Transhumanism and Nietzsche

I've been looking into T-humanism lately and I find it to be absolutely fascinating!

It got me thinking about what Nietzsche would think of it. I opine that he would be both for and against it. The reason that, I believe, he would be against it is because many within the T-humanism movement aren't, really, seeking to augment human nature; but rather to escape it. Nietzsche would find this particular T-humanist impulse to be ' nihilistic '. But at the same time, the coin could be flipped in favor of ' life-affirmation '; T-humanism could significantly augment human intelligence, longevity and well-being. One could even interpret the actualized transhumanist as the 'Overman'; Nietzsche stated that there are no absolute truths, just interpretations. And I can see a strong resemblance between the N. concept of the  ' Overman ' ( the self-overcomer ) and the augmented T-human being, even though N. probably didn't have T-humanism in mind, when he conceived of the ' O-man '.

Thoughts?

Erik wrote:

I've been looking into T-humanism lately and I find it to be absolutely fascinating!

It got me thinking about what Nietzsche would think of it. I opine that he would be both for and against it. The reason that, I believe, he would be against it is because many within the T-humanism movement aren't, really, seeking to augment human nature; but rather to escape it. Nietzsche would find this particular T-humanist impulse to be ' nihilistic '. But at the same time, the coin could be flipped in favor of ' life-affirmation '; T-humanism could significantly augment human intelligence, longevity and well-being. One could even interpret the actualized transhumanist as the 'Overman'; Nietzsche stated that there are no absolute truths, just interpretations. And I can see a strong resemblance between the N. concept of the  ' Overman ' ( the self-overcomer ) and the augmented T-human being, even though N. probably didn't have T-humanism in mind, when he conceived of the ' O-man '.

Thoughts?

Had to look it up so I was sure what you were referring to.   Wikipedia has an article about it and that is as far as I have gotten.   I am familiar with the concepts and they were explored in a story I read many years ago and was able to get another copy.   "The Glass Flower" by George R.R. Martin published in Isaac Asimov's science fiction Sept. 1986, gives 2 opposing views of this concept.   It's still one of my favorite SF stories.   The question explored in this story was of technology and mortality, and the choices made, and knowing what was lost in the process.   The TV series "Forever" touches on these topics as well, but technology is not involved there.   Darth Vader of Star Wars, Data of Star Trek, touch on these issues and are much involved with technology as an aspect of enhancement.

Bardo, this is a good introductory video of Transhumanism:



There was a recent movie called Transcendence that I watched, which was centered around T-humanism. Decent flick, but could have culminated better.

Erik wrote:

Bardo, this is a good introductory video of Transhumanism:

There was a recent movie called Transcendence that I watched, which was centered around T-humanism. Decent flick, but could have culminated better.

Yes good video, but it only touched on one very important topic, who will own it and how much will they charge. In one way I have already started, I have a defibrillator implanted in my chest, enhancing my health, and If not for that technology, I would not be here right now. Implanting technology can be a double edged sword, who owns it and who controls it?

Bardo wrote:

Yes good video, but it only touched on one very important topic, who will own it and how much will they charge. In one way I have already started, I have a defibrillator implanted in my chest, enhancing my health, and If not for that technology, I would not be here right now. Implanting technology can be a double edged sword, who owns it and who controls it?

Yes, that's a valid concern; nefarious corporations could tamper with it in unethical ways. This is a common anxiety, actually, which is manifest in movies, such as Terminator, I-Robot, Transcendence, etc.

I tend to hold a more optimistic view about it, but there is always that chance that it will end up back-firing on us.

WanderingLands wrote:

I think that the ideology of Transhumanism is at best naive, because it over-emphasizes the 'greatness' of so-called artificial intelligence, thus overlooking the fact that it's we humans that have created these machines based on our reflection upon life (thus, a robot's capabilities would be limited to what knowledge a human being installs it in). A machine is not 'alive' like a human being is; a machine does not have the organic vitality that a human being or any other live organism has. It does not express emotion, nor can really reason on its own.

Another reason is because of the mentioning of the elites gaining control of that technology and using that for parasitical purposes.

It's definitely not a perfect ideology, but I find the spirit of it to be great.

I'm more interested in the possibility of downloading information into my brain, augmenting physical and intellectual power, immortality, and so on - as opposed to A.I. Perhaps it's not even possible, or simply too complex for humans to generate consciousness from technology. Consciousness is still an enigma. But to reiterate what I stated already, I'm very interested in the possibility of advanced technology, which could intensely expand one's intelligence. I think it's safe to say that, for most academics, such an idea is extremely exciting.


-------------

I think you must be careful not to conflate the transcendence of Buddhism with the Transhumanism similar to that of Nietzsche. The former aspires to go beyond humanity and the later attempts to enhance existing human abilities.

Erik wrote:

I've been looking into T-humanism lately and I find it to be absolutely fascinating!

It got me thinking about what Nietzsche would think of it. I opine that he would be both for and against it. The reason that, I believe, he would be against it is because many within the T-humanism movement aren't, really, seeking to augment human nature; but rather to escape it. Nietzsche would find this particular T-humanist impulse to be ' nihilistic '. But at the same time, the coin could be flipped in favor of ' life-affirmation '; T-humanism could significantly augment human intelligence, longevity and well-being. One could even interpret the actualized transhumanist as the 'Overman'; Nietzsche stated that there are no absolute truths, just interpretations. And I can see a strong resemblance between the N. concept of the  ' Overman ' ( the self-overcomer ) and the augmented T-human being, even though N. probably didn't have T-humanism in mind, when he conceived of the ' O-man '.

Thoughts?

Were you Nietzsche in a past life or something? What are your thoughts, not his? There are a couple absolute truths actually.

Uploading your mind sounds like a gamble. Chances are it's already been done. Chances are we might be inside a simulation right now, that was generated by a simulation, that was generated by a simulation. Each simulation creating a simulation to escape from the humdrum of their own lives, unrealising that they themselves are part of an even higher simulation.

Well, the primary reason for the creation of this thread was to mention the similarities between Transhumanism and Nietzscheanism, so yeah, of course I'm going to mention what Nietzsche might have thought.

Simulation theory - interesting, is it not?

Let's figure out how to hack the universe.

Erik wrote:

Well, the primary reason for the creation of this thread was to mention the similarities between Transhumanism and Nietzscheanism, so yeah, of course I'm going to mention what Nietzsche might have thought.

Simulation theory - interesting, is it not?

Let's figure out how to hack the universe.

Yes but I must warn you...Launching a digital simulation to find out - may be where the predecessors failed.  

Possibility - They may have created a simulation so grand, they uploaded themselves into it and forgot they were inside the simulation. Due to a programming oversight or glitch the exit failsafe may have been lost and impossible to retrieve.

Trixie wrote:

Yes but I must warn you...Launching a digital simulation to find out - may be where the predecessors failed.

Possibility - They may have created a simulation so grand, they uploaded themselves into it and forgot they were inside the simulation. Due to a programming oversight or glitch the exit failsafe may have been lost and impossible to retrieve.

How plausible do you think this theory is? And what are your thoughts on the holographic universe theory?

Plausibility - 100 percent. Probability - 99.7 percent.

It is important to note that with each iteration, there is significant quality loss. No simulation retains the quality of the world it was generated in. Quantum physics appear as such because of the extraordinary refresh rate of the universe that created this one. The universe that created this one's universe had an even more extraordinary universe.

If this universe were to create another simulation to "transcend' humanity, it would degrade even further, with an even lower refresh rate, appearing to be less on the quantum physical spectrum, and more on the rigid body side, and more glitches.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Plausibility - 100 percent. Probability - 99.7 percent.

It is important to note that with each iteration, there is significant quality loss. No simulation retains the quality of the world it was generated in. Quantum physics appear as such because of the extraordinary refresh rate of the universe that created this one. The universe that created this one's universe had an even more extraordinary universe.

If this universe were to create another simulation to "transcend' humanity, it would degrade even further, with an even lower refresh rate, appearing to be less on the quantum physical spectrum, and more on the rigid body side, and more glitches.

How would we go about confirming this simulation theory, though? What sort of proof do we need to demonstrate its veracity?

Erik wrote:

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Plausibility - 100 percent. Probability - 99.7 percent.

It is important to note that with each iteration, there is significant quality loss. No simulation retains the quality of the world it was generated in. Quantum physics appear as such because of the extraordinary refresh rate of the universe that created this one. The universe that created this one's universe had an even more extraordinary universe.

If this universe were to create another simulation to "transcend' humanity, it would degrade even further, with an even lower refresh rate, appearing to be less on the quantum physical spectrum, and more on the rigid body side, and more glitches.

How would we go about confirming this simulation theory, though? What sort of proof do we need to demonstrate its veracity?

Dunno. Think it's broken anyway. Maybe the way out is a blackhole.

For now just think about the analogies between here and computer simulations. Computer games try to be quantum but end up being more newton.