Transhumanism offers "no" guarantees that'll eradicate human imperfections without replacing this undesirable behavior with far greater idiosyncrasies.
I concur that what we are seeing here is a naïve and blind faith in transhumanism. This diagnosis explains a great deal of what we are witnessing in so many different dimensions. It is often framed in relation to science, yet entails a rejection of scientific process in favour of a mythological image of science that is merely technology, or better still, an idol built from technology.
As I've said before: we are being asked to take sides in a cultural battle between technology and the sciences. And technology, backed as it is by billions in cashflow, is dominant. I concur with Thorsteinn: we must choose to be human, to reaffirm our humanity. And those of us that do will inevitably find ourselves positioned as the resistance in this new forever war.
Technology, is backed by billions in cashflow with the objective of absconding with trillions while a slew of manufactured crises are used to transform the entire planet into a neofeudal biosecurity surveillance state irregardless of the collateral damage.
I choose being human with the option of thinking for myself! Too many of us really depend upon others to think for them or even technology to take over that responsibility! Being human isn’t a spectator sport!
Anthony, yet we humans are communal animals. Though our intelligence isn't as distributed as ants, for example, we would all be the poorer if we only relied on our own ideas. This kind of learning is probably the origin of conformity. We look to each other to figure out what makes sense. It is inbred in us. We also inherently try to convince others to conform to our ideas, as you did with your own PR slogan: "Being human is not a spectator sport"! In the end we will be most successful balancing individuality and social learning aka "conformity".
We see ourselves as an end-in-itself (I. Kant), because thanks to our (kantian) Rationality, we are also the origin of an understanding of the world.
That understanding of the world cannot be delegated
AI's are not truly autonomously intelligent because their understanding of the world belong to us
And if we continue with Kant, we can discredit any reductionism (among other of human beings) by pointing out that any phenomenological knowledge will hopelessly miss the noumenal reality.
Occam's razor sculpts out "uninteresting" details from reality, to leave only some bare principles.
But you could rightfully claim that the uninteresting details were just as real as the rest, so dismissing them is equivalent to simplifying reality until we get something we can possibly understand.
Is it possible to reduce human beings to computable models?
Well, in the first place, reductionism makes no sense because there is always a point of view in knowledge, there is an interest that makes us cut out some details rather than others (see above) and find some principles instead of others.
In the second place, the existence of computable models of reality implies the existence of the humans that created them out of a free will.
But of course, humans can commit many crimes against other humans, and anti-humanism is one of them
Indeed. Would you care to review my book? It's different - and relevant: https://www.hughwillbourn.com/book if you contact my via my website I can arrange to get a copy to you. More reviews on Amazon.
I insist upon retaining responsibility for my own rational decisions and my own moral choices -- and their consequences. I trust myself to inform myself and come to the right decisions based upon my traditional upbringing and religious education.
t seems to me that it's those responsibilities certain individuals are trying to escape by relying upon pseudo-science and invasive technology imposed by "authorities."
Transhumanism offers "no" guarantees that'll eradicate human imperfections without replacing this undesirable behavior with far greater idiosyncrasies.
I concur that what we are seeing here is a naïve and blind faith in transhumanism. This diagnosis explains a great deal of what we are witnessing in so many different dimensions. It is often framed in relation to science, yet entails a rejection of scientific process in favour of a mythological image of science that is merely technology, or better still, an idol built from technology.
As I've said before: we are being asked to take sides in a cultural battle between technology and the sciences. And technology, backed as it is by billions in cashflow, is dominant. I concur with Thorsteinn: we must choose to be human, to reaffirm our humanity. And those of us that do will inevitably find ourselves positioned as the resistance in this new forever war.
Technology, is backed by billions in cashflow with the objective of absconding with trillions while a slew of manufactured crises are used to transform the entire planet into a neofeudal biosecurity surveillance state irregardless of the collateral damage.
I choose being human with the option of thinking for myself! Too many of us really depend upon others to think for them or even technology to take over that responsibility! Being human isn’t a spectator sport!
Anthony, yet we humans are communal animals. Though our intelligence isn't as distributed as ants, for example, we would all be the poorer if we only relied on our own ideas. This kind of learning is probably the origin of conformity. We look to each other to figure out what makes sense. It is inbred in us. We also inherently try to convince others to conform to our ideas, as you did with your own PR slogan: "Being human is not a spectator sport"! In the end we will be most successful balancing individuality and social learning aka "conformity".
It depends on the perspective chosen.
We see ourselves as an end-in-itself (I. Kant), because thanks to our (kantian) Rationality, we are also the origin of an understanding of the world.
That understanding of the world cannot be delegated
AI's are not truly autonomously intelligent because their understanding of the world belong to us
And if we continue with Kant, we can discredit any reductionism (among other of human beings) by pointing out that any phenomenological knowledge will hopelessly miss the noumenal reality.
Occam's razor sculpts out "uninteresting" details from reality, to leave only some bare principles.
But you could rightfully claim that the uninteresting details were just as real as the rest, so dismissing them is equivalent to simplifying reality until we get something we can possibly understand.
Is it possible to reduce human beings to computable models?
Well, in the first place, reductionism makes no sense because there is always a point of view in knowledge, there is an interest that makes us cut out some details rather than others (see above) and find some principles instead of others.
In the second place, the existence of computable models of reality implies the existence of the humans that created them out of a free will.
But of course, humans can commit many crimes against other humans, and anti-humanism is one of them
Kveðja
Indeed. Would you care to review my book? It's different - and relevant: https://www.hughwillbourn.com/book if you contact my via my website I can arrange to get a copy to you. More reviews on Amazon.
Would love to. Please send me an email.
great. can only find your email .... insead .... will send there.
I insist upon retaining responsibility for my own rational decisions and my own moral choices -- and their consequences. I trust myself to inform myself and come to the right decisions based upon my traditional upbringing and religious education.
t seems to me that it's those responsibilities certain individuals are trying to escape by relying upon pseudo-science and invasive technology imposed by "authorities."