Re: >H FAQ: General Questions

["Nick Bostrom" <bostrom@ndirect.co.uk>]

Transhuman Mailing List

 Erik Moeller wrote:

> Nick Bostrom wrote:
> 
> > In a definition of transhumanism you don't list everything
> > transhumanists tend to believe in. You list what they tend to believe
> > in and other people don't tend to believe in: out distinguishing
> > characteristics.
> 
> No, we don't only list what no one else believes in, then we couldn't
> list anything.

I didn't say that *nobody* else could believe in the thing we should 
list

> We list the most important assumptions by transhumanism,
> not the most unique ones. And one important assumption by transhumanism
> is that the world and humanity can and should be improved by rational
> means.

And another important assumption is that it is a good idea to breath 
(otherwise we die immediately!)

"Improve" usually means: make things better (i.e. increase utility ). 
"Rational means" usually means: means that are likely to be effective 
(have a positive expected utility). Combining this we get: "Maximize 
expected utility!" --a maxime I'm sure everybody would agree with 
(except some quarrelsome philosophers). It's not a slogan that will 
give us headlines, however.


> > "Improve the human condition with rational means" -- a
> > Cristian scientist could write that.
> 
> He would probably not use the word "all", though.

If you think that God exists then it's rational for you to pray, or 
to flagellate yourself etc.

> > A pompous way of saying "We propose that we do what is good to do."
> 
> A decent way of saying: "We propose that we do what has positive effects
> on the condition of humanity and the world we are living in. These
> actions can only be determined by rational thinking." [Consequence:
> Religious thinking excludes ongoing positive effects!]

That doesn't follow. Religion, even if non-rational, could have good 
consequences, just as love may have.


> You have not commented this. May I ask whether you agree or disagree?
> > Also, it misses the
> > essential point that transhumanists don't only want to improve the
> > human condition: we want to become more than human.
> 
> Not today, and not tomorrow. Posthumanism is a goal we can discuss when
> we have already "transcended" to a state between humanism and
> posthumanism

I think the posthuman goal is something that we should discuss today. 
In fact, in think the discussion ought to have started decades ago.

Posthumanism means basically the same as transhumanism. Humanism is 
different. I think we are already in a state between (natural) human 
and posthuman.


_____________________________________________________
Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics
n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb
***************************************************************************
* If you need to unsubscribe, send email saying "unsubscribe transhuman"  *
* to majordomo@logrus.org, without the quotes, from the SAME email address*
* as the one you subscribed under! Yes, it is case-sensitive. Don't blame *
* the admin for your spelling errors.                                     *
*                  Please email all technical problems to                 *
*               owner-transhuman@logrus.org, NOT to the list.             *
***************************************************************************