tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post4215323130750378580..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: If I Can’t Dance, I Don’t Want to Be Part of Your Revolution!Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-64977207258477708182009-05-22T05:57:57.349-04:002009-05-22T05:57:57.349-04:00Dustin: "If it's trivially true, please explain." ...Dustin: <I>"If it's trivially true, please explain."</I> <br /><br />It's trivially true that we will be able to record what exists in higher fidelity than we can simulate it, because we already can: I can snap a picture with a digital camera that would take thousands of hours to simulate, and even then my snapshot would still be more realistic. There's no reason to think that gap will ever narrow--as our ability to simulate increases, so will our ability to record.<br /><br />The point of contention is really our perceptual bandwidth and whether/how fast it will increase. I can't say for certain that it will increase faster than our ability to simulate, but it seems at least possible: we already use technology to process datasets that would otherwise be impossibly vast. As that technology moves from being a tool we use (image enhancement software) to a part of ourselves (eagle's optic nerves), it seems to me quite likely that our standards for realism will increase drastically. Increased perceptual bandwidth seems to me to be very close to the heart of the transhumanist enterprise.heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952202041752162929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-23346958289677157922009-05-21T22:43:48.254-04:002009-05-21T22:43:48.254-04:00And on that note of congruence I will end my repli...And on that note of congruence I will end my replies, since I plan to move on. If anyone is dying to continue the conversation, you can contact me off-list.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-67044711934760817852009-05-21T21:26:37.316-04:002009-05-21T21:26:37.316-04:00In short, I don't think you can upload an original...<I>In short, I don't think you can upload an original and retain continuity of identity. You can at best make a perfect copy, and if you succeed in doing that, you will have a distinct entity.</I>Not that I'm the keeper of the transhumanist zeitgeist, but I'm pretty sure your point here is a mainstream transhumanist view that most everyone who has thought about it accepts as true. Am I wrong here, people?Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160408758024554522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-76472523148609553932009-05-21T20:57:25.036-04:002009-05-21T20:57:25.036-04:00I promised Tony P an answer: I agree that it's imp...I promised Tony P an answer: I agree that it's important to ensure that a term means the same thing to participants in a discussion.<br /><br />As I touched upon in previous responses, mind uploading is different from mind simulation. You can have a mind simulation (kinda) without understanding or recreating the mind -- all you are looking for is some endpoint behavior, like John Searle's Chinese room experiment.<br /><br />Uploading a mind requires understanding the brain completely, a significantly taller order than programming a computer to play outstanding chess. Even if we were ever able to "upload" a mind -- which, to me at least, means recreating it exactly -- we would have a copy. If the copy is as good as the original, it will start diverging from the original the moment it becomes conscious. It's the brain equivalent of a biological clone. If the upload is destructive, the "copy" may feel it's the original, but the original will still feel the fear and pain of death.<br /><br />In short, I don't think you can upload an original and retain continuity of identity. You can at best make a perfect copy, and if you succeed in doing that, you will have a distinct entity.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-5339442929216340792009-05-21T17:54:23.718-04:002009-05-21T17:54:23.718-04:00I'm flattered to be the subject of thesis-length d...I'm flattered to be the subject of thesis-length dissections, though it's easier to take them seriously when they don't hide behind avatars (or black hoods). But hey, as they say, all publicity is good as long as they don't misspell your name!Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-70981514170810927932009-05-21T16:02:55.033-04:002009-05-21T16:02:55.033-04:00http://khanneasunztu.wordpress.com/http://khanneasunztu.wordpress.com/Khanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191101857598532784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-15350793759712905672009-05-21T15:41:28.541-04:002009-05-21T15:41:28.541-04:00However, if transhumanists hope to achieve even a ...<I>However, if transhumanists hope to achieve even a fraction of their goals, they will have to take biological facts into account.</I>I guess that's my problem with your position. I don't recall you presenting any biological facts that dispute the ideas you rail against. Many opinions, yes. Perhaps these opinions are backed by facts, but I don't know what they are.<br /><br /><I>you can't simulate reality to a higher degree than it already exists, and you can't possibly make it more relevant. At any given technological level, the sensory input available from reality will exceed the sensory input we can manufacture on every metric but agreeability.</I>This assumes that we can or will be able to perceive reality at a greater resolution/bandwidth than it is possible to simulate. I see no reason to think this is a forgone conclusion. If it's trivially true, please explain.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160408758024554522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-2281276077887731122009-05-21T15:00:36.158-04:002009-05-21T15:00:36.158-04:00Ah, yes. When people run out of arguments, they f...Ah, yes. When people run out of arguments, they fall back to schoolyard tactics. For example, using words like "mystical" and "fluffy" as tags denoting both physical and mental softness -- as opposed to hard, manly adjectives and objectives.<br /><br />Carbon may not be the sole possible substrate for thought. This pertains to AI, and you already know that I consider this possible, although I'm also certain that the emerging sentience will be totally distinct from ours. Shifting sentient carbon into silicon is another matter. This pertains to mind uploading and the presumed joys of VR existence.<br /><br />I don't expect to convince anyone or change minds one iota. However, if transhumanists hope to achieve even a fraction of their goals, they will have to take biological facts into account. Otherwise, transhumanism will get labeled a fringe cult, and lose its chance to make a real difference.Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-86315718481927761702009-05-21T14:32:19.551-04:002009-05-21T14:32:19.551-04:00Athena: "I have noticed that the ranks of transhum...Athena: "<I>I have noticed that the ranks of transhumanism are made up primarily of computer experts, secondarily by philosophers or social scientists (economists, lawyers...). Very few biologists.</I>"<br /><br />Computer esperts are used to software systems that can be moved from one physical layer to another and still work more or less like themselves. This generates a bias of course, but I think also biologists have their own biases, don't you?<br /><br />"<I>the privileged position of carbon: like all elements on the 4th column of the periodic table, it can be both electron donor and acceptor...</I>"<br /><br />But this shows that carbon has a privileged position as far as its ability to form biological systems is concerned. It does not show that biological systems are a privileged substrate for thought. Once sentient AI is developed, and I consider it as almost self-evident that sooner or later it will be (others differ of course), it will show that biology is not a necessary condition for mentality.<br /><br />Coming back to biologists' biases: today there is a certain PC tendency to say that fluffy wet biology is Good and dry computer circuits are Bad, but I don't take PCness seriously. I was actually trained as a theoretical physicist and learned a couple of things about computer science along the way. Physicists' bias is thinking that nature is understandable and tweakable in principle.Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-32585087033655106672009-05-21T13:35:46.383-04:002009-05-21T13:35:46.383-04:00"Whatever the mind runs on, it will have its own l..."<I>Whatever the mind runs on, it will have its own limitations and advantages that will shape our experiences in similar ways to how organic limitations and advantages shape our experiences now. We can't transcend physical limitations, only push the boundaries.</I>I agree with this. It does not rule out mind uploading though. Uploads implemented on any physical substrate may spend all their time in VR and have a lot of fun there, but they are still dependent in a fundamental way on the hardware they run on. Well, there may be backups if something goes seriuously wrong.<br /><br />Of course, everything has its own limitation. Mark also says that, and I think we all agree on this point. This is about pushing the boundaries, bot about engineering a ready-to-use turnkey heaven.Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-38758101139716986852009-05-21T11:59:32.493-04:002009-05-21T11:59:32.493-04:00Toni P: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think you'...Toni P: <I>"Correct me if I'm wrong, but<br />I think you're saying you can't escape the "material" computational engine that generates the mind, regardless of whether it's made of cells, chips, sticks or whatever, not that you can't escape biology as a computational platform."</I>Right. Whatever the mind runs on, it will have its own limitations and advantages that will shape our experiences in similar ways to how organic limitations and advantages shape our experiences now. We can't transcend physical limitations, only push the boundaries.<br /><br />Given that limitation, it makes more sense to me to push the boundaries of the highly engineered, stable sentience platform that we have, rather than to try messing about in an entirely new one.heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952202041752162929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-70936987822363563192009-05-21T11:26:59.668-04:002009-05-21T11:26:59.668-04:00Tony, I'll try to get to your points later today, ...Tony, I'll try to get to your points later today, you raise important issues.<br /><br />Giulio, there is nothing mystical about the privileged position of carbon: like all elements on the 4th column of the periodic table, it can be both electron donor and acceptor. However, unlike all the other elements on that same column (which include silicon, right below carbon), the atomic radius of carbon is such that it can form stable bonds with both itself and an enormous number of other elements. The number of carbon-based compounds exceeds that of all other possible molecules by all other elements combined -- by a large margin.<br /><br />Silicon does not have that property, which makes it a poor candidate for complex molecule building. It cannot make large homomeric chains like carbon and defaults to bonding with oxygen (aka glass). For this reason (and a few others), it's almost certain that complex life beyond earth will be based on carbon.<br /><br />Which takes us to your car analogy. Analogies and metaphors are great for sound bites, but they're misleading precisely because they're reductive. Even if you follow the analogy: you can substitute the wheels on your car but the substitution will work only if it falls within narrow parameters. You may wish to have flying lizards or oxen instead of wheels. Except that the car will either not go at all or lurch along at a fraction of its speed.<br /><br />This last point, incidentally, applies to the re-invention of nanotechnology in silico, so to speak. Bio-nanotechnology already exists and has been tested by millions of years of evolution: its tools are enzymes, miRNAs... etc. So instead of re-inventing the wheel along the lines of using oxen, it would be far more efficient to hone working tools that are already available.<br /><br />Which brings me to an even larger point. I have noticed that the ranks of transhumanism are made up primarily of computer experts, secondarily by philosophers or social scientists (economists, lawyers...). Very few biologists. You would imagine that the items in transhumanism's agenda would make inclusion of biologists a necessity. Otherwise, many of these discussions degenerate into wish-fulfillment fantasy.Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-39156935615134322302009-05-21T07:13:41.094-04:002009-05-21T07:13:41.094-04:00So I agree, that where our brains go, our minds go...So I agree, that where our brains go, our minds go. But if the brain is thus emulated as software on a "material" computational machine, and the emulation is detailed enough in regard to the workings of the biological brain, generating a functionally equivalent mind, we have an upload. As you have stated that you think we will be able to make "silicon minds", I would assume you think the above mentioned process is, at least theoretically, possible?<br />And if we speculate on what we can do with the emulated brain, we could imagine that if we have all its parts as software, we could edit that software, thus changing the structure of the brain/mind and seeing whether we could change it further.<br /><br />And heresiarch, you said that you cannot escape biology-as-substrate, but in the next sentence you claim that you can - that consciousness could be (theoretically) housed on different physical media.<br />Leaving biology behind, in these discussions (I think) refers to the point that the emulated brain/mind would no longer be housed in a physically biological structure (although cells, neurotransmitters,etc) would be emulated as such (but as code, not actual biological molecules). <br />The emulated brain/mind would be different from the biological at least in one other respect, namely that it could be edited and that its components would not need to undergo the degradation processes associated with aging, disease and injury.<br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but <br />I think you're saying you can't escape the "material" computational engine that generates the mind, regardless of whether it's made of cells, chips, sticks or whatever, not that you can't escape biology as a computational platform.<br /><br />Just to make it clear - I'm not certain that brain emulation can be achieved, but I do not see any a priori arguments that it's impossible, at least not thus far. Experimentation will settle it in the end...Toni Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-3018670680858017652009-05-21T07:13:08.355-04:002009-05-21T07:13:08.355-04:00I must say I've enjoyed this comment thread so far...I must say I've enjoyed this comment thread so far. The best discussions really are sparked when contending views are expressed and I don't think h+ has already amassed such a store of infallible knowledge that it couldn't profit from continually reexamining its underlying assumptions, especially the ones that are heavily dependent on very far future technologies (far future meant measured in terms of scientific and technological advancement, not necessarily standard human time passage). <br /><br />Athena, I think you have some very good points, and at the same time I think you have perhaps a too narrow view of what transhumanism encompasses, as you seem to equate it with only some of the myriad "schools" that exist under the umbrella term of transhumanism. I agree that we are already "transhuman" in the sense you have mentioned - being continually transformed by out tools/technology/knowledge since the first advent of primitive tool and technique use - but I think that's the reason why Nick Bostrom and others have conceptualized the category of "posthuman" as well. And as with enhancement and therapy, I think it's going to be continually harder to make a clear distinction as to what sort of modification counts as mainstream, transhuman or even posthuman. <br /><br />Although I don't take it for granted that whole brain emulation will be possible, I'd like to know why you think that it cannot be done. I've seen you make that statement in a number of your posts, but I haven't seen any explanation for that assumption. Can you go into more detail about that, or at least point me to where you have already written about it? <br /><br />Further, as I've read through some of the comments, I've started to wonder whether we're using the same terms, but very different underlying ideas, when discussing "mind uploading". You seem to be making the point that the brain and the mind cannot be separated, in the sense that you need the "material" computational machine from whose workings the "immaterial" mind emerges. I agree completely, if you destroy the brain, the mind is no more. I also agree that the mind is in the brain, and in this sense inseparable from it. But the idea behind mind uploading, at least as I understand it, is to simulate or at least emulate the brain as software on a sufficiently powerful computational machine, not to somehow magically take hold of the immaterial mind and push it into a computer. The potential roadmap has been discussed in Bostrom and Sandberg's Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3853/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf), where they also speculate at which scale level the elements comprising the brain would need to be emulated in software to get the same functional mind that is currently generated by the biological brain (at the atomic, molecular, cellular, etc, level). Such requirements would then dictate the hardware power and the software necessary to create a functional "mind upload".Toni Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-56736737719611469592009-05-21T05:27:26.274-04:002009-05-21T05:27:26.274-04:00In fact, coming from "wet" transhumanism, the name...In fact, coming from "wet" transhumanism, the name of the game has always been physical (brain, and thus "mental", included) enhancement, better-than-well, longevity, etc., to me. <br /><br />Uploading, downloading, migrating from one support to another while maintaining well enough the illusion of "identity" to make such events socially seamless, as well as getting in and out of VR worlds which end up being indistinguishable from "real reality", certainly come as a natural and ultimate development of all that. <br /><br />But the idea of "merging with a computer", in particular computers as we know them today, sounds little more than bad sci-fi, just a notch above that where my soul gets automagically transferred in a purely mechanical automa.<br /><br />And I think an effort should be made not to have transhumanism perceived as the rationalisation of such fantasies...Stefano Vajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11725653303024645938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-73053298048858422872009-05-21T03:48:08.398-04:002009-05-21T03:48:08.398-04:00Giulio Prisco: "transhumanism is about leaving bio...Giulio Prisco: <I>"transhumanism is about leaving biology behind"</I>To echo Athena's point, you can't escape biology-as-substrate. No matter where your consciousness is, or what physical media houses it, it <I>will</I> be housed on something, and that something will matter whether or not you acknowledge it. By splitting your perception of existence from your physical existence you're just ignoring the physical, not making it disappear.<br /><br /><I>"I disagree, and I think Shakespeare, Mozart and Picasso proved my point,"</I>They taught us a great deal about ourselves, and I gladly acknowledge that virtual--i.e. constructed--realities have a lot to offer us in that vein. They can't teach us anything about rest of the world, though.<br /><br />(that's a weird comma there--did your comment get chopped?)<br /><br /><I>"Indispensable in the sense that they perform an indispensable function, not in the sense that they cannot be replaced."</I>And this is different from biology how? We can already replace knees and hips, and if stem cells prove as fruitful as we hope we'll soon be able to replace anything we please--even grey matter. No matter how you slice it, there's still a there there, and it still <A HREF="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html" REL="nofollow">matters</A>.heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952202041752162929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-73251969243707658562009-05-21T01:28:52.437-04:002009-05-21T01:28:52.437-04:00Go Democrats: I agree with Mark that mind uploadin...Go Democrats: I agree with Mark that mind uploading is one of several transhumanist options, together with less radical ways to remake human biology. At the same time, I think it is the central issue in the frequent debates between transhumanists and non-transhumanist technoprogressives.<br /><br />Athena: "<I>As for having disembodied fun in VR: it will be an extended hallucination regardless of its quality, unlike dreaming which affects reality by influencing synaptic configuration.</I>No, because as you say in the following paragraph, disembodied minds will run on physical hardware that will play an equivalent role. Or does carbon have soma magic property that cannot be emulated in other computational substrates? Sure you don't mean that?<br /><br /><I>Their chips (or equivalent) will be indispensable parts of themselves, even if their intelligence is distributed over networks.</I>Indispensable in the sense that they perform an indispensable function, not in the sense that they cannot be replaced. The wheels are an indispensable part of my car in the sense that it would not work without wheels, but I can replace them easily.Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-84294349142353862002009-05-20T18:03:19.186-04:002009-05-20T18:03:19.186-04:00As for having disembodied fun in VR: it will be an...As for having disembodied fun in VR: it will be an extended hallucination regardless of its quality, unlike dreaming which affects reality by influencing synaptic configuration.<br /><br />And if we ever create novel minds in silicon, they won't be disembodied. Their chips (or equivalent) will be indispensable parts of themselves, even if their intelligence is distributed over networks. Or are we in "pure energy" creature territory?Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-22592792233846604182009-05-20T17:22:15.625-04:002009-05-20T17:22:15.625-04:00Giulio, I don't see how you can both agree with Ma...Giulio, I don't see how you can both agree with Mark--who calls the disposition of bodies a matter of in-house disagreement--and at the same time assert that transhumanism is "all about uploading." If one were to draw a Venn diagram representing both of your views, yours would be just a small circle inside his much larger circle.Go Democratshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01921729627957540312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-48945859800624927012009-05-20T16:36:59.317-04:002009-05-20T16:36:59.317-04:00Giulio, the mind cannot be separated from the brai...Giulio, the mind cannot be separated from the brain and still function. Your definition sounds like that of the soul. Whether the mind/brain can do more than it does now is totally distinct from whether it can function outside its frame. The paper mail/email analogy is invalid: the two are a case of convergent evolution.<br /><br />Ditto for "leaving biology behind". We may be able to create other minds, very different from ours (silicon, animal uplift, what have you). But our own minds go where our brains go. Mind uploading is an article of faith for believers. As a biologist, all I can tell you is that it cannot be done.Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-20477384588286661012009-05-20T16:09:30.684-04:002009-05-20T16:09:30.684-04:00Athena: "In this case, dualism means assuming that...Athena: "<I>In this case, dualism means assuming that the brain and the mind can be separated</I>".<br /><br />Oh, but they can. It depends on definitions of course. I tend to define the mind as "the mind is what the brain does", which leaves open the possibility of finding something else that does it equally well, or better. Like, in most practical cases email is better than paper mail.Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-81573202361761608792009-05-20T15:59:44.584-04:002009-05-20T15:59:44.584-04:00My comment to the same post on the IEET blog, expa...My comment to the same post on the IEET blog, expanded:<br /><br />The article is very good because it goes straight to the core issue: Athena understands well that transhumanism is not about living 20 or 50 years longer, or about tech gadgets - transhumanism is about leaving biology behind. Mind uploading is not a msrginal element of transhumanism, but the essence of transhumanism.<br /><br />Some people like the idea, some don't. Athena doesn't, and I do.<br /><br />Many people in this comment thread have the same objection that I raise in the IEET port below. Why are you assuming that change is _in principle_ bad? I think it can also be good. Of all comments, I especially agree with Mark Walker's, measured and reasonable as usual.<br /><br />Heresiarch: "<I>you can't simulate reality to a higher degree than it already exists, and you can't possibly make it more relevant.</I>". I disagree, and I think Shakespeare, Mozart and Picasso proved my point,<br /><br />----<br /><br />Original: Athena, I think you are kind of assuming your conclusions: you start assuming that transhumanism is grey, and conclude that it is grey. I think it is not grey, but an explosion of beautiful colors.<br /><br />I am one of those who see the body as a meat cage and, if the option were already available, I would cheerfully choose to upload to silicon or cyberspace. But then I would want MORE color, sound, scent and sex, not less.<br /><br />Why can't a "disembodied mind playing World of Warcraft in a VR datastream" feel much MORE empathy, friendship, and love (or hate) for others that we do today? Why can't they enjoy art, love flowers and be compassionate and supportive of other sentient beings? Why can't they laugh at a good joke or cry at a sad story? Why can't they enjoy a virtual beer with good friends in a simulated pub?<br /><br />These are indeed assumptions, in my opinion questionable. I don't see any reason why a disembodied mind cannot _in principle_ have a inner and social life much richer than ours. Of course everything depends on the actual implementation of these yet to be developed options, but there is no reason to assume the worst. Let experiment decide: someday we will be able to _ask_ disembodied minds how they actually feel.Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-56647202382573831162009-05-20T07:02:51.394-04:002009-05-20T07:02:51.394-04:00Hervé Musseau: "Maybe I'm misreading you, but ther...Hervé Musseau: <I>"Maybe I'm misreading you, but there are a lot of things that can't be done in reality that could be done in virtual."</I>In virtual reality one could fly across a rainbow on a unicorn's back, but that experience will never be as rich in detail or as authentic as the experience of riding a real horse in reality. Someday we'll be able to simulate virtual worlds in as much detail as we can now perceive, but by that time the technology will likely also exist to perceive the world at an even higher level of detail. Our ability to simulate will never match our ability to perceive.<br /><br />I don't have anything against fantasy of any sort, but there's a hard limit to what it can offer. In a reality you create yourself, emipiricism and all its subdisciplines--including science--are meaningless. Such a world has no surprises to offer: by definition, everything in it is there because you understand it well enough to simulate it. It is with a radical engagement with reality that knowledge will be forwarded most effectively.heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952202041752162929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-14730250642214074282009-05-19T16:38:00.000-04:002009-05-19T16:38:00.000-04:00To go back to the original article and its critici...To go back to the original article and its criticism, certainly the enhancements that we already have (which Athena called weak transhumanism) like glasses or hearing aids increased our senses, not reduced them. Advanced transhumanism, even the most disembodied ones, still retain a lot of physical activity, either through VR, enhanced body & senses, experiencing other bodies, including non-human bodies (animals, robots, swarms, ...).<BR>I'm surprised by heresiarch's statement. Maybe I'm misreading you, but there are a lot of things that can't be done in reality that could be done in virtual. Or that you can't experience naturally, eg you can't smell or hear like a dog, see like a cat, fly like a bird, run like a tiger. The brain is mostly here to filter out what comes at you, or you'd be overwhelmed; so obviously there is a lot more than "reality". Maybe you should explain what you meant.Hervé Musseaunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-67979773686523456062009-05-18T21:47:00.000-04:002009-05-18T21:47:00.000-04:00Russ, I agree with you that such distinctions are ...Russ, I agree with you that such distinctions are largely cultural. I'm not a gender essentialist either, especially because it's rather apparent that variations within each gender are greater than variations between genders.<br /><br />Anonymous, I read Mike's article in IEET and commented on it. Part of my comment pointed out that, moaning aside, men still control almost all of the planet's resources, including access to reproductive technologies.<br /><br />So, no, I'm not a Freudian. I don't envy penises, I just envy the privileges they universally and automatically confer. As for women enlarging their breasts -- I think it's a mixture of survival mechanism and preening. The two are hard to tease apart at that level.<br /><br />Once the article that I promised on this topic germinates, it will address some issues that Mike's IEET post touched upon (ominous music swells!).Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.com