|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Posthuman article.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Transhumanism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 What is a Posthuman
- 2 About the See also / Related pages section
- 3 What Posthuman Isn't
- 4 On Posthumanism
- 5 Non-Local Memory!
- 6 References
- 7 Critical Posthuman Conceptions
- 8 Posthuman still mammal or at least based on DNA?
- 9 Relevance of the smoothness of the transition
- 10 HG Wells form of future human evolution
- 11 Moved page
- 12 Primo
- 13 Radical improvement
- 14 rem Pinker quote
- 15 Posthuman as the nature of human
- 16 Types of PostHuman
- 17 What is this article doing in an encyclopedia
- 18 New image disputed
- 19 Posthuman god
What is a Posthuman
Uh, not sure why someone reverted this section back to: "The difference between the posthuman and other hypothetical sophisticated non-humans is that a posthuman was once a human, either in its lifetime or in the lifetimes of some or all of its direct ancestors. As such, a prerequisite for a posthuman is a transhuman, the point at which the human being begins surpassing his or her own limitations, but is still recognizable as a human person or similar. In this sense, the transition between human and posthuman may be viewed as a continuum rather than an all-or-nothing event."
The very same Bostrom paper from which a quote in the preceding paragraph comes clearly states that, by definition, a posthuman need not have been related to a human. The quote is, from the Transhumanist FAQ: "Posthumans could be completely synthetic artificial intelligences, or they could be enhanced uploads."
Look, if you're going to keep the previous quote from Bostrom, then you have to put this one in too. After all, they are from the same paper. Please revert back to my modified version, which accurately states that, by agreed-upon definition, posthumans can be nonhuman entities.188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
About the See also / Related pages section
According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the "no see also sections" thing you've heard is correct. There is an official guideline on such sections, and there are several featured articles with "See also" sections. --Explodicle (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What Posthuman Isn't
"Posthuman" does not denote just anything that happens to come after the human era, nor does it have anything to do with the "posthumous". In particular, it does not imply that there are no humans anymore. A posthumanist, on the other hand, is simply someone who advocates posthumanism.
This sentence keeps being removed by Karl Bunker I have and will continue readding it because I think it is useful information to counter the confusion many people have regarding the terms 'posthuman', 'poshumanist' and 'posthumanism'. --Loremaster 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The second time I remove it, it was because we were editing at the same time, and the easiest way to resolve the conflict was to stomp on your edit, and frankly, I was hoping you wouldn't notice. However, I don't think there's much merit in keeping two of these three clarifications. Anyone who isn't clear that "posthumous" is a different word from "posthuman" simply doesn't know how to read, and this isn't supposed to be a reading instruction manual. And the fact that "posthuman" in this context doesn't refer to "what comes after humans are extinct" is completely obvious from the article. OTOH, I do think there should be a note that clarifies that "posthumanism" doesn't relate to "posthuman" as it's used in this article.
- So I propose that the following be removed:
- "Posthuman" does not denote just anything that happens to come after the human era, nor does it have anything to do with the "posthumous". In particular, it does not imply that there are no humans anymore.
- and the sentence that comes after that be changed to:
- "Posthuman" should not be confused with "posthumanism," which is a European philosophical extension of humanism.
- My apologies again for stomping on your edit. KarlBunker 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with your argument since many Wikipedia often provide instructional manual-like information to both help and inform readers, I will rephrase the first sentence rather then removing it. --Loremaster 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to rewrite a sentence, which is currently:
- It is a common error for social commentators to use "posthuman" to denote just anything that happens to come after the human era or imply that there will be no humans anymore.
- I think saying that this is a "common error" is questionable, since it's perfectly valid to use "post-human" to refer to a future where humans are extinct, and leaving out the hyphen doesn't necessarily constitute an error. Furthermore, "just anything that happens to come after the human era or imply that there will be no humans anymore" is awkward and unclear writing.
- I agree. This wasn't my writing. I was simply working with the content already on this page. However, I deleted the line The term "post-human" would be more correct for this because I don't think this distinction is tenable or accurate. --Loremaster 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Posthumanism should better not be characterised as an "extension" of humanism. Posthumanism is explicitly antihumanist. Moreover, in Europe the philosophical (postmodernist) posthumanism paved the way for the engineer's posthumanism of the Moravecs, Minskys etc.: Posthumanist philosophers and authors belonged to the first people in Europe who made references to Moravec etc. and included texts by the posthumanist engineers in their publications. One central common feature of both posthumanisms is the idea that machines (including machine intelligences) will become ever more important "actors", and that for this reason the centrality of the human being (as in classical humanism) is an old-fashioned idea. I think it would be better to delete the sentence or to extend the article. (I'm afraid my English is not good enough for doing this myself.)
- I think it would be more useful to have place your comments on the Talk:Posthumanism page. --Loremaster 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The memory (stored data) ISN'T local, but NON-LOCAL. That is simply a fact ! How can any real futurist think that the brain is some 'hard drive' (?), when it is a sort of 'antenna' (plus 'processor' of information, but stored elsewhere)... so that depiction of brain as a 'STORAGE' on this picture is simply erroneous and even ridiculous)... Refer to work of Rupert Sheldrake, and the theory of morphic fields. Even in Vedas, 5000 yrs ago, were mentioned 'Akashic Records' (actually morphic fields of an individuals' past) as something non-local (to brain), being a sort of cosmic 'library'. Also, many other scientists are aware of the NON-LOCAL nature of memories, eg. Nikola Tesla, who gave the AC electricity to the world(and opened the doors to 'modern age') knew a whole century ago, that brain is just a sort of antenna to somewhere else where these data are actually stored. Plus, if there was any physical traces of data IN the brain, it would have been already detected with some nano-hi-tech equipment, but of course weren't since data are simply NOT IN THE BRAIN. greetings
- What does rant have to do with the article on posthuman? Please see the new message at the top of this page. --Loremaster 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing really relevant is that the whole subject is based on something essentially ERRONEOUS (and not if the message is properly signed or not). Saying the memory is something local and 'material' is simply a falsification of the facts! That is the only thing that matters, the FACTS. And memory is NON-LOCAL. It is not a 'ranting', but presenting the facts... 184.108.40.206 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Greetings
- Putting aside the fact that your views regarding memory are pseudo-scientific and not widely held by members of the scientific community or the public at large, where exactly in the Posthuman article does it state that memory is something local and material? --Loremaster 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the Primo_Posthuman picture, and you'll see the brain depicted as Data memory STORAGE (!?) system! Absolutely wrong and even ridiculous... Data are NOT stored in the brain. Brain is a 'processor' and an 'antenna', but NOT a 'storage'. Of course the greedy capitalistic demons will try to maintain that erroneous idea of brain-as-a-storage, since the idea of sharing (the experience-memories) is so alien to them. Not only personal memory-experience is non-local (stored in some 'fields'/'hyperplanes'/'records_in_UNIVERSAL_database') but all the cosmic experience (including personal). And not only mental, but all the organic experience as well. Genes are only 'keys' to unlock some information from this (non-local) database (fields/hyperplanes), ie. non-locally stored. Genes are NOT information themselves. 220.127.116.11 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) greetings
- The thing is that this view of 'memories-IN-the-brain' is what is pseudo! Science DIDN'T find any physical traces of memories IN the brain and will never find them, so how can a view that is based on memories being STORED IN the brain be non-pseudo, and something that doesn't contradict the reality (since reality is that they are NOT found IN the brain) be 'pseudo'... 18.104.22.168 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC) greetings
- This talk page is not the place to debate the merits or flaws of your views on memory. Please stop it or you will be reported to an administrator. --Loremaster 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know it's months later but I couldn't help commenting... even if the pseudo scientific view that memories are stored out side the brain somewhere was correct... which it clearly is not... then the poster would still be missing the point ... the picture shows an arrow pointing out additional nanotech storage, like a hard drive in the head, not the natural storage that any human would have. Kiffer.geo 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. --Loremaster 11:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't the references in the Posthuman article produce footnotes on the page?
Sorry, still kind of new at this. --BartlebyScrivener 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken care of it. --Loremaster 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! BartlebyScrivener 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Critical Posthuman Conceptions
Loremaster, I encountered you on the posthumanism page and again on here. I just want to point out that "posthuman", as thought of by "posthumanists" like N. Katherine Hayles, is not exactly like what is described in this article and is directly opposed to humanist practices of life, which as I understand are still relied on by transhumanists (at least to some degree). I would propose some sort of separation, but I can't add content right at this moment, so I'm just throwing the idea out there for now. Hopefully, I'll be able to write something more substantive soon, but I wanted to engage in the discussion and see if this is perhaps the right place for this distinction to be made. I think it is, as there is no posthuman (critical) entry. --AdamFJohnson 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, I am aware of the fact that the concept of "posthuman" for thinkers like N. Katherine Hayles is not similar to the one discussed in this article. No one has suggested that it is. Therefore, I think it might best that you contribute to the Posthuman (critical theory) article when you find the time. --Loremaster 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Posthuman still mammal or at least based on DNA?
What I miss in the article is a clarification whether the term "posthuman" as applied to a being still requires that the being is a biological one, meaning either still being a mammal or at least still having DNA encoding of the design of its body as its basis. Could someone knowledgable please add detail on that? --Dan Polansky 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- A posthuman does not even have to be a physical entity. It can be a process hosted by a computer. It follows from that  and . --Dan Polansky 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Relevance of the smoothness of the transition
I do not see the significance of the statement that posthuman was once a human, or at least one of his ancestors was. Imagine I have a triangle that I smoothly morph into a square. Would the resulting square qualify as a "post-triangle" only because it was created through a smooth transition? Or in a similar vein, is a human actually a post-ape, post-mouse, post-frog, post-dolphin or even post-amoeba or post-bacteria? --Dan Polansky 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
HG Wells form of future human evolution
Just a note that this might be a good add into the article: Human species 'may split in two'
It's a theory put out by a London School of Economics scholar so it's a legitimate postulate as to human evolution. -- Permafrost 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am wary of giving undue weight to the science-fictional speculation of only one scholar. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the inclusion of several different points of view. --Loremaster 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- In future, please use the "move" button rather than cutting and pasting the article contents - moving the page you did removes the article history. See WP:MOVE. I have fixed this one. Neıl ☎ 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This image was originally part of this article, but was later removed, I think. The image itself has been released into the public domain and it pretty well describes what Posthuman is all about. But after I added it, there's an "uncertain" status blurb. I think it should be kept since the license now makes it a free image. Anyone object? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have an objection to this image being used but its status must be resolved otherwise it will have to be removed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
rem Pinker quote
I removed it because, tho replacing neurons with silicon-based computation is one kind of technology that could lead to a posthuman, this example explicitly leaves cognition/behavior unchanged. This is not posthuman; or if you think a substrate change is enough, that case needs to be made. As it stood, the quote contradicted the preceding sentence which spoke of "surpassing [...] limitations". Pinker is making points about identity and the computational basis of the self in humans, not trans/post-humanity. "alyosha" (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Posthuman as the nature of human
Well, this article certainly lacks some aesthetical viewpoints like Mario Perniola's "Sex Appeal Of The Inorganic", a very deep thinking on the subject. And some communication theorists like Marshall McLuhan and Derrick de Kerckhove.
And it would be very nice to have a section to show how the posthuman is being treated by the fiction in general, from Blade Runner to Ghost In The Shell, all of David Cronenberg's films, Philip K. Dick, William Gibson and cyberpunk, etc. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you have found reliable sources that explicitly mention how the posthuman is treated in these works, I encourage you to create a unser account and expand this article. However, be careful not to engage in original research. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Types of PostHuman
This article is concerned with the definition of PostHuman... ...But should it also mention types of PostHuman ??
For example, it touches on uploaded human consciousness, but how about the fact that an uploaded human consciousness is not much different from an artificial intelligence - so if there's little difference, is there a difference at all ??
Also, comics often talk about posthumans in the form of people who are the next step in Humanity by virtue of their natural ability
Also, should this article make more mention of Cyberpunk, as a stepping stone from NowHumans to FutureHumans ??
- You may be right but we need reliable sources that discuss the issues you've raised otherwise we would be adding original research in the article which is frowned upon. --Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
What is this article doing in an encyclopedia
7 references? Come on, this isn't an encyclopedia article. I suggest it's quarantined on the talk page until it meets basic standards re. verifiability and not containing original research.188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would object to a quarantine. Let's just work on improving it where it is. --Loremaster (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
New image disputed
I've reverted User:Ewigekrieg's addition of a new image of an artist's conception of a posthuman . Putting aside the fact that I don't know why anyone who desires to become posthuman would want to look like that creature, both the artist (Joana Coccarelli) and the image (Zodiac posthuman) are unnotable.
It makes far more sense to (re-)add the Primo Posthuman 3M+ image created by Natasha Vita-More, the first and most well-known transhumanist artist. (File:Trans-post-human2.jpg was deleted on 15 November 2007 for a reason that is no longer known) --Loremaster (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Loremaster. Image that was added was borderline silly, IMO. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this section confusing, especially the equivocation of "plane of existence" with "parallel universe" and further equivocation of "parallel universe" with "supernatural realm". At the very least some clarification is needed here.
What is an example of a scifi that claims posthumans will create/discover a supernatural realm?
I think it would be adequate just to make this section a discussion of Shermer's last law.
The aspect of creating schizophrenic, multiple personalities needs to be addressed as WIKI published the phenomenon of up-or downloading other identities.
I have had major problems with some of Wikipedia's articles about post and transhumans as the lawfulness of the experiments that enabled the inputs and feeds have hardly ever been addressed, and reading about the phenomena in WIKIPEDIA may make illegal research appear legal.
How do people know of developments that cannot and must not be known because the science to have gained this knowledge would not have been based on existing laws? If somebody puts in his or her knowledge of uploading another identity into a human, would WIKIPEDIA, please, require this person to disclose whether this knowledge stems from legal sources:
experience as a consenting research human own legal research with consenting humans and AI Other (consumption of science fiction books should not count) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)