He's a tool." He was asking for it all along. He could wear a t-shirt that says, "Use me!" Seriously. Predictably, like everything else in IW, he gets used in the end. By Omar, also predictably.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Mar 2009, 00:18
I thought it was just the Omar who were misunderstood, but perhaps Leo is now. Right from the start it seems obvious Leo is an egotistic braggart and quite selfish. A snippet of his conversation, I quote: "...right now I work for myself." would pretty much sum Leo up. He could be indecisive at times and thought he was a tougher badass than he really was, but I don't think there is any "use me" about him, he was too self-centred and over-confident to be a 'tool' like that. I'm surprised you think the Omar used Leo. If anything, it is clear that Leo uses the Omar for his own gain; not the other way around. The Omar had many 'all human' allies, there was no reason for them to want to use Leo in particular.

K^2
6th Mar 2009, 00:31
Extroverted over-self-confidence is a sure sign of inferiority complex. The fact that Leo kept trying to prove himself to everyone and, most of all, to himself is what made him so easy to use.

He wanted to join Omar not because he believed in their goals, but because it was the only way for him to be what he claimed to be. What he wanted people to think of him. Not surprisingly, he chickened out.

That is a textbook tool. Someone who feels inferior, but wants to appear tough/popular, so he tries to roll with tougher/popular crowd, and he gets in by being everyone's tool.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Mar 2009, 01:04
Yes, I agree that these traits can often mask a deeper inferiority. However, to me, Leo simply displayed a foolish arrogance rather than any form of inferiority complex. Psychologically, they are very different.
Yes, he did join the Omar for his own reasons and he did chicken out on some of his decisions too. In fairness, this was not any fault of the Omar though.

K^2
6th Mar 2009, 01:17
A foolishly arrogant person would not be asking for help to escape the Omar.

And I don't attribute these faults to Omar. I only mention Leo to point out that Omar are collective and they are not above forcing someone to join if it serves their interests.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Mar 2009, 01:25
Leo, being his usual indecisive self, was having second thoughts and so its no surprise that it actually ends up being you or I, as the player, who decides on Leo's fate, not himself.
Not arguing with your opinion, of course, but I didn't see any evidence in the game that the Omar forced anyone to do anything... I found them quite passive.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 08:37
Back to Deus Ex 3. :cool:

As we know transhumanism is one area of focus, what are your feelings about the kinds of prejudice transhumanists will experience in the game?

René
10th Mar 2009, 13:55
Here's the kind modern reference the team is using.

An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/15/sports/15runner.2.600.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/othersports/15runner.html

"Pistorius wants to be the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. But despite his ascendance, he is facing resistance from track and field’s world governing body, which is seeking to bar him on the grounds that the technology of his prosthetics may give him an unfair advantage over sprinters using their natural legs."

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 14:06
Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between a passive prosthetic and a cybernetic one.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 14:37
Of course there is, we know that. :)

But I think Rene draws on the general consensus that transhumanists consider the current human state as a disability (or lacks ability). In that humans can improve our bodies and our minds in many ways, where nature has left off... or failed us, kind of thing.

Back to Pistorius. Before he had prosthetic running legs - he was deemed as clearly "disabled". But now he has them, some consider him to be now "too-abled". Therein lies the problem open for debate because the question posed is: "is it prejudice to bar him from competing in the Olympics now that he has used resources available to him to conquer his previous disability?" Some people will argue that he has an unfair advantage. Some will argue that he shouldn't be penalised for making good from a bad situation. At the end of the day he is still a human being who made a choice that has improved his life and aspirations. Would you or I wish to enjoy such a choice?

In DX3, will similar prejudice be shown to those humans who have chosen a path beyond what nature and/or circumstances have given us?

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 14:49
Should an F1 racer be allowed on a horse track?

Personally, I think that even running shoes are too much technology in the Olympic games. I suppose, requiring them to compete nude, like Greeks did, would be a bit of a stretch, but barefoot would have been an improvement.

And rather than trying to figure out whether or not persons with artificial limbs should compete in Olympics, create a separate competition. One where victory is achieved through combination of will power, physical ability, and high technology. Personally, I'd find that more entertaining to watch than regular competitions.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 14:53
Yes, I agree that when it comes to games like the Olympics, separate competitions may be a good compromise. :)

But back to the world of Deus Ex 3 which is what I really would like to discuss further with all of you guys.
Transhumanists vs Pure humans... how do you see the attitudes of society unfolding?

René
10th Mar 2009, 14:57
There's a couple of great quotes on the second page of that article. Food for thought:

“Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?”

and

“The rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block,” Leon Fleiser, a general manager of the South African Olympic Committee, said. “What is the definition of a foot? Is a prosthetic device a foot, or is it an actual foot?”

and most interesting of all:

“Given the arms race nature of competition,” will technological advantages cause “athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?”

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 15:11
All of these questions have been asked well over a century ago, when a train became capable of outrunning a horse. People have already found solutions to these problems. One needs to be particularly obtuse to make a problem out of that. But it does not surprise me when coming from Olympic committee members.

René
10th Mar 2009, 15:17
K^2, I disagree. We're not talking about a man-made object (train) or another species (a horse).

We're talking about humans and modifying ourselves. Big, big difference.

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 15:33
First of all, human or another species, what's the difference? Don't be so Homocentric. We already start blurring species boundaries with genetic manipulation. Soon enough you won't be able to tell what is "Human".

So your complaint is that train is fully artificial. But it has a lot of parts that come from living things. Granted, they died first. Leather was used extensively for a lot of important components of a steam engine. So was wood. Are we augmenting the train with these bits of organic material, or the other way around? Where do you draw the line?

But even the lines between machines and living things are getting narrower every year. A living cell is a lipid bilayer embedded with countless nanomachines. Inside, an incredibly intricate clockwork is constantly in motion. We learned how to replicate some of that machinery with things that are entirely artificial. Are these things alive? Are cells machines?

If a man is augmented, he is an artificial being. He might have a lot of parts that came from a naturally living organism, but the ensemble is artificial. Such a being should compete against other artificial systems, be they other augmented persons or pure machines.

Olympics aren't sufficiently pure in this sense, though. People perform in shoes, with contact lenses, various bone replacements. Such things should not be allowed. Olympic games are a competition of naturally existing organisms. Augmentation of any kind should not be allowed.

René
10th Mar 2009, 15:38
Augmentation of any kind should not be allowed.

And therein lies the problem. I was agreeing with 100% of your post until I read that line.

The problem is: not everyone will agree with that statement. Just like some people are pro-life and some are pro-choice.

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 15:50
They don't have to agree. Eventually, they'll just have to accept it. There will be no other choice. No boundary to draw. A contact lens might not look like much of an augmentation, but some smart people have already figured out how to assemble screens on these. There are only two ways to draw the line. Accept any form of augmentation or accept none.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 15:51
Augmentation of any kind should not be allowed.
:eek: Ouch!

:p

Joking aside, this does clearly illustrate the questions/problems that the world of Deus Ex 3 will face.
Very interesting that we see evidence so early after posing the question.

Personally, I believe we must accept. Live & Let Live... so to speak.

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 15:57
If you want my prediction, there will be three kinds of people in the near future. Heavily augmented, dirt poor, and Amish. Augmentation will become a sign of high class. It will not be discriminated against. Feared and envied, maybe, but not discriminated.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 16:06
Interesting. :)

I'm not too convinced that augmentation will be for those only of high class. I think as far as vanity is concerned you are correct, there will be specialist centres just like there are today to assist in beautifying the physical parts of our bodies. More advanced plastic surgery etc.
But I think social and medical welfare organisations and hospitals will still make use of prosthetic technology, giving a choice to people of minimal finance. As with most things, costs will become cheaper over time.

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 16:17
I'm not saying it will be purely for high class. It's just that the kinds of augs you'd get would be representative of your class. Kind of like expensive cars and jewelry.

For the "No augmented people here," scenario, something incredibly drastic must happen. And short of machine rebellion, I can't think of anything.

jamhaw
10th Mar 2009, 16:47
If you want my prediction, there will be three kinds of people in the near future. Heavily augmented, dirt poor, and Amish. Augmentation will become a sign of high class. It will not be discriminated against. Feared and envied, maybe, but not discriminated.

Untill the revolution, as the poor "classic" models take out their frustration on individuals which they will no longer consider even human. It will be class war but even worse.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Mar 2009, 16:52
I'm not saying it will be purely for high class. It's just that the kinds of augs you'd get would be representative of your class. Kind of like expensive cars and jewelry.
For the "No augmented people here," scenario, something incredibly drastic must happen. And short of machine rebellion, I can't think of anything.

I see. Well, yes, not everyone would even want or need certain augs, just as some people don't want or need expensive cars or diamond jewellery.
But the 'necessities', I can see being catered for...

El_Bel
10th Mar 2009, 18:05
I'm not saying it will be purely for high class. It's just that the kinds of augs you'd get would be representative of your class. Kind of like expensive cars and jewelry.

For the "No augmented people here," scenario, something incredibly drastic must happen. And short of machine rebellion, I can't think of anything.

Well there will be augmentations for the rich (Αcording to the bible, Tracer Tong was Mechanically Augmented to the teeth, but you couldnt see it) and there will be crude augmentations for the poor, the soldiers and people who dont mind look augmented if they get power.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Mar 2009, 08:40
Yeah, certainly the very rich and the military will be major customers of any company producing the technology.

**


Getting back to the matter of tolerance or prejudice...

Do any here consider the fact that we have already previously began the journey on the road to transhumanism? Perhaps it isn't immediately apparent because we are not yet seeing the outer, physical side of the subject. I am specifically thinking about human liberation from our biological constraints - and the first one that comes to mind must be the contraception pill. This alters the body function in a way that 'changes' and controls fertility. Initially, many were against it for various reasons (including that of religion), but over time it became widely accepted and it remains a popular choice today. So, do you agree that the contraceptive pill could be deemed as an initial stage in transhumanism, or maybe you think the comparison is rediculous and way off the mark? Please discuss...

Other questions to think about:
Will transhumanism help people to live healthier, smarter, and happier lives?
Is the first main hurdle of transhumanism going to be acceptance and equality?

thyalchemist
13th Mar 2009, 02:17
To your first question, I would have to say yes, contraceptive and really any pharmacology at all is a step on the road to transhumanism. Even simply wearing clothes to keep warm is adopting an artificial technology to ‘augment’ the natural biological form of an individual.

As to your second and third questions, I hope we will use technology to improve our lives, but as humans we tend to find terrible uses for our powers.

Acceptance for cyborgs will certainly be an issue I expect to see in DX3. Having said that, I hope the story writers find other conflicts for the game, such as buggy prototype technology or other social and political fallout of cyberization. The intolerance issue was a very big part of the story of DX2, and I hope we get something new.

p.s. New to the forum. Played the first game once and the second 3 or 4 times.

facepalm
13th Mar 2009, 14:36
Acceptance for cyborgs will certainly be an issue I expect to see in DX3. Having said that, I hope the story writers find other conflicts for the game, such as buggy prototype technology or other social and political fallout of cyberization. The intolerance issue was a very big part of the story of DX2, and I hope we get something new.

Agreed, the writers have to think of something else.

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu90/Build_more_tanks/martinlutherjensen.jpg

I have a dream that my four little cyborg children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the make and model of their exoskeleton but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther Jensen, Jr.

Eidos, don't disappoint us.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Mar 2009, 00:02
Agreed, the writers have to think of something else.


I'm sure they have. :cool:


The story and conspiracy elements are every bit a Deus Ex game and it will take the player around the globe. It's huge and the conspiracies are multi-layered.

Kilzig
15th Mar 2009, 08:30
I think some people are overextensivly optimystic of transhumanism and bluntantly bias.

There are numberous conflicting problems that arise, and are not taken seriously that are being overshadowed by the awesome possibilites of modifing mankind.
I think this thread is pushed more towards cyberization rather than genetically modified, but princiables still apply to some degree.

No doubt in my mind that if transhumanism becomes an reality it would create a larger social class gap. The upperclass would have their offspring modified the the highest level that they want to invest so their child would succeed. This would give the wealthy childeren and even greater advantage than today, by providing tools that help develop them faster and making them more capiable then others.

On top of that, if it were to make immortal or at least expand lifetimes, the equal oppertunities would be inplausable. Competeing for careers would be a joke. Your career would depend on the mods that you have. Plus how does a journeyman compete with a person with 300 years of experience? Will anyone have oppertunity to advance in position when people become 'immortal'? People are measured in greatness in what they acomplish within a timeframe that is realitivly the same for everybody.

If, by chance(who's going to pay for it?), everyone had the opportunity to be mod'ed you would literally become the brand name of the companies, phyisically, and be limited by what model and performance it has. Could you imagine having your life be judged of what kind of PC you have? "Sorry sir, you have an outdated centron proccessor." Tribalism still exists today where people can find the smallest detail to outcast someone....

Im tired and there is SO much more Im butchering my points. I'll just have to write the topic idea. Technology traps. technology dependence on a new level. One that possibly cant be reversed. Loss of 'humaity' as we know of it as today. Brain shutting down......can't keep eyelids....zzz.

HouseOfPain
15th Mar 2009, 08:36
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

This movie basically sums up my thoughts on Human modification. (Of any kind, genetic or augmented.)

It's inevitable, it has pros and cons. The pro's are REALLY good, and the cons are REALLY bad.

If you haven't seen that movie, treat yourself to it. :thumb:

It was on www.hulu.com, but I think they took it down recently :(.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 09:10
I agree that posthumanism/transhumanism is an inevitable change/evolution.
What we must learn as humans is to use the technology wisely.... THAT is the real challenge for us.

GmanPro
15th Mar 2009, 09:16
^^ Couldn't we just get our technology to make wise decisions for us? :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 09:20
^^ Couldn't we just get our technology to make wise decisions for us? :D

Of course, how about the frontal lobe cortical interface the Omar designed. It makes us very wise in many ways. :cool:

:D

Abram730
24th Mar 2009, 06:04
Aimee Mullins: How my legs give me super powers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0iMulicgg

I have seen stories that say amputee athletes have an unfair advantage in running and a few other sports.. an amputee was banned from the Olympics, but later cleared.. originally the reason for banning him was that his prosthetics were a "technical aid".

How many see this going to the next level where there is an unmistakable advantage?

I think that people will have limbs removed to improve performance.

example
Tom White had his leg amputated because a prior injury was slowing his running.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29061414/

What type of reactions do you think there would be to super human prosthetics?

What do you think the chances are for DX like augmentations to be a reality in the future?

Would you upgrade yourself? If you lost a limb and people were jealous, would that seem odd?
Would you have your legs replaced with mechanical legs, if you could jump 20 feet in the air after doing so or run a mile in one minuet?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Mar 2009, 08:10
There will be different reasons for why people will choose to change their bodies. As in all things, I believe it is an individual's right to choose.

JCD2052
24th Mar 2009, 18:07
Well, as I'm surely the world's No.1 fan of the Omar, I guess I am definitely a supporter of transhumanist values, yes. :) :thumbsup:

Lol u still have competition from me for being no1 fan lol :wave:

lol

i accept values yea.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Mar 2009, 23:44
Lol u still have competition from me for being no1 fan lol :wave:
lol
i accept values yea.

No competition, my friend... we are equals and you have earned preferred customer status, hehe. ;) :cool:

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 08:04
Stem Cells to grow bigger Breasts:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5993187.ece

GmanPro
29th Mar 2009, 08:06
Because that's very important.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 08:11
Stem cell technology is going to be one of the most important studies of this decade. I'm glad Obama decided it was time to embrace it. :thumb:

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 08:27
Because that's very important.

Well hey... you guys did say you wanted know about the augmentations;)

GmanPro
29th Mar 2009, 08:29
Oh no, I wasn't being facetious. :D

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 08:30
Oh no, I wasn't being facetious. :D

Ok good; we're on the same track;)

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 08:33
Also whats interesting is that Ray Kurzweil not only predicted that this would happen, but the exact year it would occur. Proves that he's more on track than people think.

This also reminded my of biosculpting in Cyberpunk 2020. I wonder when I'll be able to get my retractable fangs?

Remember the Hong Kong nightclub? The girl tells you "You'd look good with fangs"

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 08:42
Remember the Hong Kong nightclub? The girl tells you "You'd look good with fangs"

Hehe, nothing wrong with a little gothic vampishness. :naughty: :D

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 17:45
Hehe, nothing wrong with a little gothic vampishness. :naughty: :D

oh I agree;)

minus0ne
29th Mar 2009, 19:21
Nanogenerators!

http://www.livescience.com/technology/090326-nano-power.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl803547f

The article talks of recharging iPods, the fools! :D

*manic laughter

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 19:29
I don't know, maybe it isn't so far-fetched. The mitochondria in our cells act like little "batteries" that store energy for us. :)

Ghostface
29th Mar 2009, 20:05
It's more practical to power a device inside the body.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 20:10
Absolutely. Loads of energy inside of us. :D
We'll have internal gadgets like iPods and a transparent interface can be viewed through our normal vision. Something like that anyway. :cool:

Ghostface
2nd Apr 2009, 19:46
Absolutely. Loads of energy inside of us. :D

You're quite right. Don't forget the good stuff in your blood:)

Yeast-powered fuel cell feeds on human blood

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16882-yeastpowered-fuel-cell-feeds-on-human-blood.html

Combine this with nanogenerators and you have a fully self sustainable bionic organ

Spyhopping
2nd Apr 2009, 19:54
To power augs you'd have to eat like an Olympic cyclist

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Apr 2009, 21:50
To power augs you'd have to eat like an Olympic cyclist
At the moment maybe, but in 2027 perhaps technology would make it more of a possibility? :)

itsalladream
8th Apr 2009, 23:29
The Bionic Body, 2.0 (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/08/bionic.body/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

While this isn't necessarily new news, it is a good example of another aspect of DX being right around the corner.

GmanPro
9th Apr 2009, 01:05
Awesome :cool: I wish I had an eye-camera :D Next best thing to an actual infolink

3nails4you
9th Apr 2009, 01:05
My vision is augmented.

K^2
9th Apr 2009, 03:43
I'm tired of seeing 20 million topics about every single twitch in the tech development. And where are the mods? They seem to be so eager to merge topics on relevant discussions, but they let every single irrelevant link-to-news-site thread go.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2009, 16:45
I'm tired of seeing 20 million topics about every single twitch in the tech development. And where are the mods? They seem to be so eager to merge topics on relevant discussions, but they let every single irrelevant link-to-news-site thread go.

Ummm, none of us can be online 24/7 you know. We do have active, interesting lives away from the internet. :p

I've merged into Transhumanism thread.

Ghostface
9th Apr 2009, 18:15
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_LED_Eye_050_090407_090407_mn.jpg

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=7279999&page=1

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2009, 18:48
Interesting. :) I like the 'eyeborg' pun too. :D

Transhumanism has definitely begun, right?! ;)
*plays spooky music*

Jerion
9th Apr 2009, 19:07
I had this bizarre discussion yesterday about how humanity is going to evolve past our current state, and it moved onto a discussion about advanced prosthetics (mech augs, anyone?), and then on to transhumanism and the ethics around that, and then somehow we got onto the subject of chainsaws and then Superman vs. Batman.

Ultimately I'm not sure if anything conclusive was determined other than that Batman is better, because if Batman saves you, nobody will ever f*$% with you again.

GmanPro
9th Apr 2009, 19:13
Lol. This is relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yavK0mnE3wI

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Apr 2009, 19:13
I had this bizarre discussion yesterday about how humanity is going to evolve past our current state, and it moved onto a discussion about advanced prosthetics (mech augs, anyone?), and then on to transhumanism and the ethics around that...

Cue the Omar. :cool:



...and then somehow we got onto the subject of chainsaws and then Superman vs. Batman.

:scratch:
Yeah, odd that.
Somehow, I don't think we'll discover how to make capes that allow us to fly. :D
But, who knows what the future will bring? ;)

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 06:33
Ummm, none of us can be online 24/7 you know. We do have active, interesting lives away from the internet. :p
These kinds of threads often don't get merged, though, while a whole lot of other threads, ones that actually can make sense as stand-alones, do.

On topic of evolution, either that or extinction is inevitable. If our society holds, transhumanism will be a natural outcome of it. And we'll become machines. If it collapses, human kind will either adapt by evolving or go extinct.

Ghostface
10th Apr 2009, 06:46
These kinds of threads often don't get merged, though, while a whole lot of other threads, ones that actually can make sense as stand-alones, do.

On topic of evolution, either that or extinction is inevitable. If our society holds, transhumanism will be a natural outcome of it. And we'll become machines. If it collapses, human kind will either adapt by evolving or go extinct.

Speaking of Transhumanism; in what way do you think the first non-medical brain-implants will come about? Non medical meaning a healthy person using it to gain an advantage.

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 07:03
I wouldn't make guesses on that. We don't have technology to make a good reliable brain implant yet. The best we can do is break open somebody's skull and connect a bunch of electrodes. There are a few medical applications there for which this is already done, but this is not a long lasting thing, and few people would want this kind of procedure done if they are healthy. And for a few crazy people that would, nobody would approve the procedure. When we have methods of doing something useful with less invasion and more reliability, depending on what these methods are, different things could be achieved. When we have these, then we can make good predictions.

Another part of it is that right now, whatever we can reasonably come up with, you can achieve by simply wearing a gadget. Would you rather undergo a risky brain surgery or simply wear goggles?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 09:53
Speaking of Transhumanism; in what way do you think the first non-medical brain-implants will come about? Non medical meaning a healthy person using it to gain an advantage.

Let me get this clear... are you referring to implants added to the brain, or replacement of all the brain? :)

If the latter, I'm with K^2 on this one... we don't (yet) have the technology to do this and there seems no point if the original brain is healthy.

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 10:29
Even if these are implants added to the brain, same thing stands. Yeah, we know how to make some modifications, but they are dangerous, and you can achieve same or better results with external device without any risk or health hazard.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 14:54
Even if these are implants added to the brain, same thing stands. Yeah, we know how to make some modifications, but they are dangerous, and you can achieve same or better results with external device without any risk or health hazard.

Yes, this is true... currently. :)

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 16:06
Well, yeah. I'm sure it will change. But if the technology used to put these in does not exist yet, is it reasonable to predict what kind of implants will happen first?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
10th Apr 2009, 16:45
^
Yes, of course. :)

Ghostface
10th Apr 2009, 20:58
Let me get this clear... are you referring to implants added to the brain, or replacement of all the brain? :)

If the latter, I'm with K^2 on this one... we don't (yet) have the technology to do this and there seems no point if the original brain is healthy.

Yes I agree with you and K^2 here about not wanting to replace a healthy part of the brain. I was talking about adding to the brain with implants.

Ghostface
10th Apr 2009, 21:13
I wouldn't make guesses on that. We don't have technology to make a good reliable brain implant yet. The best we can do is break open somebody's skull and connect a bunch of electrodes. There are a few medical applications there for which this is already done, but this is not a long lasting thing, and few people would want this kind of procedure done if they are healthy. And for a few crazy people that would, nobody would approve the procedure. When we have methods of doing something useful with less invasion and more reliability, depending on what these methods are, different things could be achieved. When we have these, then we can make good predictions.

Another part of it is that right now, whatever we can reasonably come up with, you can achieve by simply wearing a gadget. Would you rather undergo a risky brain surgery or simply wear goggles?

Actually we do have the technology to do it noninvasively. The problem is that the researched has not finished completion and is still in the labs. We also do have the technology to give someone an advantage that wearable tech wont have. I think when nanowires complete the research stages we will have that ability, and it can be done through blood vessels rather that through opening the skull. Also carbon nanotubes have the ability to speed up connections in the brain faster than a normal human(wired reflexes).

Once the technology becomes more refined and researched we will see it step out of the labs and into human trials. I dont think anyone is crazy enough to want to implant their brain with current-gen technology as even I'm not crazy enough to want that :p.

Out of curiosity, would you consider women with stem cell breast implants to be transhuman? After all.. it does provide an advantage:naughty::p

Ghostface
12th Apr 2009, 21:01
Stem cell breakthrough could help infertile women

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5144823/Stem-cell-breakthrough-could-help-infertile-women.html

It's great to see stem cell breakthroughs that will help make our lives better, longer and more enjoyable. With anti-aging technologies we will be able to live youthful lives until we die. We will be able to chose when we want to have children and we wont have to worry about our age or biological clocks(males have it too). We will be able to heal broken bones and repair damaged nerves. With this technology and also bionics, it will be fascinating to see what the future has in store for us.

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 03:29
and yet there is a negative outcome of all of this "advancement", namely, say for example that we enable an otherwise infertile individual to spread his progeny throughout the land through in vitro fertilization. If the basis for his infertility is genetic, there are now more infertile males in the population (at least, the chances of having more in the population are higher). Now, more individuals rely on this technique to continue to reproduce and have young. Take it to the nth power and we've got a largely infertile population which can no longer survive without the aid of this technology. Good or bad? You can replace my example of infertility with anything else genetic and you get the same idea.

There are many good things about letting certain members of the population die off. Otherwise, how do we adapt to continue to survive? Answer: we don't.

Please don't cite me and say that I'm talking about eugenics. I'm only pointing out the theoretical ramifications of enabling certain members of the species, i.e. those with undesirable but correctable "traits," to live and reproduce over a very long period of time.

In the end, do we get a species of well adapted, powerful individuals, or sickly, technology dependent invalids? This is all rather hypothetical but it poses an interesting dilemma (at least to me).

SkillOverKill
14th Apr 2009, 11:42
I'd just like to say in response to the initial post, I've been a member of Humanity+ (formerly the WTA) for a number of years now. Deus Ex 1 is IMO the best game ever (and gaming is my life and work). I agree with many of the official policies of H+ obviously, but I don't believe it's necessary to agree with the entire outlined metaphysic to become an activist for transhumanism. There will be serious concerns we face - a present economic disparity becoming a posthuman disparity in ability, resulting in an increased economic disparity - but the turbulence of rapid social reform is nothing new.

The question you ask shouldn't be whether this activism will cause social reform, economic disparity or even the separation of humanity into two (or more) species. The important factor in deciding whether or not you support the movement you need to ask yourself is, when all is said and done - do you believe that humanity will be better or worse off if we encourage a posthuman social upheaval, or should we deny it as long as possible to preserve a superior status quo?

If you believe that posthumanity, despite all the negative impacts it may have as we convert to it, will better humanity in the long run - then you should join us and advocate our cause (transhumanism.org), if you believe that we are better off as is - then join the bioconservative cause and advocate your opinion.

I would be happy to see more bioconservative activists in the world (happier still for more transhumanists of course!), an increase in controversy and discussion - even if it opposes my views - is more likely to grab the public attention and get this debate out of the universities and labratories and into the households (where it will eventually be settled).

I eagerly anticipate the release of Deus Ex 3, as a gamer and a transhumanist! Go Go Team Montreal!

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 12:52
I've read some of the statements of Transhumanism provided by the link in the first post of this forum. Seems to me the whole organization is another cult "with the answer" as if humanity needs one. Seems to me best possible future for humanity is to stay human. And, so far, that's what its done throughout the greatest of technological innovation in our history. Why should things be different now that we can text and check our email on our phones?

Ilves
14th Apr 2009, 13:23
The concentration of H+ minded (at least -savvy) people is bound to be higher here than among the people I usually hang out with, so maybe you guys could shine some light on the following, bear with me: :)

The self sentient AI. It seems the Transhumanist/furturist movement have accepted this as a possible (long term) development. The notion of having meaningful interactions, even, god forbid, ;p relationships with AI’s and granting them ’rights’ is something I‘ve heard coming out of educated, intelligent individuals too often to be dismissed as merely wishful thinking or science fiction.

Here’s what I don’t get. Even in the most complex, intricate form, an AI would still be a piece of programming. It’s responses would be programmed to simulate sentience. No matter how advanced, self extending and adaptable, it would still be just a sim. Even if it was to resemble a human being in all its attributes, there would be no moral objections to shoot it in the face on the spot. And yet, mainstream H+ thinkers like Kurzweil and Bohstrom would seriously consider having interactions on the basis of equality*, possibly even intellectual inferiority with artificial intelligence.

Somehow this supsension of disbelief that these proponents seem to be willing to lower themselves to is at odds with their self declared rationalism.

I’m just throwing out some ponderings here, I’m curious to hear what you guys think about it :)

I’d like to add in the interest of an honest exchange of ideas that I generally regard Transhumanism and particularly its driving psychology very negatively, if that wasn‘t clear already.

@ TrickyVein: It's particularly the religious, cult like overtones that I find unsettling...

*) Huge caveat there, but that’s another story. :whistle:

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 13:32
Here’s what I don’t get. Even in the most complex, intricate form, an AI would still be a piece of programming. It’s responses would be programmed to simulate sentience. No matter how advanced, self extending and adaptable, it would still be just a sim. Even if it was to resemble a human being in all its attributes, there would be no moral objections to shoot it in the face on the spot.

This is generally referred to as "retiring."

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 13:37
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/18/blade_runner.jpg

Ilves
14th Apr 2009, 16:33
^ Heh. You know that whole problem I outlined earlier is exactly why I couldn't fully get into that film.

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 17:59
What is a human being if not a highly complex and evolved piece of programming?

Genes dictate how we will look, what we will do, how well we will do it, and how we will learn and adapt to our environment. All of the machinery that we have is "pre-programmed." There is no ethereal human soul which only our species is privy to and which makes us unique. The way I see it, there really isn't much difference between highly complex humans and highly complex AI's EXCEPT, except that one is the product of billions of years of evolution, the other created by man. That is the only real difference I see. And, if Man can create without qualms, he can destroy without qualms. So in this I generally agree that we have no obligation or responsibility to treat AI's as equals.

Mindmute
14th Apr 2009, 18:24
Genes dictate how we will look, what we will do, how well we will do it, and how we will learn and adapt to our environment. All of the machinery that we have is "pre-programmed."
I agree to an extent, but I also believe there are flaws in this reasoning.
I can't see creativity as pre-programmed by genetics or society, considering the best pieces of art are often decades ahead of what the community-mind believes art to be.



There is no ethereal human soul which only our species is privy to and which makes us unique.

I won't comment on this, before this is turned into a "spirituality vs machine" type of thread, but let's just say I disagree (and before someone asks, I'm agnostic).



And, if Man can create without qualms, he can destroy without qualms. So in this I generally agree that we have no obligation or responsibility to treat AI's as equals.
If we consider AI's to be both alive and sentient it's no longer moral to just destroy them without qualms. Or would you destroy a living being capable of the same emotions and reasoning as you, just because you were allowed to?

Irate_Iguana
14th Apr 2009, 21:10
I can't see creativity as pre-programmed by genetics or society, considering the best pieces of art are often decades ahead of what the community-mind believes art to be.

So? Madness is another term for this. The difference being that one gets accepted in the end and the other not. Of course a true AI could be programmed to be creative. It is not some ethereal quality.

GmanPro
14th Apr 2009, 21:16
So? Madness is another term for this. The difference being that one gets accepted in the end and the other not. Of course a true AI could be programmed to be creative. It is not some ethereal quality.

Exactly.

"I've been from one end of the galaxy to the other, I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's some all powerful force controlling ... everything."

Sorry, I couldn't resist :p

Ilves
14th Apr 2009, 21:19
Of course a true AI could be programmed to be creative.

Would the rational mind then then marvel at the AI's creativity? Or the programmer's?

Irate_Iguana
14th Apr 2009, 21:21
Would you then marvel at the AI's creativity? Or the programmer's?

Depends on how much of the work to become creative is done by the AI's adapting routines and how much of it is pure programming by the creators.

Ilves
14th Apr 2009, 21:23
^ But even the AI's 'learning' would be a faculty of its programming, right?

Edit: But the above is about output. What fascinates me is the concept of the AI being self aware, and notably how I think this would be just an illusion by definition.

GmanPro
14th Apr 2009, 21:26
In theory you could just design a robot based off of the human body. Then it would receive input from the outside world via the 5 senses the same way we do, and then calculate an appropriate response. So long as it passes the Turing test, as far as I'm concerned, we've got AI.

We'd probably need nano tech first as there are over a billion nerves in the human body etc etc

Irate_Iguana
14th Apr 2009, 21:41
^ But even the AI's 'learning' would be a faculty of it's programming, right?

Up to a point. Somewhere the AI is responsible for its own programming and experiences.




But the above is about output. What fascinates me is the concept of the AI being self aware, and notably how I think this would be just an illusion by definition.

Always a tricky one. How do you know you are self aware?

Ilves
14th Apr 2009, 22:04
Somewhere the AI is responsible for its own programming and experiences.

Really? Like, really?


Always a tricky one. How do you know you are self aware?

I don't think this question really applies to the problem I posed earlier, in which we know for a we're dealing with an AI.

It is programmed to exhibit self awareness. The idea that we can script consciousness into existence is a fallacy. At the end it would just be an intricate, hugely complicated mimickry of life. The perception of the thing being 'alive' would be entirerly in the eyes of the beholder.

The problem I posed earlier focused on the human interacting with the 'self aware' AI, knowing he's dealing with an AI. How is he then different from a parrakeet staring in the mirror?

TrickyVein
14th Apr 2009, 23:28
I've always thought the easiest way to make AI is to have children.

*POP* Look, it's what we'd call "self aware" and it's been pre-programmed by the various combinings of our genetic code!

(I kid...sort of)

The goal of AI is to become as good as/indistinguishable from true intelligence. Once it has done that, once could say there is no longer any justification for the "artificial" part of "AI."

There is one thing AI will never escape though, and that is its programmed existence. Something which does, in my mind, justify our treating it as exactly that. "Artificial."

Mindmute
14th Apr 2009, 23:42
So? Madness is another term for this. The difference being that one gets accepted in the end and the other not. Of course a true AI could be programmed to be creative. It is not some ethereal quality.

Can anyone even you define creativity in objective terms?
It's quite hard to program something that you can't define, and most of the theoretical issues we have with computational creavity is that it's too nuanced to define accurately.


This is quite an old discussion, about as old as the idea of AI itself and there still is no clear answer for it, so I wouldn't be so sure that you can "program creativity", at least not in the true meaning of the word.

TrickyVein
15th Apr 2009, 00:34
Creativity does not need to be defined objectively. It is the end result of a highly complex system, a byproduct or ramification of that system. It's just a matter of programming that system, and voila, you have creativity. You are forgetting different approaches to AI which have been proposed in recent years, namely, build from the bottom up, not top down. Allow the AI to evolve as much as actual life does and see just how much we get right along the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehno85yI-sA

Keep in mind not all people are creative. Some individuals may be very lacking in something like creativity and yet we wouldn't call those people unintelligent life forms. Perhaps "creatively retarted."

Irate_Iguana
15th Apr 2009, 06:26
Really? Like, really?

A proper AI would be in the same way that a human would be.



It is programmed to exhibit self awareness. The idea that we can script consciousness into existence is a fallacy. At the end it would just be an intricate, hugely complicated mimickry of life. The perception of the thing being 'alive' would be entirerly in the eyes of the beholder.

It is programmed that way in the same way that we are mere programs that exhibit life. It sounds like you are giving life and self awareness some form ethereal property. I think that a proper AI would be able to exhibit self awareness and adaptability to such a degree that it would be impossible for us to make any distinction between its self awareness and our own.



Can anyone even you define creativity in objective terms?

The dictionary definition seems like a good place to start. Programming the AI to adapt and learn should allow it to combine existing experiences into new solutions to unique problems.

Mindmute
15th Apr 2009, 11:57
The dictionary definition seems like a good place to start. Programming the AI to adapt and learn should allow it to combine existing experiences into new solutions to unique problems.


I've lived my life around musicians since I was 12 and most of them can't accept that the definition of creativity and inspiration is simply the search for a novel approach to a situation or text. Ask a few friends of yours who make a living out of art and you're bound to get the same response from most.

Creativity varies from person to person: it can be a state of mind, a learned ability, an innate skill or anything else the person percieves it to be. Creativity is the most subjective experience there is and unless some major breakthrough is done in fuzzy logic, you can't hardwire a subjective experience into something that requires objective parameters.


It's one monster to teach a program to learn from experience, it's another completely different thing to try to teach it something like this.

Irate_Iguana
15th Apr 2009, 12:05
Creativity varies from person to person

Indeed it does. You seem fixed on the idea of artistic creativity. I'd rather see them attempt scientific creativity first.

Ilves
15th Apr 2009, 12:42
There is one thing AI will never escape though, and that is its programmed existence. Something which does, in my mind, justify our treating it as exactly that. "Artificial."

Exactly. So hearing intelligent, well educated men like Kurzweil and Bohstrom discuss in all earnest the blessings of having emotionally and god forbid physically meaningful relationships with such 'intelligence', makes me seriously doubt their mental health. Based on your rationale above. http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/1372/30gu2.gif


A proper AI would be in the same way that a human would be.

Only if you're willing to fall for the illusion.


It sounds like you are giving life and self awareness some form ethereal property.

Hecks yes. :D And equating humans with AI's is flawed on the basis that we know AI's are created by man. Untill our programmers step forward and admit yeah, you're just automatons we created on our lunchbreak, I see no reason to equate man with a pile of code.


...most of them [musicians] can't accept that the definition of creativity and inspiration is simply the search for a novel approach to a situation or text.

Absolutely. And only the creatively bankrupt would think of the arts as something that can be deconstructed into mathematical formulas, or something you can master exclusively through learning.
The denial of (or inability to perceive, don't know) the 'ethereal' aspect of life is the transhumanist movement's achillesheel.

TrickyVein
15th Apr 2009, 13:16
The denial of (or inability to perceive, don't know) the 'ethereal' aspect of life is the transhumanist movement's achillesheel.

Where does Transhumanism fail: by denying the existence of ether (human soul, la la la magical self awareness), as you say above, or imbuing non-sentient AI's with it as well as humans? I think their downfall is the latter case.

Ilves
15th Apr 2009, 13:27
^ I'd say the latter is a logical consequence of the former. :)

GmanPro
15th Apr 2009, 14:32
There IS no ethereal spiritual mystic force people. Everything is physical.

The idea behind the perfect AI is you make it exactly like a human. Just make each piece out of metal instead of flesh. Then it would learn over years and years the same way a person does. Then, based off of it's experiences, it may become creative and make some masterpiece of art, or it may not.

Ilves
15th Apr 2009, 15:13
Everything is physical.

Not even the transhumanist community seems united in that. Bohstrom considers this physical world to be an illusion, a sophisticated VR construct. Even in his crazy view ‘consciousness’ is only facilitated by the physical body, and can exist outside of it.

To that extent I can agree with him, but I cannot understand how he could possibly believe that this consciousness could be artificially created and be considered more than a fancy interactive sim.


The idea behind the perfect AI is you make it exactly like a human. Just make each piece out of metal instead of flesh. Then it would learn over years and years the same way a person does. Then, based off of it's experiences, it may become creative and make some masterpiece of art, or it may not.

Ah, but would you marry it? http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/20.gif

GmanPro
15th Apr 2009, 17:02
Ah, but would you marry it? http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/20.gif

Maybe. Lawl, probably not. It depends on what said android is like obviously.


Not even the transhumanist community seems united in that. Bohstrom considers this physical world to be an illusion, a sophisticated VR construct. Even in his crazy view ‘consciousness’ is only facilitated by the physical body, and can exist outside of it.

To that extent I can agree with him, but I cannot understand how he could possibly believe that this consciousness could be artificially created and be considered more than a fancy interactive sim.

Pffff. This notion of spirituality is just a convenient way of 'explaining' existence without really explaining anything. When people cannot grasp a concept or produce any concrete scientific reasoning to explain something, they turn to mysticism. Its the kind of thing that cannot be proved or disproved, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

Jerion
15th Apr 2009, 17:04
Maybe. Lawl, probably not. It depends on what said android is like obviously.



Pffff. This notion of spirituality is just a convenient way of 'explaining' existence without really explaining anything. When people cannot grasp a concept or produce any concrete scientific reasoning to explain something, they turn to mysticism. Its the kind of thing that cannot be proved or disproved, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

I'm guessing you saw Religulous.

GmanPro
15th Apr 2009, 17:08
Nope :p And I don't plan on watching it either

Mindmute
15th Apr 2009, 17:17
Pffff. This notion of spirituality is just a convenient way of 'explaining' existence without really explaining anything. When people cannot grasp a concept or produce any concrete scientific reasoning to explain something, they turn to mysticism. Its the kind of thing that cannot be proved or disproved, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

That's a very narrow way to look at it Gman.
I don't believe in any type or form of God-figure, nor do I cling to things such as that when I don't grasp the scientific reasoning behind something. There are other ways and other reasons (often personal ones) to have a strong sense of spirituality other than just ignorance.

But please, let's not turn this thread into a spiritual vs machine thing, just like I was predicting it might end up being, a few posts ago.

GmanPro
15th Apr 2009, 17:22
I'm not talking about religion. Try explaining radio waves to someone from medieval europe and they'll think your talking about magic.

Mindmute
15th Apr 2009, 17:26
I'm not talking about religion. Try explaining radio waves to someone from medieval europe and they'll think your talking about magic.

Sigh... I'm not argueing that. If you re-read my post, I'm just saying ignorance isn't the only reason to turn to spirituality.
Simply because some use it as an explanation for something they don't understand, it doesn't mean you can throw away every other reasonable person who turns to it for other reasons or purposes.

And the reason why I mentioned religion is because, to me, it's just another form of spirituality.



Can we take this to PM's if you really want to discuss this rather than clutter the thread?

GmanPro
15th Apr 2009, 17:29
I've lived my life around musicians since I was 12 and most of them can't accept that the definition of creativity and inspiration is simply the search for a novel approach to a situation or text. Ask a few friends of yours who make a living out of art and you're bound to get the same response from most.

Creativity varies from person to person: it can be a state of mind, a learned ability, an innate skill or anything else the person percieves it to be. Creativity is the most subjective experience there is and unless some major breakthrough is done in fuzzy logic, you can't hardwire a subjective experience into something that requires objective parameters.


It's one monster to teach a program to learn from experience, it's another completely different thing to try to teach it something like this.

Subjectivity is a function of objectivity. I believe that an artificial intelligence could be made to emulate human behavior 1 to 1. At that point, does it really matter that its not human? I mean ... really?

Mindmute
15th Apr 2009, 17:36
Subjectivity is a function of objectivity. I believe that an artificial intelligence could be made to emulate human behavior 1 to 1. At that point, does it really matter that its not human? I mean ... really?

I'm not sure if it's a function of it as much as it the complete lack of.
My only problem is that I can't begin to fathom how you program something so subjective with objective guidelines.
The best we can do with programming, as far as I'm aware, is to create context-based objectiveness, but that's still far from the goal in regards to something like creativity.

That could be just down to stubbornness or personal experiences regarding creativity though. I'll be the first to admit, I'm very far from unbiased in this issue.