Point of transcendence

At what point of development does one cease to be human? The paradox of Theseus' ship illustrates the problem of defining the point of passing on to a transhuman existence. Each part of the ship is replaced in turn, until all the original components of it have been replaced. Is this still the same ship? With a continuum of changes and modifications made to the biological and/or psychological make-up of a human, where do we draw the line, saying that this person is no longer human?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marino on June 27, 2009 at 5:45pm: I would define a posthuman is a person that either used to be a human or is a descendant of humans whose intelligence is mostly non-biological.

How do we determine the percentage of biological-ness? Hm, I'm not entirely sure. I'm sure "levels of human-ness (as opposed to humaneness :P) will defined in the coming decades". Possibly when the person's IQ raises above a certain mark? 200 IQ and up? Hm.

Great question! :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peer Infinity on June 28, 2009 at 12:51pm: My usual response to this question is either "I usually don't worry about answering questions like these, it seems like a moderately entertaining waste of time", or "Why, specifically, are you trying to answer these question? What real-world decision could the answer affect? What possible experiments could you set up to test an answer to these questions?"

In other words, these questions seem like they belong in the same general category as "If a tree falls in the woods, and there's noone around to hear it, does it make a sound?" - Fun to think about, but not of much practical use.

Though if you can think of a reason why the answer is important, please post the reason here. :)

See also Disputing Definitions, and some of the articles in that series

Of course it's important to have a general idea of what you mean by "posthuman", but I generally prefer not to worry about details like these unless there is a specific reason why you would need to know the answer.

But that's just my opinion, don't let me stop you from participating in an entertaining debate about definitions :)

edit: Marino pointed out an obvious example of where the definition is important: in a legal context, court cases, etc. And that seems like it would make the matter even more complicated, rather than simplifying the question...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marino on June 28, 2009 at 1:04pm: Peer, what about in a legal context?

Have you seen the move The Bicentenial Man?

Namely, the court scene?

"No matter how much you may be LIKE a human being, you are not part of the human gene pool. You are outside of it entirely. You are something else. Something...artificial."

I can imagine posthumans facing this problem in court and being denied rights that are available to baseline humans. So yes, I do think definitions are important, for they are what constitutes the legal system and the legal system constitutes our civil rights.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peer Infinity on June 28, 2009 at 1:16pm: Hmm... should we start a new thread for what rights we expect may be denied to posthumans, and which of these rights we don't really care about anyway?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marino on June 28, 2009 at 1:21pm: Sure, although I'm not exactly versed in the legal system. :P; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tleilaxu_chemist on July 31, 2009 at 8:58pm: I believe the definition of human has and will continue to change. As long as there is a continuity, "human" will be anything that could claim decendancy from humans.
For example. I create an AI on a super computer, prolly not human. I download my personality onto a super computer, prolly recognized by many as human. But I have my biology peice by peice replaced with non biological materials AND somehow generate an offspring that is similar to my non biological self. I'm convinced the offspring will be recognized as human because I was human at one point.
I believe these questions are worth answering because they indicate how we perceive reality. Take the tree falling in the woods. I see two different but logically consistent arguments. The tree makes a sound because "sound" is defined as vibrations which are in fact made from the tree falling. OR. The tree does not make a sound because "sound" is defined as the interpretation by a brain of said vibrations formed by the tree falling.
The two answers are both logically consistent yet completely divergent. In short, its not "You're both right" its you're each right in your own circle and understanding of the universe and experience.
Does objective reality move on without us regardless of our experience, or does experience necessarily define reality?
While each answer i think works in its own way, i'm sceptical that you can truely ultimately comprehend the universe without picking one or recognizing the duality of potential answers. And for me at least, that is the point of existing at all.
But to each their own.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Abhishek Mathur on August 1, 2009 at 12:07pm: Whether an entity is human or not-a-human-any-more,could only be decided if we have a clear specifications of what "Human" is. If we have that definition, then the point of transcendence would be the point where each point of the definition of human could no longer hold.
So before pondering over how to define posthumans, we have to define human being. Then it would be easy to identify by human traits that the superintelligent entity that we are interacting with is a posthuman and not an AI with super-duper intelligence.
Beware, super-duper intelligent AI could simulate human like traits, specially stupidity. So defining "Human" is quite a conundrum in itself and would eventually lead into the definition of Posthuman and will clear the position of Point of transcendence.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ni Geo on August 8, 2009 at 5:58pm: We call human beings those who have lived many thousand years BC and we also call human beings those who live today. These two groups of beings are totally different but they share the same name because they are part of the same evolutionary string. The following evolutionary progress is more sudden than any other till now. But whatever that comes out of that metamorphosis can still be called a human whether it looks like the human we know or not. There's no need for such a legal segregation between humans and posthumans because they (the enhanced humans) are the next step in the human evolutionary progress. I think we should accept that.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Abhishek Mathur on August 9, 2009 at 5:07am: But are we going to call those "Human beings" who will be outside of our Gene Pool. Would I be called a "Human" if, due to some step in the human evolutionary progress, I uploaded my mind to a synthetic brain which, as most popular assumption goes, would be inorganic. This inorganic brain of mine would be mounted on an *inorganic* much more super human body. I am surly would not be a cyborg as piece of physical entity i own, would have no bit of organic matter in it. I would be transformed from a "human" into this entity. Even my brain is positronic. And in front of me is standing Mr. Andrew Martin, our Bicentennial Man. "He" transformed himself into a "human" from a machine and I have transformed myself from "human" to "this entity". What should i call this entity. Am I still be considered as the part of the same evolutionary string, or is Mr. Andrew , just before he has been declared "longest living human being", is now a part of the same evolutionary string.
The point is that the segregation between humans and posthumans is needed to actually identify the difference between an enhanced machine and an enhanced human. That is because technological singularity will eliminate the behavioral and physical difference between them if we only assume that a post human will get all its parts replaced with inorganic parts.
What if the things goes the other way round, as Mr. Andrew did. What if instead of being superhuman with inorganic parts, the state could also be achieved using "artificial but organic" parts (organic steel or something like that...we can imagine that, after all Singularity is Near).
So if Theseus' ship would be replaced by much efficient-self-replicating-self-healing-strong parts but made of same matter as the actual ship's old parts, Theseus's ship would still deserves to be called Theseus's ship.
We need a wide definition of Human as the organic-inorganic or the gene pool thing or the evolutionary string would not be sufficient. We need to define "Humanity" and whatever entity possesses those traits, irrespective of origin, irrespective of what it is capable of, irrespective of what it is made of, could be termed as HUMAN.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ni Geo on August 11, 2009 at 6:59am: This is surely going to be an unseen evolutionary change, very dissimilar to the classical view of evolution. Why differ enhanced machine and enhanced human when there is no practical difference? Are you afraid that a computer is going to have the same rights as you? If it deserves it, then it should. We preserve our race by making children, why not preserve it by making machines? We will soon reach the spot when our consciousness will make us consider our self-progress more important than our sentimental human notions. And about the legal perspective - there will be no need for legal segregation because the future society will be very intolerant towards anything that prevents intelligence development. That control will be realized without establishing any rules or boundaries. It is a self-controlling, self-keeping, self-regulating system I am talking about.
As the information travels faster and wider and becomes more available, people's thoughts and minds are becoming barer. That's why hiding information will be harder. More advanced inter and intra-communication
between groups of people will be developed, so a lot of criminal will be reduced. At the beginning, we'll play by the old rules, but very soon the new superior society will take over the control. The old system has the tradition, the new one has the technology, the intelligence, the power.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Damjan Cvetkov Dimitrov on August 11, 2009 at 9:14pm: Instead of defining humanity or being human, we could/should reinvent it, broaden the definition and actually integrate the essence of our goal/s.

@Abhishek my money is on inorganics, we got a lot of residual matter and brain that is mostly unnecessary for reaching exponential growth and IA. And we got a lot of digging till we reach the point when we know exactly what the amplify. Even if we find that essence that if amplified, would enable us to develop exponentially, we would need time to develop ways how to amplify it. If its done with software, then we can just let it run. It would outdo us all in seconds. The inorganic AI way is the lazy man's way, which is not necessarily bad.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Abhishek Mathur on August 12, 2009 at 2:56pm: Since the singularity is near and technology is growing exponentially, the exponential evolution has not only been confined to the inorganics but there also exists an organic evolution {whose result might be something like Species 8472 from StarTrek Voyager---extremely muscular, and biologically unique,their DNA is arranged in a triple helix formation, have the most densely coded DNA,immune system is able to destroy anything which penetrates their body systems: chemical, biological, or technological and their "BioShips" share their unique genetic makeup, are living organic vessels capable of warp speed, and are very heavily armed and shielded. Inside, the walls and floor appear to be flesh; Their organic technology was so advanced that they are considered to be the only one capable of defeating the "Borgs" who were cyborgs-mostly inorganic except brain and very few other body parts }.

But the question here is not of organic or inorganic. The question here is that at what point of development does one cease to be human? Would there be such Point of transcendence?
At that point,when the difference between machines and humans blurs a lot, we need the extended,broadened definition of humanity which will tell us that we are successful in preserving that humanness or rather humane-ness (Eliezer Yudkowsky has proposed that “The important thing is not to be Human but to be Humane.") According to Yudkowsky "Some human attributes, such as empathy and a sense of fairness, are positive; others, such as a tendency toward tribalism or groupishness, have left deep scars on human history. If there is value in being human, it comes, not from being "normal" or "natural", but from having within us the raw material for humaneness: compassion, a sense of humor, curiosity, the wish to be a better person.One might say that if "human" is what we are, then "humane" is what we, as humans, wish we were. "
Our goal and wish as transhumans is to be a post-human who has the ability to cope up with the technological singularity and beyond. Also we want to enhance our humanity so that it could also cope up with the accelerating changes and didn't get extinct. To do that we could accept an ethical system to the extent that agrees with the body of patterns known as ‘humaneness`.So at the Point of Transcendence, and after that, any being possessing such traits could probably be called a "Humane". That would be a Positive Transcension. Transhumans should encourage that.; ▶ Reply to This