ForumsWEPRWe are all cyborgs now

15 6193
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

Are you a transhumanist or are you wary of enhancing technologies?

After reading an article on the dark side of wearable fitness trackers (out of which I took the thread title), I got curious about who is in support of enhancing technologies like those fitness trackers or other gadgets. Obviously, pacemakers and prostheses are really useful, but they are primarily a replacement for a dysfunctional or missing organ or body part. Making the user of such technology a cyborg is just a neat side effect Fitness trackers, 'smart' clothing and implants are different in that their use is not strictly medical and can be used by anyone. But are they really as benign as it sounds? I'm interested not just in the short-term benefits, but also and especially in the long-term implications for the individual and humanity. Is the development of a 'posthumanity' likely? Is it a good thing?

  • 15 Replies
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

There's a related worry in philosophy in the field of extended cognition. The basic thought here is that there's an intuition that cognition takes place within the skull. So all of your cognitive processes, achievements, and states can be found in your head.

But there are some obvious counterexamples to this. Suppose a mathematician uses a chalk board or notepad to help work out complex equations. Now there is a very real sense in which her cognitive processes are taking place outside of her head.

Enter in technology - especially the smart phone. Anything that you don't know, you can just look up in a mater of seconds. This creates a worry for how we view the value of knowledge, reliable informants, and understanding.

So it used to be that reliable informants were ones who had knowledge of a particular field - or, at least, of a fact. But now anyone with a smart phone can become a reliable informant about lots of things. And since they have fairly immediate access to that information, we might be able to run an argument that they know this information.

But this raises a larger point. Why study or work understand anything at all when a wealth of information is literally in your pocket (or in your hand taking a picture the wrong way**). So, as epistemic agents, maybe our time would be better spent getting better at Googling things rather than learning new things about the world around us.

** As a side note, please, for the love of God, turn your phone like a camera when you take photos or video. Unless you're taking a picture of something really tall, there's no need for that nonsense.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

But this raises a larger point. Why study or work understand anything at all when a wealth of information is literally in your pocket [...]
Because the skill and intellect required to write or upload something to a website is substantially less than that required to do proper research or perform any kind of fact-checking, as countless con-artists, conspiracists, creationists, lobbyists, pseudoscientists, and spiritualists have demonstrated.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

But there are some obvious counterexamples to this. Suppose a mathematician uses a chalk board or notepad to help work out complex equations. Now there is a very real sense in which her cognitive processes are taking place outside of her head.

I wouldn't exactly say the cognitive processes took place outside the head, just that tools were used to help. You could almost call it a memory and visual enhancer, if it wasn't unconnected to the body.

But this raises a larger point. Why study or work understand anything at all when a wealth of information is literally in your pocket (or in your hand taking a picture the wrong way**). So, as epistemic agents, maybe our time would be better spent getting better at Googling things rather than learning new things about the world around us.

Why do any kind of thinking if you can just let your phone or watch do it? I worry that due to 'smart' technology people will become dependent, will stop thinking about trivial things and have underdeveloped memory and possibly intellect. I do see reasonable applications of smart technologies, e.g. for handling an automated inner city traffic or distributing electricity efficiently across the grid. But this Internet of Things, this plethora of smart everyday gadgets? I'm really skeptical, pessimistic about that.

And I'm not even talking about the obvious security and privacy issues.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,133 posts
Jester

i find this a interesting topic. but i'm not entirely sure what the question is.

is it a question if it will happen? if it already happens? till what extent it does or can happen? if it will be available for the common man at some point or now? if we need to stop it from happening? and beside that do i not know what "it" stands for in these questions... does "it" refer to existing technology, possible theoretic technology, or fiction technology. and if someone could give a clear example of such technology, then that would be very appreciated. =)

GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

But this raises a larger point. Why study or work understand anything at all when a wealth of information is literally in your pocket (or in your hand taking a picture the wrong way**). So, as epistemic agents, maybe our time would be better spent getting better at Googling things rather than learning new things about the world around us.

Well, it's not like we fully understand everything there is in the universe. We study and learn and think in order to answer the unanswered, which we wouldn't be able to find on Google.

As a side note, please, for the love of God, turn your phone like a camera when you take photos or video. Unless you're taking a picture of something really tall, there's no need for that nonsense.

But why do that unless you're taking a picture of something really wide?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

@partydevil There is a clear question at the very beginning: Are you a transhumanist? Link to wiki article on transhumanism included so you can get an idea of what this is about. I especially want to discuss all around enhancing technologies, their benefits and detriments; everything you noted in your post seems interesting to discuss. Enhancing technologies can be present or future; present (more or less) would be things like fitness/health trackers, smart watches/clothes that track your pulse, temperature, sugar level, etc., data which are sent to your phone for analysis to tell you how you are doing. You can see an example of benefits and detriments in the second link of the OP. Future can be anything within the realm of the possible, like lenses for increased vision, implanted microchip that measures all that can be measured in your body, implanted hormone-'dispenser', stuff like that. That is why I mentioned cyborgs; according to wikipedia a cyborg is part organic and part biomechatronic. Like someone with a pacemaker, for instance.
.
An interesting question I see with transhumanism which you could try to answer is, do you think a human v2.0 is something we should strive for, or do you think we should try to stay as organic as we can unless for medical purposes where it can save life (or maybe not even then)?

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,133 posts
Jester

oke, tbh that wiki article is written in a pretty boring way. i cant really keep up (or should i say "down") with it. so, just to be clear. if i wear this Athos fitness suite with all it's measurements of my body etc. does that make me transhuman? i mean having a pacemaker sure is cyborgy. it keeps your body running. (playing god, a religious person might say.) it does in some way improve your body abilities. so calling that transhuman is oke i guess (beside the obvious discrimination this word can be used for in a later state of course.) but a suite like that from Athos, or a cellphone or whatever other device, merely gives you loads of information. but it doesn't improve you, you have to do the improving yourself. so i see those things as waste information. with or without the device the result is the same. in this case i wouldn't say it's "cyborg" the technology doesn't make you better like a pacemaker does.

i certainly believe tho that we will be able to give people new bodies at some point in the future (at least for some rich dudes). that when you are born some dna is taken and from that they build you a new body. and when you get old and your 1st body starts to become a problem. then they can fix stuff using the 2nd body. i dunno if a brain-transplantation would ever be possible, but why not aim for that! =P

as for a terminator like cyborg... if they can do a brain-transplantation... why not attach machinery while your at it..? xD

implanted hormone-'dispenser'

that would be something in line with a pacemaker. I'd call that cyborgy.

do you think a human v2.0 is something we should strive for

now see, what is a human v2.0? or, when?
without a pacemaker the human would be dead. so basically that guy is v2.0. or is he v1.1? or maybe even v0.9. =o (it's how you look at it.)
i would like to know what a human v2.0. must be able of doing. it shouldn't be just something that keeps you from being dead. it has to be technology that improves your body abilities. steroids improves your body abilities... but i wouldn't call it technology so much. more a drug. and we really shouldn't see these puffy dudes as a humanv2.0. but what do we need to become v2.0?

as for the part, if we need to strive for it... i don't think we should. but don't ban it either. let people free in going for it or not. look at it like when scientists use themselves as test subject when they cant find volunteers.

for medical purposes where it can save life (or maybe not even then)?

i am really on 2 sides of this one...
if something happened to me or somebody i know. i really appreciate that these things are here for us today. so we can keep going a while longer.
but on the other side, we do have to much people walking this earth. there is enough food for 5 billion people. but we are with 7 billion. and i don't see 2 billion people volunteering. and the main reason for this state is in my eye's the great improvement in medical research and technology we have done the last 200/250 years. people that would have died 200 year ago, now happily live for 20/30 more years.. but sure it isn't only the medical research fault. people who die because it is a cold winter... it barely happens in 1st world countries these days, due to a great number of reasons.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

now see, what is a human v2.0? or, when?

Let's clear up some terminology. First, a transhumanist is a person who think that we should strive to use technological advances to improve our capacities and abilities. Someone who reaches this state isn't a transhuman - they are want's called a posthuman. This is an individual who has overcome what the transhumanists identify as the human condition. According to the wiki article, this obtains when an individual reaches a point at which their "basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards."

I think this definition is where things get interesting - both from an analytic point of view and an ethical one. So the thought is that the individual is, in an obvious way, no longer human. I don't particularly care for this definition, because it carries some biological tones with it. To me, this implies that the individual is either a different species or lacks some sort of biological definition of 'human', such as DNA.

Instead, I think we should the posthuman as one who cannot be classified as living under the constraints of the human condition. The difficulty here is that there a number of features that make us uniquely human. Mortality seems an obvious candidate (though almost all organisms are mortal in the relevant sense). So other things might include rationality, consciousness, moral agency, or even final value qua human.

This is where the ethics of transhumanism comes in. Should we really be striving to augment ourselves in such a way that we lose these uniquely human qualities? I would suggests that this is pretty obviously a terrible idea.

But that brings us back to your original question - what on Earth is a posthuman and what exactly is the goal of transhumanism? Put in terms that we've just seen, transhumanism seems like an awful idea. And this brings up a problem I have with the entire transhumanist approach. There isn't a clear offering of any necessary or sufficient conditions for when an entity is to be considered a posthuman. The claim we have before us is that it's obvious. Okay, fair enough, but this doesn't tell us what qualities that thing will have. An ant is obviously not human, but I wouldn't want to augment myself in such a way that I wind up becoming an ant.

In short, transhumanism just isn't clear enough to be a compelling approach to anything. At best, it's completely opaque and unmotivated. At worst, it's just a terrible idea.

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
340 posts
Nomad

Cyborgs, yes. Transhumans, never!

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

@Moegreche

This is an individual who has overcome what the transhumanists identify as the human condition. According to the wiki article, this obtains when an individual reaches a point at which their "basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards."

It is true that the concept of a 'posthuman' is kept very vague, probably out of necessity: the more concise you formulate it, the more probable it is that it won't happen. It also appears to be an umbrella term that covers many different currents and ideologies.
.
I agree that the definition given is problematic, as you cannot expect to become 'not human' simply by improving basic human capabilities. Yet I find your comment about not wanting to wind up as an ant silly. An ant clearly lacks most human capabilities, so that would equal to a decrease and not an increase in capabilities (not addressing those areas where ants are actually superior; those could theoretically be added to ours).
.
I admit the transhumanist goal to overcome biological limitations and boost our evolution with the aid of science and technology is rather foggy, because it is so extremely large an area. To a certain point human civilisations have always used their knowledge to fight age and diseases; our modern society goes further than any before with the aid of technology, so we might be considered at the beginning of transhumanity. Transhumanists certainly plan on going a lot further, but in which direction apparently strongly varies depending on what current they adhere to.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Yet I find your comment about not wanting to wind up as an ant silly.

Yeah, you're right. That was me being, well, silly. I was reading this state of being 'no longer unambiguously human' as a sufficient condition for being a posthuman. But it's obviously just a necessary condition, so my ant comment was completely uncharitable.

While I do think that the transhumanist platform is more or less void of content, let's put those worries aside. The real question that I'm fascinated by is whether a posthuman would be, by our lights, a moral agent.

So here's the thought. If a posthuman is unambiguously non-human, is that individual a moral agent? In losing the status of human, do they also lose the status of personhood? In other words, what do owe (in an ethical sense) a transhuman? And can they be help morally blameworthy for their actions?

My intuition here is that they can (and should) be held morally blameworthy for their actions. But I'm not sure about what (if anything) we would owe a transhuman. So if I see a child transhuman drowning in a shallow pond, and I can - at no risk to myself - save that child, should I wade in and save it? Thinking about this question with a person - a human child - the answer is an obvious 'yes'. I might even make the claim that I am obliged to save the child. But the answer seems less clear if it's a transhuman child. Or is that just me?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

So here's the thought. If a posthuman is unambiguously non-human, is that individual a moral agent? In losing the status of human, do they also lose the status of personhood? In other words, what do owe (in an ethical sense) a transhuman? And can they be help morally blameworthy for their actions?

I agree with you that they can and should be held morally accountable. According to the World Transhumanist Association (according to wiki) posthumans are not only physically, but intellectually and psychologically enhanced. The way I understand it, they lose their status of 'human' not because they lose the cognitive properties that make humans moral agents, but because they are biomechatronically evolved compared to humans.

However I sensed while writing that there may be several areas of uncertainty. I can imagine that a posthuman might be emotionally altered, which might have severe consequences on its behaviour. I felt there was more, but I forgot Either way I suppose it again depends on the technical details of the posthuman...

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

I just realised we do have a precise example of a posthuman. While they only represent one among many possible posthuman developments, the Borg from Star Trek definitely fit the necessary requirements. As you can see right at the beginning of the article, it says the Borg are 'cybernetic organisms' whose ultimate goal is 'achieving perfection'. This is exactly what transhumanism is about, right?
.
The interesting question is now: are the Borg moral agents? In the series they have the role of recurrent antagonists, so intuitively one would say No. The question is further complicated by the fact that the Borg are a collective consciousness unlike us. Yet I am not sure that this is enough to exclude moral responsibility.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,133 posts
Jester

is this technology that makes one cyborg or transhuman or human 2.0?

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/cancer-patient-receives-3d-printed-titanium-ribcage

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

is this technology that makes one cyborg or transhuman or human 2.0?

Human 2.0, or posthuman, is as far as I understood the projected end-result of transhumanism, so we can exclude that one for now.

I also think it does not make the patient a cyborg, as while technology was needed to produce the prosthesis, it does not contain any technology itself; it is 'simply' a piece of titanium. It is closer to a wooden leg in principle than to a biomechatronic part like a fully functional hand prosthesis, or a working pacemaker.

However, 3D-printing replacement body parts for medical use certainly has its place in the transhumanist progress 'scheme', if there is one. It is maybe not transhumanist per se as its primary objective is medical; but I guess you could say it makes the patient a very early kind of transhuman.

As a sidenote, I find that case a fascinating example of how you can put 3D printing to great use. There are other aspects of that technology that I am not so fond of, but as with every technology it has its positive and negative sides. The way it has been used to print, for example, skull caps or in that case parts of a ribcage are definitely one of the positive aspects; and 3D-printing soft tissues is also underway. I'm sure transhumanists see a lot of potential in that technology for their ideologies, too.

Showing 1-15 of 15