![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The Unabomber's manifesto was pretty clear - he didn't advance any doctrine, just opposed one. And most people consider Good Old Ted a "terrorist" not an ordinary "murderer".
It's most neutral to just say he was "convicted of" what he was convicted of, and to call him The Unabomber. The paragraph as it stands now is quite neutral and elegant I think. Thanks.
The arguments of Joy and De Garis are interesting - the analysis parallels but the solution does not. De Garis seems to think a billion dead humans in a struggle to achieve transhuman status for some post-humans is "worth it"... a good demonstration of the completely insane amoral stances of the idiots who preach this crap.
Hugo de Garis is not a transhumanist. The fact that he advocates the deliberate creation of AI that will wipe out the human race should be a dead giveaway (note the word "human" in "transhumanist"). As far as non-moral opinions go, de Garis's views are similar to that of many transhumanists, yes, but he shares none of the moral philosophy.
Many of the statements regarding de Garis's opinions previously appearing in the criticisms section here are simply wrong. Everything that I have read of his regarding his "gigadeath war" indicates that it is a battle between those supporting the creation of superintelligent "artilects" (artificial intellects; he loves neologisms) and those opposed to such creation. His comments should not be generalized to the transhumanist movement as a whole. Googling his personal website, I find virtually no mention of transhumanism.
If there are no objections, I'm going to remove de Garis from this section, as he is neither a transhumanist nor a vocal critic of the transhumanist movement. His opinions regarding the future of AI are somewhat relevant to transhumanism (although more so to the Singularity) and can be included elsewhere in the article perhaps. If anyone can provide quotations where he actually claims to be a transhumanist, or specifically criticises tranhumanism, then by all means insert them in the article, but I don't think such things exist. -- Schaefer 08:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[It] is typical of transhumanists that they define victory as inevitable, much as Marxists did. This, as the anti-futurist Max Dublin noted, seems to provide a certain fanaticism and nihilism useful in advancing such causes. -- Cut for NPOV violation
Cyborg links to here in a ""see "" Is Cybrog an intermediary stage of evolution that should be mentioned in this article. Two16 09:56 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone expand the section on the critics of "transhumanism"? This article does seem a bit lopsided. Even the section on critics seems a bit skewed, almost implying that the main people who oppose "transhumanism" are Luddites, granola/hippie types, or irrational extremists that would use violence to "save" their humanity. I'm sure there's alot of moderate, intelligent people who have problems with the directions technology is taking.
That F-head "David Gerard" is editing and deleting relevant links again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history
He obviously does not know anything about subjects and topics that he reverts, whatsoever!
euvolution.com
For example, do a search on Google on "Prometheism" and you will see that links are made to cosmotheism and to many other "Transhumanist" websites!
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
David, just because you don't like an idea or concept, ie. Cosmotheism or Prometheism, doesn't mean that it isn't actually relevant to the topic at hand, in this case "Trans-Humanism".
Seriously, it is quite self-evident why they are related, if either one of you had actually ever bothered to actually understand the links above and the actual topics that are actually involved with "Trans-Humanism", in the first place! LOL! :D
See also:
euvolution.com
(cur) (last) . . 22:23, 26 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv cosmotheist spam (come to the talk page rather than just spamming))
Maybe this lying hypocrite, David Gerard, doesn't really know what "spam" and "spamming" is, verses any relevant links related to "Trans-Humanism" and should take his own advice about reading and taking things first to the "Talk-page" before "reverting and editing" what clearly and what obviously is NOT SPAM or SPAMMING!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
It is not my site, whatsoever.
I am linking to euvolution.com because it is a Trans-Humanist website.
This is an article on "Trans-Humanism" is it not?
David Gerard can't prove it, because it isn't "my site", whatsoever.
So what?
Cosmotheism.com is actually related to euvolution.com only because Cosmotheists also do believe in Eugenics, and in "Trans-Humanism", thereby.
So what?
That is actually just the mailing address of the "web-hosting service", only, you idiot!
I promote the site in my signature, only because I am a true Cosmotheist, or Classical Pantheist, myself.
Duh!
These two sites both use the same ISP "hosting service", 1st Amendment.net and they both are "Trans-Humanist" websites, which is why I had actually linked to them both within the "Trans-Humanist" article here.
No real mystery there!
I don't know if it is Vogel's own site, but it has neo-Nazi links, and really has nothing to do with Huxley's concept. Slrubenstein
Which Huxley? Not this one!
http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review19.shtml.htm
Neither one of you has any clue, and you are reverting relevant links within the article out of POV political bias, only!
I don't have any websites, but, I do link to any websites that are quite relevant to any articles of interest to me, here and to my own Cosmotheist/Classical Pantheist beliefs/philosophy.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
Perhaps so, but, I am quite sure that both brothers agreed when it came to eugenics and to darwinian evolution and to conscious evolution, all of which are related to "Trans-Humanism". :D
Stop adding links with no explanation. They will keep getting reverted until you can come up with a convincing explanation (so far you can't) or a compromise (links at the bottom of the article to "similar concepts", with a GOOD explanation.
Those links require "no GOOD explaination", as it is really quite obvious that they are quite "similar concepts".
if the connection is so obvious, why can't anyone see it?
You few seem to be the only "bone-heads" just "too thick" to see what what is actually quite obvious about the connection.
you'll have to explain it to us stupid people.) Who's going to see them, anyway? It's not worth your time. - Omegatron
I don't have to "explain the connection" to you "stupid people", whatsoever. Those that can read and understand what "Trans-Humanism" is and means will clearly understand it and will appreciate the links, whether you can and will or not.
The truth is always "worth my time", as is my always maintaining and upholding only the Wiki NPOV.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
(cur) (last) . . m 13:48, 30 Mar 2004 . . Omegatron (if you're going to vandalize the page at least stop screwing up the formatting)
Adding relevant links is NOT VANDALISM, NOR SPAM, and the formatting itself maybe wouldn't get so screwed up without all of your own biased POV reverts, David Gerard, in the first place! What F-heads!
Until a survey on the religious beliefs of transhumanists is held, the mention of religions besides Buddhism in the article will reflect nothing more than personal preferences and therefore should not be included. Loremaster 21:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
JRR Trollkien, unless you provide some clarification, I have and will continue to edit out the mention of "Marxists" and "nihilism" in the Critics and Opponents of Transhumanism section of the article because they render the statements, which they were part of, biased and inaccurate. Loremaster 23:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
This article (especially the intro) is disappointing even if it does reflect the concept of transhumanism held by most of those who identify themselves as transhumanists. A narrow concept of transhumanism dominates the article. As a Mormon, I would consider myself a sort of transhumanist given Mormonism's doctrine of deification. That sort of religious-transhumanism (transcending the human state, mortality and its frailities and becoming like God through resurrection and exaltation) is much different than the narrow sort of transhumanism described in this article with its predeliction for cyborg type progress as if a CPU could ever be more advanced than the brain, etc. It is ironic that most transhumanists would likely accept the idea that eventually mankind's technological ability will allow them to be at least like demi-gods, but seem to overlook the possibility that such a society already exists in the cosmos and would seem as gods to our society. Secular transhumanists embrace the transhumanist ideas in movies like Powder or Godsend, but overlook the possibility that mankind's possibilities to progress may be not merely or only an evolutionary gift. In a sense, this is the transhumanism that Mormonism recognizes: that there is already a godly society, that we are their offspring and we are to progress beyond our mortal, human state to become like them. — B| Talk 00:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the intro from:
to
Secular transhumanists do not necessarily share humanist doctrine outside of rejecting supernaturalism; in particular, secular humanism emphasizes democracy while transhumanists of a libertarian bent may reject it.
- Korpios 19:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not alone in finding this article to be bizarre and biased. The continued reversion of cited and verified additions is but a symptom of the disease of POV to be found here. Please note Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention#Philosophy.2C_Larry.27s_Text and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Loremaster. Sam [ Spade] 05:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This phrase doesn't mean anything. The turing test does not "conceive" of a particular kind of artificial intelligence. It rather follows the hypothesis, that "any being which can fully fake being a human must be intelligent". That doesn't place any limit on how much more intelligent the being can be and also doesn't say "any being which fails the turing test isn't intelligent".
"the pace of technological development is steadily increasing,"
This is opinion, not fact; it should be noted as such and attributed. I personally dispute it; there was a great impulse with the "discovery" of quantum mechanics in the early 20th C., this is followed by a slow down in fundamental discovery. Current technological development is largely incremental improvement and even that is showing some signs of slowing (a la Jet engine..) Mozzerati 21:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
This page is rather long and I'd like to either move the WTA and Extropy manifestos to a separate page or just link to them externally. By the time a reader gets to that portion of the article, he should have a fair idea of what transhumanism is about and shouldn't need two manifestos to hammer it in. Is anyone strongly opposed to this? -- Schaefer 12:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands talks more of people who claimed to have done this or that than about the concepts central to transhumanism. The people mentioned here, Max More and Natasha More, are renowned for their inclination to promote themselves at any opportunity. Their claims are often dubious as are their purported contributions to futures studies in general. I find Nick Bostrom's FAQ at http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#whatistranshumanism much more congruent with the quality of Wikipedia's overall content.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The Unabomber's manifesto was pretty clear - he didn't advance any doctrine, just opposed one. And most people consider Good Old Ted a "terrorist" not an ordinary "murderer".
It's most neutral to just say he was "convicted of" what he was convicted of, and to call him The Unabomber. The paragraph as it stands now is quite neutral and elegant I think. Thanks.
The arguments of Joy and De Garis are interesting - the analysis parallels but the solution does not. De Garis seems to think a billion dead humans in a struggle to achieve transhuman status for some post-humans is "worth it"... a good demonstration of the completely insane amoral stances of the idiots who preach this crap.
Hugo de Garis is not a transhumanist. The fact that he advocates the deliberate creation of AI that will wipe out the human race should be a dead giveaway (note the word "human" in "transhumanist"). As far as non-moral opinions go, de Garis's views are similar to that of many transhumanists, yes, but he shares none of the moral philosophy.
Many of the statements regarding de Garis's opinions previously appearing in the criticisms section here are simply wrong. Everything that I have read of his regarding his "gigadeath war" indicates that it is a battle between those supporting the creation of superintelligent "artilects" (artificial intellects; he loves neologisms) and those opposed to such creation. His comments should not be generalized to the transhumanist movement as a whole. Googling his personal website, I find virtually no mention of transhumanism.
If there are no objections, I'm going to remove de Garis from this section, as he is neither a transhumanist nor a vocal critic of the transhumanist movement. His opinions regarding the future of AI are somewhat relevant to transhumanism (although more so to the Singularity) and can be included elsewhere in the article perhaps. If anyone can provide quotations where he actually claims to be a transhumanist, or specifically criticises tranhumanism, then by all means insert them in the article, but I don't think such things exist. -- Schaefer 08:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[It] is typical of transhumanists that they define victory as inevitable, much as Marxists did. This, as the anti-futurist Max Dublin noted, seems to provide a certain fanaticism and nihilism useful in advancing such causes. -- Cut for NPOV violation
Cyborg links to here in a ""see "" Is Cybrog an intermediary stage of evolution that should be mentioned in this article. Two16 09:56 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone expand the section on the critics of "transhumanism"? This article does seem a bit lopsided. Even the section on critics seems a bit skewed, almost implying that the main people who oppose "transhumanism" are Luddites, granola/hippie types, or irrational extremists that would use violence to "save" their humanity. I'm sure there's alot of moderate, intelligent people who have problems with the directions technology is taking.
That F-head "David Gerard" is editing and deleting relevant links again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history
He obviously does not know anything about subjects and topics that he reverts, whatsoever!
euvolution.com
For example, do a search on Google on "Prometheism" and you will see that links are made to cosmotheism and to many other "Transhumanist" websites!
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
David, just because you don't like an idea or concept, ie. Cosmotheism or Prometheism, doesn't mean that it isn't actually relevant to the topic at hand, in this case "Trans-Humanism".
Seriously, it is quite self-evident why they are related, if either one of you had actually ever bothered to actually understand the links above and the actual topics that are actually involved with "Trans-Humanism", in the first place! LOL! :D
See also:
euvolution.com
(cur) (last) . . 22:23, 26 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv cosmotheist spam (come to the talk page rather than just spamming))
Maybe this lying hypocrite, David Gerard, doesn't really know what "spam" and "spamming" is, verses any relevant links related to "Trans-Humanism" and should take his own advice about reading and taking things first to the "Talk-page" before "reverting and editing" what clearly and what obviously is NOT SPAM or SPAMMING!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transhumanism&action=history
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
It is not my site, whatsoever.
I am linking to euvolution.com because it is a Trans-Humanist website.
This is an article on "Trans-Humanism" is it not?
David Gerard can't prove it, because it isn't "my site", whatsoever.
So what?
Cosmotheism.com is actually related to euvolution.com only because Cosmotheists also do believe in Eugenics, and in "Trans-Humanism", thereby.
So what?
That is actually just the mailing address of the "web-hosting service", only, you idiot!
I promote the site in my signature, only because I am a true Cosmotheist, or Classical Pantheist, myself.
Duh!
These two sites both use the same ISP "hosting service", 1st Amendment.net and they both are "Trans-Humanist" websites, which is why I had actually linked to them both within the "Trans-Humanist" article here.
No real mystery there!
I don't know if it is Vogel's own site, but it has neo-Nazi links, and really has nothing to do with Huxley's concept. Slrubenstein
Which Huxley? Not this one!
http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review19.shtml.htm
Neither one of you has any clue, and you are reverting relevant links within the article out of POV political bias, only!
I don't have any websites, but, I do link to any websites that are quite relevant to any articles of interest to me, here and to my own Cosmotheist/Classical Pantheist beliefs/philosophy.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
Perhaps so, but, I am quite sure that both brothers agreed when it came to eugenics and to darwinian evolution and to conscious evolution, all of which are related to "Trans-Humanism". :D
Stop adding links with no explanation. They will keep getting reverted until you can come up with a convincing explanation (so far you can't) or a compromise (links at the bottom of the article to "similar concepts", with a GOOD explanation.
Those links require "no GOOD explaination", as it is really quite obvious that they are quite "similar concepts".
if the connection is so obvious, why can't anyone see it?
You few seem to be the only "bone-heads" just "too thick" to see what what is actually quite obvious about the connection.
you'll have to explain it to us stupid people.) Who's going to see them, anyway? It's not worth your time. - Omegatron
I don't have to "explain the connection" to you "stupid people", whatsoever. Those that can read and understand what "Trans-Humanism" is and means will clearly understand it and will appreciate the links, whether you can and will or not.
The truth is always "worth my time", as is my always maintaining and upholding only the Wiki NPOV.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
(cur) (last) . . m 13:48, 30 Mar 2004 . . Omegatron (if you're going to vandalize the page at least stop screwing up the formatting)
Adding relevant links is NOT VANDALISM, NOR SPAM, and the formatting itself maybe wouldn't get so screwed up without all of your own biased POV reverts, David Gerard, in the first place! What F-heads!
Until a survey on the religious beliefs of transhumanists is held, the mention of religions besides Buddhism in the article will reflect nothing more than personal preferences and therefore should not be included. Loremaster 21:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
JRR Trollkien, unless you provide some clarification, I have and will continue to edit out the mention of "Marxists" and "nihilism" in the Critics and Opponents of Transhumanism section of the article because they render the statements, which they were part of, biased and inaccurate. Loremaster 23:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
This article (especially the intro) is disappointing even if it does reflect the concept of transhumanism held by most of those who identify themselves as transhumanists. A narrow concept of transhumanism dominates the article. As a Mormon, I would consider myself a sort of transhumanist given Mormonism's doctrine of deification. That sort of religious-transhumanism (transcending the human state, mortality and its frailities and becoming like God through resurrection and exaltation) is much different than the narrow sort of transhumanism described in this article with its predeliction for cyborg type progress as if a CPU could ever be more advanced than the brain, etc. It is ironic that most transhumanists would likely accept the idea that eventually mankind's technological ability will allow them to be at least like demi-gods, but seem to overlook the possibility that such a society already exists in the cosmos and would seem as gods to our society. Secular transhumanists embrace the transhumanist ideas in movies like Powder or Godsend, but overlook the possibility that mankind's possibilities to progress may be not merely or only an evolutionary gift. In a sense, this is the transhumanism that Mormonism recognizes: that there is already a godly society, that we are their offspring and we are to progress beyond our mortal, human state to become like them. — B| Talk 00:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the intro from:
to
Secular transhumanists do not necessarily share humanist doctrine outside of rejecting supernaturalism; in particular, secular humanism emphasizes democracy while transhumanists of a libertarian bent may reject it.
- Korpios 19:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not alone in finding this article to be bizarre and biased. The continued reversion of cited and verified additions is but a symptom of the disease of POV to be found here. Please note Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention#Philosophy.2C_Larry.27s_Text and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Loremaster. Sam [ Spade] 05:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This phrase doesn't mean anything. The turing test does not "conceive" of a particular kind of artificial intelligence. It rather follows the hypothesis, that "any being which can fully fake being a human must be intelligent". That doesn't place any limit on how much more intelligent the being can be and also doesn't say "any being which fails the turing test isn't intelligent".
"the pace of technological development is steadily increasing,"
This is opinion, not fact; it should be noted as such and attributed. I personally dispute it; there was a great impulse with the "discovery" of quantum mechanics in the early 20th C., this is followed by a slow down in fundamental discovery. Current technological development is largely incremental improvement and even that is showing some signs of slowing (a la Jet engine..) Mozzerati 21:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
This page is rather long and I'd like to either move the WTA and Extropy manifestos to a separate page or just link to them externally. By the time a reader gets to that portion of the article, he should have a fair idea of what transhumanism is about and shouldn't need two manifestos to hammer it in. Is anyone strongly opposed to this? -- Schaefer 12:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands talks more of people who claimed to have done this or that than about the concepts central to transhumanism. The people mentioned here, Max More and Natasha More, are renowned for their inclination to promote themselves at any opportunity. Their claims are often dubious as are their purported contributions to futures studies in general. I find Nick Bostrom's FAQ at http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html#whatistranshumanism much more congruent with the quality of Wikipedia's overall content.