| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
SteveG 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
 Posted: October 17 2014 at 08:56 |
 Atavachron wrote:
^ Right, and the definition seems relative; who is the alpha male?; the smart one, the aggressive one, the athletic one, the successful one, the handsome one ..?
|
Alpha male: Generally, the unthinking one. I don't believe that refers to anyone in this thead.
Edited by SteveG - October 17 2014 at 09:01
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
 |
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20622
|
Posted: October 17 2014 at 09:00 |
SteveG wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ Right, and the definition seems relative; who is the alpha male?; the smart one, the aggressive one, the athletic one, the successful one, the handsome one ..?
|
Alpha male: Generally, the unthinking one.
I don't belive that refers to anyone in this thead.
|
Somehow I had a feeling you would say that.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: October 17 2014 at 09:10 |
|
Pretty sure they're busy posting on bodybuilding forums.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
Posted: October 17 2014 at 15:41 |
|
Just to kick off transhumanism, does anyone have any examples where PC's have helped them or others to become humanists? I think that was Toaster's question.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 04:47 |
The question is not about PCs but of technology in general, and that applies to chemical technology as well as mechanical and electro-mechanical technology.
At present few people have a moral or ethical issue with technology being used to augment, enhance or sustain the lives of an unhealthy body. For example: The implanting of stents, artificial valves, balloon catheters (angioplasty) and artificial metal joints are common surgical procedures and using dialysis machines as an artificial replacement for damaged kidney function has been around since the 1940s. Pacemakers have been in common use since the late 1950s, initially as the artificial cardiac pacemaker to help regulate heart function; then more recently in the form of diaphragmatic pacemaker to help people with spinal cord injuries to breath normally; and the brain pacemaker to help reduce the symptoms of Parkinson's and to reduce clinical depression. Current research at University of Louisville on epidural implants in people with severe spinal damage to stimulate both motor function and feeling is producing some remarkable (and unexpected) results such as the voluntary movement of limbs and bladder control even though these implants do not physically reconnect the broken section of the spinal column.
Many people wear eyeglasses to correct vision deficiencies and some have the defective part of their eye corrected with laser surgery. Technology is also used to correct damage to hearing, in teeth repair/replacement and in the creation and use of artificial limbs.
Similarly we do not question the continuous use of chemical compounds such as steroids when they are used in the treatment of asthma or to regulate high cholesterol; or the prescription of insulin injections for those suffering from diabetes.
So clearly there are moral and ethical lines being drawn between using technology to maintain or restore and using it to augment or improve normal bodily function. As with all such lines, the boundaries are blurred and ill-defined.
Healthy people regularly and voluntarily take unprescribed chemical compounds to augment natural body chemistry and no one would question the morals and ethics of the practice of ingesting pro-biotic yoghurt (to 'aid' digestion), echinacea tablets (to 'boost' their immune system), cod-liver oil (to 'improve' cognitive function), or whey protein (to 'reduce' the risk of heart disease and cancer); or popping a few multivitamin pills even though there is no medical benefit in taking them when their bodies are functioning normally and healthily, (and they could even have adverse affects if misused). No one, it seems, objects when these supplements are called "natural" and sold in supermarkets and health-food shops alike when there is very little about them or their use that can be called 'natural'.
We do not object to the "chipping" of pets with a radio transponder (RFID) and will happily carry such devices in our wallets (I currently carry three different contactless cards in my wallet ~ it is impossible to travel on a London bus without one). Most countries have biometric RFID e-passports though these are not mandatory (yet); even though there are concerns over the kind of personal information that these can hold and there are doubts over the security and use of this data, these concerns have not halted their implementation and adoption. There are considerably more applications such an RFID device could do beyond paying for goods and services, unlocking doors and permitting entry into a country so it is fast becoming a question of when rather than if implanting an RFID in a person is more convenient and acceptable than carrying one (or more) on your person. The technology to do this is no longer a subject of science-fiction (ā la Logan's Run) but of reality - since kitty can unlock a catflap door using its RFID chip the same technology can unlock the doors in our homes or switch on the lights when we enter a room, it is just a question of where this chip is carried.
We could make the same observations and predictions for wearable technology (this is not new to us, we have had wearable technology for 120 years and there are few who do not own a wristwatch - I own several but seldom wear one now). Most of us carry around a lot of technology in our everyday lives and this has become so integrated into our daily routines we oft wonder how we managed to survive without it. The conversion of this 'indispensable' technology to wearable tech is fast becoming a reality and is progressing beyond being a mere gimmick or expensive plaything. Of course this wearable tech is active technology and is considerably more complex than a passive RFID chip. As we are all too well aware, complex technology is prone to failure and obsolescence so its transition into implanted technology is less certain, but not impossible or unlikely.
All this may seem a far cry from the kind of technological enhancements of transhumanism but is it?
Edited by Dean - October 18 2014 at 05:04
|
|
What?
|
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 06:04 |
Wow all your hypothesis might be good however who will read all that? 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 06:12 |
Sign of the times I fear, perhaps if it were a 60 minute progressive rock concept album... but I suspect a few people would still post TL;DH 
|
|
What?
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 07:58 |
Kati wrote:
Wow all your hypothesis might be good however who will read all that? |
I read it. A good post. But implantable RFID chips for people are already in use. There was a CNN news report in the year following 9/11, featuring a Florida family who had had RFID chips implanted in their children to track there wherabouts. Needless to say conspiracy theorists were reaching for their foil hats in horror.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 09:24 |
SteveG wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ Right, and the definition seems relative; who is the alpha male?; the smart one, the aggressive one, the athletic one, the successful one, the handsome one ..?
|
Alpha male: Generally, the unthinking one.
I don't believe that refers to anyone in this thead.
|
Actually, the alpha male- or female identifier only describes the individual's role and status in their group. Alpha males- and females are those who are capable of, and willing to assert and maintain their leadership, whereas the group's population in general is willing to recognize and accept that.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 09:38 |
Dean wrote:
The question is not about PCs but of technology in general, and that applies to chemical technology as well as mechanical and electro-mechanical technology.
All this may seem a far cry from the kind of technological enhancements of transhumanism but is it? |
I can appreciate your exposition Dean, but as to your question: "but is it?", I'm not sure that I agree as the the technical advancements you stated are mostly for prolonging human life and not for promoting humanism.
If anything has changed radically in the 21st century, it's instant world wide communication via the internet.
If this technological wonder has not helped to enhance humanism, then 'what good is it?' should really be be the question and the topic.
Edited by SteveG - October 18 2014 at 09:51
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 12:00 |
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
The question is not about PCs but of technology in general, and that applies to chemical technology as well as mechanical and electro-mechanical technology.
All this may seem a far cry from the kind of technological enhancements of transhumanism but is it? |
I can appreciate your exposition Dean, but as to your question: "but is it?", I'm not sure that I agree as the the technical advancements you stated are mostly for prolonging human life and not for promoting humanism.
If anything has changed radically in the 21st century, it's instant world wide communication via the internet.
If this technological wonder has not helped to enhance humanism, then 'what good is it?' should really be be the question and the topic. |
Well, firstly transhumanism is not about enhancing, prolonging, enabling or promoting humanism, secondly humansim and transhumanism are two distinctly separate and unrelated subjects, thirdly that was not what Simon was asking and fourthly communication advancement has nothing to do transhumanism or humanism so fifthly no, that should neither be the question nor the topic. But other than that, yeah, I like Genesis too 
|
|
What?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 12:30 |
SteveG wrote:
transˇhuˇmanˇism ^
noun noun: transhumanism the
belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current
physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and
technology.
|
1)What part of the above did you not understand and 2) I believe it's time you flipped over that Genesis record after 40 years or try something by The Ruttles.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 12:33 |
SteveG wrote:
SteveG wrote:
transˇhuˇmanˇism ^
noun noun: transhumanism the
belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current
physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and
technology.
|
1)What part of the above did you not understand |
I understand it all, which explains the content of my post. How does this definition equate to "promoting humanism" in your understanding?
Edited by Dean - October 18 2014 at 12:34
|
|
What?
|
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 12:38 |
Dean wrote:
Sign of the times I fear, perhaps if it were a 60 minute progressive rock concept album... but I suspect a few people would still post TL;DH |
The Top 20 Progarchives' albums all are 40 to 50 minutes long, with maybe only 1 or two excursions outside of this range. One might argue that this has to do with the vinyl- and R2R limitations, but even the digital-era Jordrök is about 45'. Is 60 minutes really TL;DH for the general voting public here?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 12:46 |
Humanism requires humans to transcend irrational thought for that of reason. Trans humanism requires technological advancement to both human physical and mental capabilities. Hence, using technology to advance reason is advancement to human mental capability. Any further misunderstanding of my statement will simply be an act of semantic evasion that I'm not interested in pursuing.
Edited by SteveG - October 18 2014 at 12:52
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 13:13 |
SteveG wrote:
Humanism requires humans to transcend irrational thought for that of reason. Trans humanism requires technological advancement to both human physical and mental capabilities. Hence, using technology to advance reason is advancement to human mental capability. |
This is incorrect. Humanism has nothing to do with "transcending" anything, it certainly is not the transcending of irrational thought.
The etymology of transhumanism is transhuman-ism, not trans-humanism.
SteveG wrote:
Any further misunderstanding of my statement will simply be an act of semantic evasion that I'm not interested in pursuing.
|
I have no interest in evasion either, semantic or otherwise.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 13:25 |
Argonaught wrote:
Dean wrote:
Sign of the times I fear, perhaps if it were a 60 minute progressive rock concept album... but I suspect a few people would still post TL;DH |
The Top 20 Progarchives' albums all are 40 to 50 minutes long, with maybe only 1 or two excursions outside of this range. One might argue that this has to do with the vinyl- and R2R limitations, but even the digital-era Jordrök is about 45'. Is 60 minutes really TL;DH for the general voting public here? |
Who knows. I doubt that the Top 20 here can be used in any meaningful statistical analysis of prefered album-length. I believe there have been several polls conducted over the years that could give a more representative idea. However I intended this to be a joke, hence the " "
|
|
What?
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13606
|
Posted: October 18 2014 at 16:03 |
Kati wrote:
Wow all your hypothesis might be good however who will read all that? |
I did. It was a very intelligent and knowing post.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
jayem
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 995
|
Posted: October 20 2014 at 17:39 |
Oh yes ! Let's not forget wood legs and hooks as proto-bionics, but the joy of nurturing understanding + knowledge is there again ! I've read this with the picture of Dean's "Mona Lisa" smile (ie "starting to wear-thin" http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70697&PID=5018663#5018663) in mind, so my reading may not have been as focused as required, but definitely felt no waste of time.
Now about topics on humanism:
They should be closed because everything I've read "humanism" seems to be about should be called "skeptical responsibilism" of something like that.
Shouldn't "Humanism" get rid of the "Human vs God" meaning rather than human vs anything else ? Parakeets and (naive) ETs would still go gor it.
I recently agreed with language master Tszirmay that no one would be able to have the ultimate point in the issue about prefering dogs to humans. So, how about doggism (that Greeks would be cautious not to confuse with cynicism) ?
Edited by jayem - October 20 2014 at 17:59
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)