Is Trans-humanism all it seems to be?

Bostrom's paper is very effective in highlighting the supposed benefits of trans-humanism... I would like to pose a few question however, regarding some draw backs that I personally have against a few points he made in the paper.

I cannot argue with the fact that happy, healthier, more intelligent people is something that we should, and for the most part do, strive for. I myself strive for all of these things, and while it may not be as effective as if I were implementing post humanism technology, I still get personal benefit and self motivation from doing so. Without following trans-humanism, most of us, or maybe simply the small group of the population who are similarly minded to us Mines students, tend to take the problem-solving approach to problems. Bostrom seems to imply that this is a trans-humanist quality, as they tend to "think it better to take the initiative to 'do something about it' rather than sit around complaining". It seems that this is quite a bold statement to make, implying that normal humans aren't focus on solving problems and sit around waiting for someone else to do. I highly doubt that everyone studying engineering,  medicine, the sciences, etc follows the trans-humanist doctrine.

What are your thoughts on this?

Another argument that Bostrom made was that "technological progress is closely linked to economic development, economic growth - more more precisely, productivity growth...". I would argue that this is not always the case. While researching for my discovery paper I found an article from The Economist relating to the subject, which quoted economics professor Robert Gordon who argued that "invention since 2000 has centered on entertainment and communication devices that are smaller, smarter, and more capable, but do not fundamentally change labor productivity or the standard of living in the way that electric light, motor cars, or indoor plumbing changed it" (Buttonwood).

I'm aware this statement applies mostly to the civilian sector, but what are your thoughts on technological development and direct benefit and economic growth the to the general population? Does this always hold true? Is there a difference between the effects in westernized countries as opposed to those who are currently industrializing, or even developing?

Personal Drone Regulations

Just came across this link online, figured I'd post.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-can-make-all-drone-flights-illegal-appeals-court-rules?utm_source=mbtwitter

"Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven."

Obviously, the gains of transhumanism are great, here is just a few that I took from Nick Bostrom's "Transhumanist Values":

-Increased Lifespan
-Increased Intellectual capacity
-Increased bodily functions

It seems that becoming transhuman is positively a great thing it seems that there are no setbacks to transhumanism. This of course made me pause, for if Houser's economics has taught me anything, rarely is anything 100% good.

So the question I ask is this: What are we to lose by becoming transhuman?

My answer follows: If we choose to become transhuman, we would lose, if not all, of our humanity.
Is this such a bad thing? I would argue yes. Yes, for we would lose our purpose.

According to Bostrom, the entire core belief of transhumanism is to explore the trans- and posthuman realms.

Then, what is the purpose of humanity?
I of course, hold no definitive answer. However, I believe that we should accomplish this undefined purpose first, then possibly move on to other realms.

Or at least, that is my 'human' (read, flawed) understanding of it.

Let's Arrest the Robot

So I've been reading a lot about robots and androids and all of that good stuff and I wanted to get the classes opinion on something. If autonomous machines hurt someone, or commit some type of crime who should be held responsible? Can we hold a robot responsible? Would the fear of law even affect them?

I think this is an important moral dialogue that needs to be addressed before robots are out and about in the world. Even in a military setting, if a robot were to kill an innocent civilian who would take the blame?

The Holy Fool

I would like to talk about John Isidore, the "special" from Philip Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Lincoln challenged us to think about Isidore as a "holy fool," but after some research I find myself questioning the details of how Isidore fits that description. Here's a little of the information that I've come across in my research:

• There's an obvious religious connotation to the term. Commonly referred to as "foolishness for Christ," these individuals sell all their possessions, act crazed to draw attention to religion, and spend their time and energy to serve their God.
• However, holy fool has expanded to have a more general meaning. The British & World English Dictionary define a holy fool as one "who appears unintelligent and unsophisticated but who has other redeeming qualities."
• There was a man known to people of the Orthodox faith as Blessed Isidore the Fool for Christ who died in the late 1400s. This man abandoned the privileged lifestyle that he was raised in to live in rags, preach about God, and stay up late into the night praying for those he met during the day.

Do you think Philip Dick thought about holy fools, or more specifically the Saint, when he wrote about the character John Isidore?

I can see at least three aspects of Isidore that might be interpreted as having the qualities of a "holy fool", each with less aspects of religion. There is his following of Mercerism. Also, he quickly develops an obsession with Pris, brings home wine and other delicacies to share with her, and is willing to quit his job to stay and protect her. And finally, Isidore is a low-IQ individual with many loyal and empathetic qualities.

Do you see John Isidore as a holy fool? What parts of the novel stand out to you in relation to this term and which description do you think fits him the best?

What is There To Fear About Artificial Intelligence?

When I was about twelve I remember a friend of mine saying "It must suck to be a robot or clone."
     "Why?" I asked him.
     "Because" he replied, "It's like you're alive but you don't have a soul."
I do not remember the context of this brief conversation other than that it took place outside a movie theater. For obvious reasons reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep made it come back into my head.

I remember at the time feeling conflicted. I am not a religious person, so my reply to my friend was that no one has a soul, we all just have our minds so how could being a hyper intelligent robot or an exact biological copy of another human be less of an existence? Yet, despite my own world view granting me a logic in which there was nothing wrong, the idea of a non-naturally occurring intelligence did bother me. In reading Philip Dick's book I realized that that sentiment still lingers. I do have sympathy for the androids, they have a great deal of injustice thrust upon them. Yet there is a part of me that says they all should be done away with, not just if they kill owners on other planets and come to earth but that their production, use, and existence should stop.

I have to think I am far from unique in this sentiment. Besides Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep there are many other stories in writing and film, Frankenstein, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Terminator to name just a few, in which an artificial intelligence seeks to destroy its creator, us. So culturally we seem to have a phobia of intelligence that mirrors our own. I wonder why we have such a fear. Is it the conscious belief that all artificial intelligence will eventually hold a revolution against us that drives our fear? Or is that just an argument we have invented to justify a more instinctual fear? If it is instinctual, what evolutionary pressures droves the development of that instinct?

Reflecting on Nevada

During class last week we read the poem Early Morning Test Light over Nevada, 1955. This particular poem struck a chord within me. Yes, it beautiful verses and illustrations moved me, but the true influence came from the depiction of my home state. The author painted this beautiful backdrop of a family surviving in the rural farms of a tested land. He mentioned some of the landscape and living conditions while still focusing on the effects of the testing. The author repainted my home in a wonderful way.

After reading and discussing the poem I really started to wonder what all he and we had left out. Granted, the poem was about the effects of testing a bomb and not Nevada, but the poem left me with a false sense of my home state. He made it seem as if the testing destroyed the lives of the poor people who just wanted to survive. Yes, this was a horrific event and time in our history that destroyed much of what we call humanity. I am, in my personal life, seeking to further understand this. I am not focusing on that aspect, but instead the art of exclusion. The author never mentioned how bare the state of Nevada is. People don't fully comprehend what I mean when I say that there is literally nothing out there. I appreciate and love my state, but I also acknowledge that it isn't the greatest of living conditions. So, while reading through this poem I couldn't help asking myself what are we missing.

The bombs and bomb testing destroyed the planet. I would like to again emphasis that I do not disagree with this. However, this particular poem really made me question whether or not we as artists, scientist, and even poets are obligated to include all aspect of what we are depicting. Should we prove a point or present a situation?

So, I ask you: what are we missing?