<sigh> Here's a general definition of transhumanism: That's courtesy define:transhumanism into Google. Here's a similarly pedigreed definition of the singularity: What you're talking about is: Which you defined as "transhumanism." Effectively, you wish to discuss the singularity, but misapplied your title. "Transhumanism" is basically cybernetics: ...as applied to augmentation beyond the baseline. The whole "vanishing into the machine" thing is much more commonly discussed as the technological singularity. I gave you two discussions - the first about transhumanism (because you asked) and the second about the singularity (because apparently giving you a conversation about transhumanism pissed you off). So your turn - can you explain how this is not a response to what you posted?the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.
a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence and other technologies have become so advanced that humanity undergoes a dramatic and irreversible change.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that humanity has not and therefore cannot make it. And, since humanity has seemingly destroyed any hope of biologically evolving as a species, our only hope is to inject our consciousness into machines.
the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things
Definitely what I was saying. How was that not clear?
What isn't explicit? Why do people think the only way we can evolve is through -- basically -- becoming cyborgs (by giving up the humanity we have not fully explored)?
You talk about biological evolution, but you're not talking about eugenics. Do you mean "will we keep evolving naturally" then? I would think so, if we face evolutionary pressure, but I'm not a biologist. Then below you describe something that sounds like Nietzschean self-overcoming, but that has nothing to do with evolution and arose out of a creative misunderstanding of it.
...We are a species capable of deciding. We can choose how this goes. I do not think it is viable nor intelligent of us to give up a humanity we have not explored. That does not mean forcing anything that isn't there. It means using it to our advantage. We have destroyed so much without altering ourselves genetically, then it stands to reason we can create just as much. That is all I meant.
Because what I'm talking about is not specifically defined as having anything to do with technologically enhancing ourselves in any way...? And I said, "in the mainstream" for a reason. Many people do not think there is any reasonable way for humanity to evolve besides becoming more mechanical in one way or another.
I swear this guy posts stuff and argues with people simply to argue. Just ignore this troll.
So you're saying I'm a troll because.. this is a place for discussion and I don't agree with you? Wow. Such logic.
No, you're claiming to want discussion but try to shoot down any opinions that aren't yours without offering intelligent counterarguments.
I have had to explain every little thing I've said to people who say they're capable of understanding complex arguments.