Jump to content

Talk:Transhuman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LionKimbro (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 14 January 2011 (→Explain Reverts: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Redirect

This is just a dictionary entry, and I can't see it becoming much more. I'm blanking this and redirecting to transhumanism. --Schaefer 16:14, 25 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have demerged them and expanded the article. Loremaster 17:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When searching for transhuman, I would have prefered to find the article on Transhumanism that this one. For now, I've added a see also, but I think I agree with the merger suggestion. KalevTait 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in see also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no see also sections. --Loremaster 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KalevTait, I disagree. Since people confuse the terms transhuman and transhumanist which are two different things, I think Transhuman and Transhumanism being seperate articles is helpful in diminishing this confusion. Also, the more thinkers are able to determine the characteristics of a transhuman the more this article has potential to be expanded. --Loremaster 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to transhumanism disclaimer at the top of the page. --Loremaster 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link because it was not a disclaimer in legal terms, it was a redirect or a newdirect. It is not of value to this article. It is important that this article stand on its own. The transhuman came before transhumanism and FM-2030 was not interested in a social movement but an evolution of the human. Bty, Nick Bostrom did not know FM and there are far better criticism by people who actually are disagreeing with the idea of the transhuman - a human in transition to becoming posthuman, not the transhumanism vs. transhuman. Avantguarde 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your fallacious rationale for removing the link. The article can obviously stand on its own despite the presence of this useful link (which helps people who were looking to read the article on transhumanism rather than the one on transhuman) so I've reinserted it. --Loremaster 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

Conflicting information about the date of usage of the word, "transhumanism"

The first known use of the word, "transhumanism," in the introduction of the Transhumanism article does not match its source (2b). I would assume that it is a typo, but I stumbled upon the article coming from the page about Olaf Stapledon. That article lists the first appearance of the word as 1966, but a brief text search of the source reveals no mention of the word transhuman or the year 1966 except the date on quarterly or whatever it was.

Hopefully, we won't be hearing about any high school essays with an incorrect date for the appearance of the word, "transhumanism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.61.162 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did "Trans-Human" first make appearance?

1951:

"In consequence one is the less disposed to reject as unscientific the idea that the critical point of planetary Reflection, the fruit of socialization, far from being a mere spark in the darkness, represents our passage, by Translation or dematerialization, to another sphere of the Universe: not an ending of the ultra-human but its accession to some sort of trans-humanity at the ultimate heart of things." -- Teilhard, Paris, 27 April, 1950. Almanach des Sciences, 1951.

1949:

"Liberty: that is to say, the chance offered to every man (by removing obstacles and placing the appropriate means at his disposal) of ‘trans-humanizing’ himself by developing his potentialities to the fullest extent." -- Unpublished. Paris. 2 February 1949.

see also: Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism

This is just out of one book I read of Teilhards, I am sure he used the word in others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoted source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhuman&diff=prev&oldid=355873801

You haven't provided a legitimate reason for this paragraph to be deleted since no one is arguing that these scientists support the transhumanist view of the transhuman. --Loremaster (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Reverts

Loremaster, please explain why you are reverting the page.

I have pointed to clear evidence that "transhuman" was used by both Teilhard de Chardin and Julian Huxley in 1950 & 1957. The use of the word "transhuman" in both cases is clearly in line with what is talked about later on.

Please explain why you are reverting my good faith edits, without any explanation beyond "no original research," contra Wikipedia policy.

LionKimbro (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transhuman&oldid=407766116"