Since I wrote this I've come to consider the singularity/transhuman question as more of a philosophical one than a practical or technical one.
Jason SIlva's ideas are a little too anthropocentric for me. Rather, I'd like to ask the question what happens when we remove the human from the centre of the thesis? The very impossibility of that proposition (i.e. humans attempting to think beyond the human) outlines neatly why the transhuman conceit falls flat.
When I wrote this I should have warned about scientific mythos from the past. Indeed, I would argue (and I am by no—means—alone) that Transhumanism is a continuation of the Positivist narrative. If we want to think past the human, we have to think post humanism without blindly accepting the biggest myth of them all: progress.
Thanks for your comments.
Since I wrote this I've come to consider the singularity/transhuman question as more of a philosophical one than a practical or technical one.
Jason SIlva's ideas are a little too anthropocentric for me. Rather, I'd like to ask the question what happens when we remove the human from the centre of the thesis? The very impossibility of that proposition (i.e. humans attempting to think beyond the human) outlines neatly why the transhuman conceit falls flat.
When I wrote this I should have warned about scientific mythos from the past. Indeed, I would argue (and I am by no—means—alone) that Transhumanism is a continuation of the Positivist narrative. If we want to think past the human, we have to think post humanism without blindly accepting the biggest myth of them all: progress.