Intergalactic Summit

Hello there, Capsuleers. I figured that it was time I showed up here, wisely or otherwise. I wanted to discuss a topic of interest to me.

Every Capsuleer is, or has been, by definition, a transhumanist to some extent. Were or had we not, why would we have accepted the opportunity to become what has commonly become known as "infomorphs"?

This is a term most of us will have first encountered either in Capsuleer training, or from the skill training pack "Infomorph Psychology" -- that which teaches us to cope with being capable of moving from body to body, more or less at a whim. It can, however, be extended away from the Capsuleer to define an entire category of life; where a "traditional" biological being is fundamentally tied to a single body, an infomorph is not. This could be an uploaded person, a being such as a Capsuleer that moves from brain to brain, or an artificial intelligence outright, but the common element remains: the specific processor used, be that computer or brain, is not important. It can be swapped.

That we "sit on the fence" as regards our nature as infomorphs is what makes the theme of Capsuleer trans- and posthumanism so engaging, for me. The artificially intelligent are born into the state of being an infomorph, and the uploaded consciousness forsakes the biological altogether. We do not, as a rule, take that same leap. We can only transmit our consciousness given the arguably contrived (and certainly lethal for the old body) transneural burning scanner, or given the necessary preparations for a jump clone -- and even then, only to a human body. One constructed for our purposes, yes, but human nonetheless.

Put concisely, we are far closer to baseline humanity than other infomorph entities, in this respect. This is perhaps part of why we are often the subjects of such heated opinions, more so than, for example, the founder of Zainou Biotechnology.

This similarity or "fence sitting" can be viewed as either a more moderate or more extreme version of transhumanism. Proponents of the former might say that, after all, we remain human in form and are limited in capability by how much the human form can be improved; those who would argue the latter may counter with that the only bodies used are crafted particularly for us, and are no different to the various processors of Todo Kirkinen's computers.

Personally, I opt for it being a particularly far-gone example of transhumanity. Human nature has generally guided us to overcome the boundaries placed on us by evolution, nature, or chance. We invented tools, to compensate for weakness; we spread from our first settlements for resources, space, and simple curiosity; we built towns and cities; we developed the written word to share our knowledge with others; we made it possible to communicate with anywhere on our planet nigh-instantaneously – and then spread to another, and another. We overcame the barriers of light speed and linear space, and all the while directed that same progress in on ourselves; drugs and cybernetics to improve quality of life, technological advances to support ever greater populations, and so on.

Is it so far, then, to consider the technologies of consciousness transferral and human cloning as just another example of this, a way around death? A clunky and imperfect method, granted, but one that enables the Capsuleer-style infomorph to circumvent death as a matter of course. A first step to overcoming that ultimate barrier, one could argue.

Why, then, do many Capsuleers shy from cybernetic enhancements? I do not speak of the obvious and imposing examples, such as metallic limbs and the like, but simply the subtle ocular technologies, for instance, or those entirely within the brain. Is it so different from providing the examples of the AI or upload entity with more effective processing hardware?

I pose you these questions, Capsuleers:

Is there a limit on how far the transhumanist ideals of human enhancement through technological enhancement should be taken?

Does this limit change if genetic approaches are adopted above the cybernetic?

When does the transhuman become the posthuman?

Despite transhumanism being something so deeply engrained into the nature of the Capsuleer, is it something to be pursued by humanity as a whole, simply by those who can become Capsuleers, or something to discard entirely?

I believe that the choice to pursue a transhuman existence should be a personal choice based on an understanding of the process that is to be undertaken.


That brings up the further question of how far a human can be genetically altered and still be considered human. I believe the Jove are an example of how one can go too far in that regard, and combined with the above statement, do you truly wish there to be a link between the two? Are the Jove still human? If one forces genetic changes upon an individual aside from natural selection, could there potentially be problems down the line?


When does a human stop being human?


Why can't it be pursued by individuals? Why must it be limited to capsuleers?

What are your personal views, Kybernetes Moros?

Mr. Moros, please forgive me as I mean no disrespect, but I’d just like to clarify a minor point that we can transmit our consciousness between bodies through deep neural scans without inflicting permanent damage to gray matter tissue. The perils of interstellar travel make the capsule and fast burning clone technology a necessary sacrifice for the preservation of information up to the moment of breach.

Humanity, as a species, has always utilized its ingenuity to transcend its state, to improve its condition, evolve its behavior, and adapt to an increasingly complex array of challenges. It is for this reason why I find the notion of transhumanism and posthumanism synonymous with humanism, simply as descriptors of the human condition. We have learned to be come dependent on technology, to varying degrees, which help us thrive as a species to which I feel very few could describe themselves as anything but ‘trans’-human. The posthuman condition implies an evolutionary step in which humanity itself has reached obsolescence by this new species, and to imply the infomorph is such a creature might perhaps be premature.

However, I feel you touched on a significant point by addressing the fact that many humans, baseline and infomorph alike, share a similar apprehension to the depth in which they explore their own limitations. Just as men were afraid of the first vaccines in a time long ago, there too exist those afraid to embrace the tools available to us in the modern age. I feel it is imperative that when we discuss matters of evolution, we remember to recognize that our perceptions and ideas have to change to meet the needs of the future. What we see before us today are men of yesterday, still engaged in war for power and material wealth, with weapons and tools supplied by visionaries of tomorrow.

It is my sincere hope that our species survives this transition to witness the future.

Regards,
Nola J. Doyle

Is there a limit on how far the transhumanist ideals of human enhancement through technological enhancement should be taken?

We should not be seeking to become something more then human, simply human in it's purest and most advanced form, before becoming something different. We should never allow ourselves to become different or seperate from our Humanity.

Does this limit change if genetic approaches are adopted above the cybernetic?

Genetic approaches to transhumanism or post humanism are different from the cybernetic. As different as night and day in fact. Genetic post humans would imply the complete recreation of our DNA, destroying what it is to be human and creating something different. Cybernetics is simply the replacing of what is natural with something unnatural and man made.

When does the transhuman become the posthuman?

We do not become anything but human until there is nothing human left. For example. If the body you are in, has no organic part to it. None whatsoever, everything being synthetic and none of it being what fits the genus as "homo sapien" that is when you become post human. This can argueably not be achieved through genetics due to the fact the genes can always be traced back to what it once was, and as we stand we cannot simply destroy all the data in our dna and rebuild humans into something else from the ground up.

As long as any single remnant of the being that is and or was human at one point remains, anything remotely relatable with the human race, then it remains a subtype of human. Whether what remains is a hear, a lung, a brain, it is still human. Albeit, in some severe cases, a very twisted and pitiable thing.

Despite transhumanism being something so deeply engrained into the nature of the Capsuleer, is it something to be pursued by humanity as a whole, simply by those who can become Capsuleers, or something to discard entirely?

Transhumanism is not exactly a bad thing. To strive for the perfection of one self is actually something humanity has strived for since it's creation, as far as we can tell. However, the idea to become something more then human is... well one's own choice honestly. But you cannot truly become more then human, or other then, without becoming... well... not yourself. Capsuleers are still human, even if we consider us above our planet born nd mortal counterparts. We are human as long as any point of dna can be traced to the human genome and matched. Or as long as there is DNA to trace.

To strive to perfect oneself as a human being is an honorable thing to do. To strive to become something greater then human... often results in becoming something far lesser. In the most common cases that have been implemented on others, it makes the subjects little more then husks, barely capable of thought in many cases, beyond the most instinctual things. Even then, the subjects were and are still human. Only... less so then most.

I should note, most of this is my personal belief on the situation. You can argue against it, but it is simply how I have decided to perceive being physicially human. Now this could go into a full metaphysical debate as well, as in what it means to be human mentally or as a state of being, but I am more interested in the biology behind it. Far as I am concerned you stop being human when there is no trace of what you were once before. And that can only be achieved through the complete removal and replacement of everything that makes you physically human. All the way down to the very DNA in your cells.

I agree with this, really.

With that being said, I do not believe Dr. Moros was positing the superiority of trans/post humans, but rather was questioning at which points do we stop being human, or reach a limit.


I tend to agree with Katrina's thread of though. Humanity is a way of thinking and acting in a certain way, which we may call "ethical", "humane", or perhaps "logical". Regardless of what contains it (whether it is made of skin, plastic, metal, or something more exotic), it is the consciousness that determines humanity.

First, let me thank you Cpt. Moros, for this interesting topic.

Before I answer your questions, I have to give some comments to what you and others here wrote so far. Therefore I beg your patience and allow me to address some issues:

Every Capsuleer is, or has been, by definition, a transhumanist to some extent. Were or had we not, why would we have accepted the opportunity to become what has commonly become known as "infomorphs"?

This does very much depend on ones definition of 'transhumanist'. Fact is, though, that many Amarr and also many others join the ranks of capsuleers without having a transhumanist ideology or philosophy in the background of that decision. To fight for the Empire or pursuit of wealth seems to be a sufficient motivator for signing up in a capsuleer program.

Infomorph - It can, however, be extended away from the Capsuleer to define an entire category of life; where a "traditional" biological being is fundamentally tied to a single body, an infomorph is not.

If a "traditional" biological being is fundamentally tied to a single body, how does it come that some piece of technology can break this fundamental bond? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that there is a better way to analyze this phenomenon? Is the infomorph a living being at all and if so in what sense? What does 'living being' mean? If one gives the traditional criteriology to answer this question, an infomorph in the sense of 'that which is transmitted from body to body' doesn't fulfill a lot of criteria.
This, really, is a difficult and deep question.

we are far closer to baseline humanity than other infomorph entities, in this respect.

Does being an infomorph and being a human exclude each other? I don't think so. If it does, than the infomorph would be a posthuman, not a transhuman according to my definitions (see below).

Why, then, do many Capsuleers shy from cybernetic enhancements?

Do they? Given my background it should be highly probable that I've some of the enhancements that are standard for imperial boarding troops. Of course, you don't see them, but that's exactly I think your statement that capsuleers 'shy away from cybernetic enhancements' is a bold one resting on a shaky foundation.

Humanity, as a species, has always utilized its ingenuity to transcend its state, to improve its condition, evolve its behavior, and adapt to an increasingly complex array of challenges. It is for this reason why I find the notion of transhumanism and posthumanism synonymous with humanism, simply as descriptors of the human condition.

While the first sentence expresses in my opinion an exact picture of humanity, I can't agree less with the equation of 'humanism equals transhumanism equals posthumanism'. The three are different things and should be treated as such. Failing to do so shows only a lack of understanding of the conditio humana.

I'd roughly define the terms as following:

Humanism is the stance to make all things human the standard of all human action.

Transhumanism (sensu latu) is the stance that acknowledges the need of humans to reach beyond what is merely human and to realize it while remaining human. It's an idea of human extended by what lies beyond mere humanity. Sensu strictu it's the idea that this extension of the conditio humana should and can be achieved by technoscientific means.

Posthumanism is the stance that what makes us human is something that holds us back and should be forsaken for a better non-human state as soon as possible. This state again is thought to be reachable by technoscientific means.

As both post-humanism and trans-humanism deal with what lies beyond humanity - that is with one of the purviews of religion - it's little wonder that communities of both kind share many features with many cults. They've prophecies (visions) and the prophets (visionaries) to match and usually promise to deliver humanity from suffering. They are usually engaged in one or the other way in missionary endeavors and try to spread the word of a better tomorrow. Equally, they do damn those that don't share their vision or do even oppose it. Also, they have in general a feeling of superiority as the chosen people (avant-garde).

Interesting albeit a bit of ponderousness here. The prefixes "trans" and "post" both place a separation between the capsuleer and the rest of humanity that artificially feeds the idea of self-importance fueling the narcissism and violence that prevails among eggers.

I return to the need to counter the false concept taught in every capsuleer school that the capsuleer has power "over" others. The Disciples of Ston have chosen to use the unique opportunity of being a capsuleer to exercise power "for" others. Thus, we prefer an idea of prohumanism; that the capsuleer need not discard our human connection as if it is a vestige of evolution, but rather embrace and magnify it so that all humanity rises.

In many ways, the capsuleer is not the apex of anything, but an example of failure. Most humans learn to dignify their existence as humans and to embrace their mortality living in the beauty of their flesh. But, the capsuleer ego rarely acknowledges this. Demi-gods? I think not. The best use of our power to elevate humanity through service.

We have not become infomorphs, we have merely artificially and occassionally separated the infomorph from the corporality that it animates. However, make no mistake, there is no evidence that the infomorph has been, is, or will ever be independent of the corporality which sustains it in consciousness. That is a pipe dream of arrogance.

Oh, I don't disagree with the philosophical definitions either. I disagree with how capsuleers misinterpret most philosophies to justify violence and self-indulgence. The fact of the matter is that the capsuleer sees the word"transhumanism" and says, O, goody, a philosoiphy that justifies being the worst I can be. Mithra's definition of transhumanism is, indeed right. It is just sad that it isn't understood that way. I guess my point was that regular ol' humans usually make better transhumanists than do capsuleers.

Thank you all for your replies so far; such considered and well-written posts are certainly a welcome sight here. I was hardly expecting to return to so great a volume of quality posts. Before I address any of the responses to the questions with which you were presented, I would likely to better to turn towards the comments made.

Nola Doyle and Tiberious Thessalonia.
I tie these responses together for the sake of conserving space and avoiding repetition; with two presented ideologies so similar, it seems that I would be well served to address both simultaneously.

First, however, Ms. Doyle's first paragraph. I am familiar with the respective processes for transmitting a consciousness processed by a human brain, and had hoped to convey the idea of the most rapid and straight-forward method there is available to the cluster entails the effective destruction of said brain. That being said, your clarification for those who might have interpreted my unintentionally ambiguous phrasing differently is both kind and entirely welcome.

Your comments on there being little distinction between trans-, post-, and plain old humanism are not far detached from what I am personally inclined towards. As I briefly mentioned, there is a common element of self-improvement and a certain nervousness in each new step over some old limitation or another throughout much of human history – look to the duality of nuclear physics or antimatter as both energy source and weapon, for instance, for an example of this being welcome.

Other times, however, this trepidation is more restrictive than it is protective. Some degree of reticence to change is, in many respects, an entirely natural feeling... but is it not such natural limits that we try to surpass?

To embrace every potential change as the new and world-changing paradigm to be adopted universally often proves unwise. After all, the change in question may be poorly-understood, not considered from every angle, or simply overshadowed by something better yet to be thought of -- but on the other side of the coin, how can a situation ever be improved when change is viewed as negative, overly-idealistic, or any other such idea?

"The men of yesterday supplied by the visionaries of tomorrow" is an eloquent summation of what I attempt to convey in this section of this second post, I think. It is not just technological change that can be considered transhuman.

Rel'k Bloodlor.
The concept of the unreliability of memory is one recurrent throughout philosophy and fiction, especially now the means to effectively alter memories, given the time and resources, are available to us. While it is a theme perhaps explored best in another thread, a question to consider in response would be that, if the memories constructed are consistent with the universe in which they exist and entirely indistinguishable from "natural" memories formed from experience, are they any less valid? The experience gained from such artificial memories would, in this case, be accessed just as a more conventional one might; the same emotional responses elicited; the same lessons learned.

If it walked like a duck, swam like a duck, and quacked like a duck, but only inside your head, was it still a duck?

Rodj Blake and Ston Momaki.
Once again, these two responses are similar enough that it seems worthwhile to write to both at once.

By virtue of stemming from baseline humanity, the Capsuleer frequently does suffer from the same fallibilities as many other human beings. It is not difficult to see this; the Capsuleer is, all too often, an avaricious and prideful beast. It is easy to point towards the null-security alliances as an example of this on a grand scale, but to single them out above any Capsuleer dwelling in any part of space is unfair. The greed and petty squabbles amongst the Capsuleers operating on a smaller scale may not create such strong ripples in the overarching political landcape, but it is most definitely there. Another limitation to overcome in time, perhaps.

As an aside, Mr. Blake, I am glad to see a dichotomy between “power” and “superiority” in your response. The two are treated as identical far too much for my tastes.

Mr. Momaki, I curious as to why a more independent infomorph is a pipe dream, and even more so as to why it is one born of arrogance. Todo Kirkinen is the most cited example of somebody who has uploaded their consciousness to a computer system; has he not become independent of his body, simply requiring the properly configured and sufficiently advanced hardware to be conscious?

It is of course possible that you mean to say that there cannot be consciousness without processor, be that in the form of an organic brain, a computer, or something else entirely. I would in that case find myself agreeing, but I would still wonder why you chalk such up to arrogance.

Rek Jaiga.
The definition of "humanity" or "being human" as an argument is something frequently returned to in this forum. When I used it in my original post, I had the meaning of "the human race" in mind, and I hope to sidestep treading such old ground here, but your last sentence grabs my attention.

Does the consciousness have to come from a human at some stage to be classed as "human", in your framework? If a synthetic intelligence, designed and constructed solely by other synthetic intelligences, acted in that "ethical", "humane" fashion, would it qualify?

Nicoletta Mithra.
The definitions you provided are the ones I have generally been operating under. While I probably should have provided them for clarity's sake, I thank you for doing so yourself. While the degree to which each overlaps with the next is variable with personal belief, as seen in a number of earlier responses, the definitions themselves seem valid for the purposes of this discussion.

//Split to following post.

M. Moros,

You are of course correct that this topic can transcend politics. To that end:

My initial assertion remains valid. "How far is to far" is answered by when we can no longer trust that our actions or motivations are our own, rather than created by the implants we possess, or some external force who may have hijacked them.

The simple act of placing machines in our bodies alters our thoughts. It is not unreasonable that the more machines we house, the more our thoughts alter. As our thoughts alter, we would naturally seek out others with similar views, and become more estranged with those that have chosen to remain unaltered.

The further we stray from whence we came, the further we stray from what makes us human.

Adding machines to our bodies is not the same as evolution. As we evolved, we all moved forward together. As we add machines, we instead leave others behind.

It brings me profound sadness to reflect on how we willingly move away from where we came, forgetting, abandoning, and looking down on those who either choose to remain behind, or have that choice thrust upon them.

Humanity is what evolved to bring us this far. Humanity is what will continue to evolve and bring humans further.

By employing machines to infinitely prolong ourselves in this state, what will we miss out on as humanity evolves past us?