Eugene Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Yes, however it is a good idea not to dismiss the use of technologies
> > like this out of hand. What distinguishing characteristics do we use
> > to decide what technologies, when applied to a person, make that
> > person 'transhuman'? Must they be electronic? Must they be active and
> There are no transhumans around today. There might be some around
> tomorrow. Meaning, you'll never meet any. (Unless you or them can do time
> > responsive to feedback and control by the user? Must they be
> > permanently attached? Or must they simply be features that allow a
> > person to achieve better than normal human performance? For example,
> > contact lenses that give you 20/10 vision, or that have a zoom ability
> > that actively responds to the eyes attempts to focus in on targets at
> > distances?
> I would put transhuman at 'so heavily modified or designed from scratch
> you can't associate it with the point of departure, as basic human bauplan
> for the last few 100 kYrs'.
> Meaning, you wouldn't recognize it as human, or even a being, if you
> happened to run into it.
This is not meaningful. If we constantly think of ourselves as human, no
matter how highly augmented we are because 'current day' technology is
'not transhuman', then nobody will ever be transhuman.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:06 MDT