WORKSHOP:

Like a Face Drawn in Sand at the Edge of the Sea. Vicissitudes of the Posthuman Forty Years After Foucaults Death.

May 30-31, 2024, Masaryk University, Room M117 Jotova 10, Brno, Czech Republic.

Does man really exist? To imagine, for an instant, what the world and thought and truth might be if man did not exist, is considered to be merely indulging in paradox. This is because we are so blinded by the recent manifestation of man that we can no longer remember a time and it is not so long ago when the world, its order, and human beings existed, but man did not.

M. Foucault, The Order of Things

Forty years after Foucault's death and sixty after the publication of An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, we would like to invite you to interrogate the posthuman as an open problem and process on the historical and epistemic level. In particular, we would like to discuss whether and how historiographical and methodological issues pertaining to the archeological project have been transformed, scaled down, transposed or partially resolved today.

The Order of Things wished to show the emergence and disappearance of the configurations of knowledge in their empirical arising. Among them, we see man taking his ambivalent place as both mysterious object and sovereign subject of western knowledge, only to soon disappear along the lines of the image we captured in the title. But, however deferred, historiographical and epistemological problems return incessantly, questioning the status of discontinuities in the archaeological project: what backdrop would be able to account for both the emerging and the fading away of orders of identities and differences? To what logic do their mutations respond? What explanation is offered?

According to the archaeological instance, posthuman is then manifestly not a condition of existence but an open process: the uncertain outcome of the mutations of these conditions of possibility, of their precipitation.

What does it mean to question this diagnostic today? What mutations have taken place or struggle to do so? What are the stakes? Would it be legitimate to say that today we speak from the space of knowledge left vacant by the disappearance of the figure of western knowledge that gave rise to the humanities?

The workshop's aim would be to draw a map, though bound to be partial, fragmentary and mobile, of a range of practices both in research and in applied fields related to the tools forged in the debate pertaining to posthumanism. This could be done, on the one hand, by exploring the current functioning of the toolbox elaborated by the thinker in the 1960s and early 1970s, and on the other hand, by interrogating the way in which these tools have been brought into contact and fruitful interaction with different theoretical inputs and epistemic and political instances (feminist, anti-racist, queer, post-colonial, ecological, a.o.).

We look forward to your contribution!

Please submit the title and abstract (no more than 500 words) of your contribution by March 24th, 2024, to https://emorob.fss.muni.cz/conferences/2024-foucault40 or by email to: Foucault40Brno@muni.cz

DEADLINE: March 24th

VENUE: May 30-31, 2024, Masaryk University, Room M117 Jotova 10, Brno, Czech Republic.

The workshop is supported by the project EMOROB (2023-2027) Robots, Computing the Human and Autism/ Cultural Imaginations of Autism Diagnosis and Emotion AI (EXPRO GAR_ 2023/23/GX23-05692X), FSS MU.

Continued here:

Like a Face Drawn in Sand at the Edge of the Sea. Vicissitudes of the Posthuman Forty Years After Foucault's Death ... - Fabula, la recherche en...

Person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human

Posthuman or post-human is a concept originating in the fields of science fiction, futurology, contemporary art, and philosophy that means a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human.[1] The concept aims at addressing a variety of questions, including ethics and justice, language and trans-species communication, social systems, and the intellectual aspirations of interdisciplinarity.

Posthumanism is not to be confused with transhumanism (the biotechnological enhancement of human beings) and narrow definitions of the posthuman as the hoped-for transcendence of materiality.[2] The notion of the posthuman comes up both in posthumanism as well as transhumanism, but it has a special meaning in each tradition. In 2017, Penn State University Press in cooperation with Stefan Lorenz Sorgner and James Hughes established the Journal of Posthuman Studies,[3] in which all aspects of the concept "posthuman" can be analysed.[4]

In critical theory, the posthuman is a speculative being that represents or seeks to re-conceive the human. It is the object of posthumanist criticism, which critically questions humanism, a branch of humanist philosophy which claims that human nature is a universal state from which the human being emerges; human nature is autonomous, rational, capable of free will, and unified in itself as the apex of existence. Thus, the posthuman position recognizes imperfectability and disunity within oneself, and understands the world through heterogeneous perspectives while seeking to maintain intellectual rigor and dedication to objective observations. Key to this posthuman practice is the ability to fluidly change perspectives and manifest oneself through different identities. The posthuman, for critical theorists of the subject, has an emergent ontology rather than a stable one; in other words, the posthuman is not a singular, defined individual, but rather one who can "become" or embody different identities and understand the world from multiple, heterogeneous perspectives.[5]

Approaches to posthumanism are not homogeneous, and have often been very critical. The term itself is contested, with one of the foremost authors associated with posthumanism, Manuel de Landa, decrying the term as "very silly."[6] Covering the ideas of, for example, Robert Pepperell's The Posthuman Condition, and Hayles's How We Became Posthuman under a single term is distinctly problematic due to these contradictions.

The posthuman is roughly synonymous with the "cyborg" of A Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Haraway.[citation needed][7] Haraway's conception of the cyborg is an ironic take on traditional conceptions of the cyborg that inverts the traditional trope of the cyborg whose presence questions the salient line between humans and robots. Haraway's cyborg is in many ways the "beta" version of the posthuman, as her cyborg theory prompted the issue to be taken up in critical theory.[8] Following Haraway, Hayles, whose work grounds much of the critical posthuman discourse, asserts that liberal humanismwhich separates the mind from the body and thus portrays the body as a "shell" or vehicle for the mindbecomes increasingly complicated in the late 20th and 21st centuries because information technology puts the human body in question. Hayles maintains that we must be conscious of information technology advancements while understanding information as "disembodied," that is, something which cannot fundamentally replace the human body but can only be incorporated into it and human life practices.[9]

The idea of post-posthumanism (post-cyborgism) has recently been introduced.[10][11][12][13][14]This body of work outlines the after-effects of long-term adaptation to cyborg technologies and their subsequent removal, e.g., what happens after 20 years of constantly wearing computer-mediating eyeglass technologies and subsequently removing them, and of long-term adaptation to virtual worlds followed by return to "reality."[15][16] and the associated post-cyborg ethics (e.g. the ethics of forced removal of cyborg technologies by authorities, etc.).[17]

Posthuman political and natural rights have been framed on a spectrum with animal rights and human rights.[18] Posthumanism broadens the scope of what it means to be a valued life form and to be treated as such (in contrast to certain life forms being seen as less-than and being taken advantage of or killed off); it calls for a more inclusive definition of life, and a greater moral-ethical response, and responsibility, to non-human life forms in the age of species blurring and species mixing. [I]t interrogates the hierarchic ordering and subsequently exploitation and even eradication of life forms.[19]

According to transhumanist thinkers, a posthuman is a hypothetical future being "whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards."[20] Posthumans primarily focus on cybernetics, the posthuman consequent and the relationship to digital technology. Steve Nichols published the Posthuman Movement manifesto in 1988. His early evolutionary theory of mind (MVT) allows development of sentient E1 brains. The emphasis is on systems. Transhumanism does not focus on either of these. Instead, transhumanism focuses on the modification of the human species via any kind of emerging science, including genetic engineering, digital technology, and bioengineering.[21] Transhumanism is sometimes criticized for not adequately addressing the scope of posthumanism and its concerns for the evolution of humanism.[22]

Posthumans could be completely synthetic artificial intelligences, or a symbiosis of human and artificial intelligence, or uploaded consciousnesses, or the result of making many smaller but cumulatively profound technological augmentations to a biological human, i.e. a cyborg. Some examples of the latter are redesigning the human organism using advanced nanotechnology or radical enhancement using some combination of technologies such as genetic engineering, psychopharmacology, life extension therapies, neural interfaces, advanced information management tools, memory enhancing drugs, wearable or implanted computers, and cognitive techniques.[20]

As used in this article, "posthuman" does not necessarily refer to a conjectured future where humans are extinct or otherwise absent from the Earth.[23] Kevin Warwick says that both humans and posthumans will continue to exist but the latter will predominate in society over the former because of their abilities.[24] Recently, scholars have begun to speculate that posthumanism provides an alternative analysis of apocalyptic cinema and fiction,[25] often casting vampires, werewolves and even zombies as potential evolutions of the human form and being.[26]

Many science fiction authors, such as Greg Egan, H. G. Wells, Isaac Asimov, Bruce Sterling, Frederik Pohl, Greg Bear, Charles Stross, Neal Asher, Ken MacLeod, Peter F. Hamilton and authors of the Orion's Arm Universe,[27] have written works set in posthuman futures.

A variation on the posthuman theme is the notion of a "posthuman god"; the idea that posthumans, being no longer confined to the parameters of human nature, might grow physically and mentally so powerful as to appear possibly god-like by present-day human standards.[20] This notion should not be interpreted as being related to the idea portrayed in some science fiction that a sufficiently advanced species may "ascend" to a higher plane of existencerather, it merely means that some posthuman beings may become so exceedingly intelligent and technologically sophisticated that their behaviour would not possibly be comprehensible to modern humans, purely by reason of their limited intelligence and imagination.[28]

Read the original here:

Posthuman - Wikipedia

A Disturbing, Delicious, Page-tuner, that pulls you and keeps you coming back for more.

SUSPENSE and HORROR at its best!

--

Kaufman Striker spent his who

Kaufman Striker spent his whole life learning to be unfeeling; it took hanging himself to change that. Ten years ago, he thought he'd gotten away from being the town's peculiar celebrity; thought he'd gotten away from his father's warped ideas about self-mastery, but his dogmatic dear old dad has reached out from the past to continue his education with a letter encouraging Kaufman to take his own life.

For today in Decoy, Nevada, death isn't permanent.

In an underground military facility, a top-secret resurrection project has been sabotaged. Except scientific resurrection doesn't account for everything. Not the bipedal coyotes that stalk the streets or the thousands of missing town's people, nor Kaufman's own subtle enhancements.

Part psychological thriller, part dystopian sci-fi, Posthuman is a suspense-horror novel that probes what would happen if science discovered proof of life after death and then nudged evolution to take us there. With deep themes and a rich, intricate plot, Posthuman has enough twists, turns, and surprises that once you reach the last page, youll want to start reading it all over again.

Read more:

Book giveaway for Posthuman by M.C. Hansen Nov 14-Nov 30, 2022

Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions can extend to various levels of abstraction:

The first recordings that survive of monotheistic conceptions of God, borne out of henotheism and (mostly in Eastern religions) monism, are from the Hellenistic period. Of the many objects and entities that religions and other belief systems across the ages have labeled as divine, the one criterion they share is their acknowledgment as divine by a group or groups of human beings.

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses the meaning of "being as being". Aristotle holds that "being" primarily refers to the Unmoved Movers, and assigned one of these to each movement in the heavens. Each Unmoved Mover continuously contemplates its own contemplation, and everything that fits the second meaning of "being" by having its source of motion in itself, i.e., moves because the knowledge of its Mover causes it to emulate this Mover (or should).

Aristotle's definition of God attributes perfection to this being, and, as a perfect being, it can only contemplate upon perfection and not on imperfection; otherwise perfection would not be one of his attributes. God, according to Aristotle, is in a state of "stasis" untouched by change and imperfection. The "unmoved mover" is very unlike the conception of God that one sees in most religions. It has been likened to a person who is playing dominos and pushes one of them over, so that every other domino in the set is pushed over as well, without the being having to do anything about it. Although, in the 18th century, the French educator Allan Kardec brought a very similar conception of God during his work of codifying Spiritism, this differs from the interpretation of God in most religions, where he is seen to be personally involved in his creation.

In the ancient Greek philosophical Hermetica, the ultimate reality is called by many names, such as God, Lord, Father, Mind (Nous), the Creator, the All, the One, etc.[1] However, peculiar to the Hermetic view of the divinity is that it is both the all (Greek: to pan) and the creator of the all: all created things pre-exist in God,[2] and God is the nature of the cosmos (being both the substance from which it proceeds and the governing principle which orders it),[3] yet the things themselves and the cosmos were all created by God. Thus, God creates itself,[4] and is both transcendent (as the creator of the cosmos) and immanent (as the created cosmos).[5] These ideas are closely related to the cosmo-theological views of the Stoics.[6]

The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. Proponents of Abrahamic faiths believe that God is also transcendent, meaning that he is outside space and outside time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation, but at the same time a personal God, involved, listening to prayer and reacting to the actions of his creatures.

The Bah Faith believes in a single, imperishable God, the creator of all things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe.[7] In Bah belief, God is beyond space and time but is also described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty."[8] Though inaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as conscious of creation, possessing a mind, will and purpose. Bahs believe that God expresses this will at all times and in many ways, including Manifestations, a series of divine "messengers" or "educators".[9] In expressing God's intent, these manifestations are seen to establish religion in the world. Bah teachings state that God is too great for humans to fully comprehend, nor to create a complete and accurate image.[10] Bah'u'llh often refers to God by titles, such as the "All-Powerful" or the "All-Loving".

In many Gnostic systems, God is known as the Monad, or the One.

Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single being that exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a perichoresis of three hypostases (i.e. persons; personae, prosopa): the Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos ("Word"), manifest in human form as Jesus and thereafter as Christ); and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete or advocate). Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons", all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", share a single divine essence, being, or nature.

Following the First Council of Constantinople, the Son is described as eternally begotten by the Father ("begotten of his Father before all worlds"[11]). This generation does not imply a beginning for the Son or an inferior relationship with the Father. The Son is the perfect image of his Father, and is consubstantial with him. The Son returns that love, and that union between the two is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is consubstantial and co-equal with the Father and the Son. Thus, God contemplates and loves himself, enjoying infinite and perfect beatitude within himself. This relationship between the other two persons is called procession. Although the theology of the Trinity is accepted in most Christian churches, there are theological differences, notably between Catholic and Orthodox thought on the procession of the Holy Spirit (see filioque). Some Christian communions do not accept the Trinitarian doctrine, at least not in its traditional form. Notable groups include the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians, Arians, and Adoptionists.

Within Christianity, Unitarianism is the view that God consists of only one person, the Father, instead of three persons as Trinitarianism states.[12] Unitarians believe that mainstream Christianity has been corrupted over history, and that it is not strictly monotheistic. There are different Unitarian views on Jesus, ranging from seeing him purely as a man who was chosen by God, to seeing him as a divine being, as the Son of God who had pre-existence.[13] Thus, Unitarianism is typically divided into two principal groups:

Even though the term "unitarian" did not first appear until the 17th century in reference to the Polish Brethren,[17][15] the basic tenets of Unitarianism go back to the time of Arius in the 4th century, an Alexandrian priest that taught the doctrine that only the Father was God, and that the Son had been created by the Father. Arians rejected the term "homoousios" (consubstantial) as a term describing the Father and Son, viewing such term as compromising the uniqueness and primacy of God,[18] and accused it of dividing the indivisible unit of the divine essence.[19] Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic Age, arguing, as do Trinitarians and Binitarians, that their Christology most closely reflects that of the early Christian community and Church Fathers.[20]

Binitarianism is the view within Christianity that there were originally two beings in the Godhead the Father and the Word that became the Son (Jesus the Christ).[citation needed] Binitarians normally believe that God is a family, currently consisting of the Father and the Son[citation needed]. Some binitarians[who?] believe that others will ultimately be born into that divine family. Hence, binitarians are nontrinitarian, but they are also not unitarian. Binitarians, like most unitarians and trinitarians, claim their views were held by the original New Testament Church. Unlike most unitarians and trinitarians who tend to identify themselves by those terms, binitarians normally do not refer to their belief in the duality of the Godhead, with the Son subordinate to the Father; they simply teach the Godhead in a manner that has been termed as binitarianism.

The word "binitarian" is typically used by scholars and theologians as a contrast to a trinitarian theology: a theology of "two" in God rather than a theology of "three", and although some critics[who?] prefer to use the term ditheist or dualist instead of binitarian, those terms suggests that God is not one, yet binitarians believe that God is one family. It is accurate to offer the judgment that most commonly when someone speaks of a Christian "binitarian" theology the "two" in God are the Father and the Son... A substantial amount of recent scholarship has been devoted to exploring the implications of the fact that Jesus was worshipped by those first Jewish Christians, since in Judaism "worship" was limited to the worship of God" (Barnes M. Early Christian Binitarianism: the Father and the Holy Spirit. Early Christian Binitarianism - as read at NAPS 2001). Much of this recent scholarship has been the result of the translations of the Nag Hammadi and other ancient manuscripts that were not available when older scholarly texts (such as Wilhelm Bousset's Kyrios Christos, 1913) were written.

In the Mormonism represented by most of Mormon communities, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "God" means Elohim (the Father), whereas "Godhead" means a council of three distinct entities; Elohim, Jehovah (the Son, or Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have perfected, material bodies, while the Holy Spirit is a spirit and does not have a body. This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; in Mormonism, the three persons are considered to be physically separate beings, or personages, but indistinguishable in will and purpose.[21] As such, the term "Godhead" differs from how it is used in traditional Christianity. This description of God represents the orthodoxy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), established early in the 19th century. However, the Mormon concept of God has expanded since the faith's founding in the late 1820s.[citation needed]

Allh, without plural or gender, is the divine name of God mentioned in the Quran, while "ilh" is the term used for a deity or a god in general.[22][23][24]

Islam's most fundamental concept is a strict monotheism called tawd. God is described in the surah Al-Ikhlas as: "Say: He is God, the One; God, the Eternal, the Absolute; He begot no one, nor is He begotten; Nor is there to Him equivalent anyone."[25][26] Muslims deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism. In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules and are not expected to visualize God. The message of God is carried by angels to 124,000 messengers starting with Adam and concluding with Muhammad. God is described and referred in the Quran by certain names or attributes, the most common being Al-Rahman, meaning "Most Compassionate" and Al-Rahim, meaning "Most Merciful" (see Names of God in Islam).[27]

Muslims believe that creation of everything in the universe is brought into being by God's sheer command Be and so it is.[28][29] and that the purpose of existence is to please God, both by worship and by good deeds.[30][31] There are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God: He is nearer to his creation than the jugular vein[32]

In Judaism, God has been conceived in a variety of ways.[33] Traditionally, Judaism holds that Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the national god of the Israelites, delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and gave them the Law of Moses at biblical Mount Sinai as described in the Torah. According to the rationalist stream of Judaism articulated by Maimonides, which later came to dominate much of official traditional Jewish thought, God is understood as the absolute one, indivisible, and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. Traditional interpretations of Judaism generally emphasize that God is personal yet also transcendent, while some modern interpretations of Judaism emphasize that God is a force or ideal.[34]

Jewish monotheism is a continuation of earlier Hebrew henotheism, the exclusive worship of the God of Israel as prescribed in the Torah and practiced at the Temple of Jerusalem. Strict monotheism emerges in Hellenistic Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism. Pronunciation of the proper name of the God of Israel came to be avoided in the Hellenistic era (Second Temple Judaism) and instead Jews refer to God as HaShem, meaning "the Name". In prayer and reading of scripture, the Tetragrammaton is substituted with Adonai ("my Lord").

Some[who?] Kabbalistic thinkers have held the belief that all of existence is itself a part of God, and that we as humanity are unaware of our own inherent godliness and are grappling to come to terms with it.[citation needed] The standing view in Hasidism currently, is that there is nothing in existence outside of God all being is within God, and yet all of existence cannot contain him.[citation needed] Regarding this, Solomon stated while dedicating the Temple, "But will God in truth dwell with mankind on the earth? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You."[35]

Modern Jewish thinkers have constructed a wide variety of other ideas about God. Hermann Cohen believed that God should be identified with the "archetype of morality," an idea reminiscent of Plato's idea of the Good.[36] Mordecai Kaplan believed that God is the sum of all natural processes that allow man to become self-fulfilled,[37] and Humanistic Judaism fully rejects the notion of the existence of a God.[38]

In Mandaeism, Hayyi Rabbi (Classical Mandaic: , romanized:Hiia Rbia, lit.'The Great Life'), or 'The Great Living God'[39] is the Supreme God from which all things emanate. He is also known as 'The First Life', since during the creation of the material world, Yushamin emanated from Hayyi Rabbi as the "Second Life."[40] According to Qais Al-Saadi, "the principles of the Mandaean doctrine: the belief of the only one great God, Hayyi Rabbi, to whom all absolute properties belong; He created all the worlds, formed the soul through his power, and placed it by means of angels into the human body. So He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman."[41] Mandaeans recognize God to be the eternal, creator of all, the one and only in domination who has no partner.[42]

The non-adherence[43] to the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religious views. In Buddhism, the sole aim of the spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of distress (dukkha) in samsara,[44][45] called nirvana. The Buddha neither denies nor accepts a creator,[46] denies endorsing any views on creation[47] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.[48][49] Some teachers instruct students beginning Buddhist meditation that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,[50] but dogmatic beliefs in a supreme personal creator are considered a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,[51] the highest goal of Buddhist practice.[52]

Despite this apparent non-theism, Buddhists consider veneration of the Noble Ones[53] very important[54] although the two main schools of Buddhism differ mildly in their reverential attitudes. While Theravada Buddhists view the Buddha as a human being who attained nirvana or arahanthood through human efforts,[55] Mahayana Buddhists consider him an embodiment of the cosmic dharmakaya (a notion of transcendent divinity), who was born for the benefit of others and not merely a human being.[56] In addition, some Mahayana Buddhists worship their chief Bodhisattva, Avalokiteshvara[57] and hope to embody him.[58]

Buddhists accept the existence of beings known as devas in higher realms, but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara,[59] and not necessarily wiser than us. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[60] and superior to them.[61] Despite this, there are believed to be enlightened devas on the path of Buddhahood.

In Buddhism, the idea of the metaphysical absolute is deconstructed in the same way as of the idea of an enduring "self", but it is not necessarily denied. Reality is considered as dynamic, interactive and non-substantial, which implies rejection of brahman or of a divine substratum. A cosmic principle can be embodied in concepts such as the dharmakaya. Though there is a primordial Buddha (or, in Vajrayana, the Adi-Buddha, a representation of immanent enlightenment in nature), its representation as a creator is a symbol of the presence of a universal cyclical creation and dissolution of the cosmos and not of an actual personal being. An intelligent, metaphysical underlying basis, however, is not ruled out by Buddhism, although Buddhists are generally very careful to distinguish this idea from that of an independent creator God.[62]

In Hinduism, the concept of god is complex and depends on the particular tradition. The concept spans conceptions from absolute monism to henotheism, monotheism and polytheism. In the Vedic period monotheistic god concept culminated in the semi-abstract semi-personified form of creative soul dwelling in all god such as Vishvakarman, Purusha, and Prajapathy. In the majority of Vaishnavism traditions, he is Vishnu, and the text identifies this being as Krishna, sometimes referred as svayam bhagavan. The term isvara - from the root is, to have extraordinary power. Some traditional sankhya systems contrast purusha (divine, or souls) to prakriti (nature or energy), however the term for sovereign god, ishvara is mentioned six times in the Atharva Veda, and is central to many traditions.[63] As per Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy the notion of Brahman (the highest Universal Principle) is akin to that of god; except that unlike most other philosophies Advaita likens Brahman to atman (the true Self of an individual). For Sindhi Hindus, who are deeply influenced by Sikhism, God is seen as the omnipotent cultivation of all Hindu gods and goddesses.[clarification needed] In short, the soul paramatma of all gods and goddesses are the omnipresent Brahman and are enlightened beings.

Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the divine ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being and everything beyond in this Universe.[64][65] The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools. The word Brahman is derived from the verb brh (Sanskrit: to grow), and connotes greatness and infinity.

Brahman is talked of at two levels (apara and para). He is the fountainhead of all concepts but he himself cannot be conceived. He is the universal conceiver, universal concept and all the means of concept. Apara-Brahman is the same Para Brahma but for human understanding thought of as universal mind cum universal intellect from which all human beings derive an iota as their mind, intellect etc.[citation needed]

Ishvara is a philosophical concept in Hinduism, meaning controller or the Supreme controller (i.e. God) in a monotheistic or the Supreme Being or as an Ishta-deva of monistic thought. Ishvara is a transcendent and immanent entity best described in the last chapter of the Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita, known as the Ishavasya Upanishad. It states "ishavasyam idam sarvam" which means whatever there is in this world is covered and filled with Ishvara. Ishvara not only creates the world, but then also enters into everything there is. In Saivite traditions, the term is used as part of the compound "Maheshvara" ("great lord") later as a name for Siva.

Lord Shiva is more often considered as first Hindu God. Mahadeva literally means "Highest of all god". Shiva is also known as Maheshvar, the great Lord, Mahadeva, the great God, Shambhu, Hara, Pinakadhrik, bearer of the axe and Mrityunjaya, conqueror of death. He is the spouse of Shakti, the goddess. He also is represented by Mahakala and Bhairava, the terrible, as well as many other forms including Rudra. Shiva is often pictured holding the damaru, an hour-glass shape drum, shown below with his trishula. His usual mantra is om namah shivaya.[66]

This must not be confused with the numerous devas. Deva may be roughly translated into English as deity, demigod or angel, and can describe any celestial being or thing that is of high excellence and thus is venerable. The word is cognate to Latin deus for "god". The misconception of 330 million devas is commonly objected to by Hindu scholars. The description of 33 koti (10 million, crore in Hindi) devas is a misunderstanding. The word koti in Sanskrit translates to 'type' and not '10 million'. So the actual translation is 33 types and not 330 million devas. Ishvara as a personal form of God is worshiped and not the 33 devas. The concept of 33 devas is perhaps related to the geometry of the universe.

Bhagavan literally means "possessing fortune, blessed, prosperous" (from the noun bhaga, meaning "fortune, wealth", cognate to Slavic bog "god"), and hence "illustrious, divine, venerable, holy", etc. In some traditions of Hinduism it is used to indicate the Supreme Being or Absolute Truth, but with specific reference to that Supreme Being as possessing a personality (a personal God).[citation needed] This personal feature indicated in Bhagavan differentiates its usage from other similar terms such as Brahman, the "Supreme Spirit" or "spirit", and thus, in this usage, Bhagavan is in many ways analogous to the general Christian and Islamic conception of God.

Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituentssoul, matter, space, time, and principles of motionhave always existed. All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same (similar to law of conservation of mass). Jain text claims that the universe consists of Jiva (life force or souls) and Ajiva (lifeless objects). Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[67]

The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation/Nirvana. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.

Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God. This has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana (atheist philosophy) by rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, concepts of karma and moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.[68]

The term for God in Sikhism is Waheguru. Guru Nanak describes God as nirankar (from the Sanskrit nirkr, meaning "formless"), akal (meaning "eternal") and alakh (from the Sanskrit alakya, meaning "invisible" or "unobserved"). Sikhism's principal scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, starts with the figure "1", signifying the unity of God. Nanak's interpretation of God is that of a single, personal and transcendental creator with whom the devotee must develop a most intimate faith and relationship to achieve salvation. Sikhism advocates the belief in one god who is omnipresent (sarav vi'pak), whose qualities are infinite and who is without gender, a nature represented (especially in the Guru Granth Sahib) by the term Ek Onkar.

Nanak further emphasizes that a full understanding of God is beyond human beings, but that God is also not wholly unknowable. God is considered omnipresent in all creation and visible everywhere to the spiritually awakened. Nanak stresses that God must be seen by human beings from "the inward eye" or "heart" and that meditation must take place inwardly to achieve this enlightenment progressively; its rigorous application is what enables communication between God and human beings.

Sikhs believe in a single god that has existed from the beginning of time and will survive forever. God is genderless, fearless, formless, immutable, ineffable, self-sufficient, omnipotent and not subject to the cycle of birth and death.

God in Sikhism is depicted in three distinct aspects: God as deity; God in relation to creation; and God in relation to man. During a discourse with siddhas (wandering Hindu adepts), Nanak is asked where "the Transcendent God" was before creation. He replies: "To think of the Transcendent Lord in that state is to enter the realm of wonder. Even at that stage of sunn, he permeated all that void" (GG, 940).

The book Western Wisdom Teachings presents the conception of The Absolute (unmanifested and unlimited "Boundless Being" or "Root of Existence", beyond the whole universe and beyond comprehension) from whom proceeds the Supreme Being at the dawn of manifestation: The One, the "Great Architect of the Universe". From the threefold Supreme Being proceed the "seven Great Logoi" who contain within themselves all the great hierarchies that differentiate more and more as they diffuse through the six lower Cosmic Planes. In the Highest World of the seventh (lowest) Cosmic Plane dwells the god of the solar systems in the universe. These great beings are also threefold in manifestation, like the Supreme Being; their three aspects are Will, Wisdom and Activity.

According to the teachings of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, in the beginning of a Day of Manifestation a certain collective Great Being, God, limits himself to a certain portion of space, in which he elects to create the Solar System for the evolution of added self-consciousness. In God there are contained hosts of glorious hierarchies and lesser beings of every grade of intelligence and stage of consciousness, from omniscience to an unconsciousness deeper than that of the deepest trance condition.

During the current period of manifestation, these various grades of beings are working to acquire more experience than they possessed at the beginning of this period of existence. Those who, in previous manifestations, have attained to the highest degree of development work on those who have not yet evolved any consciousness. In the Solar system, God's Habitation, there are seven Worlds differentiated by God, within Himself, one after another. Mankind's evolutionary scheme is slowly carried through five of these Worlds in seven great Periods of manifestation, during which the evolving virgin spirit becomes first human and, then, a God.

Concepts about deity are diverse among UUs. Some have no belief in any gods (atheism); others believe in many gods (polytheism). Some believe the question of the existence of any god is most likely unascertainable or unknowable (agnosticism). Some believe God is a metaphor for a transcendent reality. Some believe in a female god (goddess), a passive god (Deism), an Abrahamic god, or a god manifested in nature or the universe (pantheism). Many UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of the "spirit of life" that binds all life on Earth. UUs support each person's search for truth and meaning in concepts of spirituality. Historically, unitarianism and universalism were denominations within Christianity. Unitarianism referred to a belief about the nature of Jesus Christ that affirmed God as a singular entity and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Universalism referred to a theological belief that all persons will be reconciled to God because of divine love and mercy (Universal Salvation).[69]

According to Brahma Kumaris, God is the incorporeal soul with the maximum degree of spiritual qualities such as peace and love.[70][71]

Some comparatively new belief systems and books portray God as extraterrestrial life. Many of these theories hold that intelligent beings from another world have been visiting Earth for many thousands of years and have influenced the development of our religions. Some of these books posit that prophets or messiahs were sent to the human race in order to teach morality and encourage the development of civilization (see, for example, Rael and Zecharia Sitchin).

The spiritual teacher Meher Baba described God as infinite love: "God is not understood in His essence until He is also understood as Infinite Love. Divine Love is unlimited in essence and expression, because it is experienced by the soul through the soul itself. The sojourn of the soul is a thrilling divine romance in which the lover, who in the beginning is conscious of nothing but emptiness, frustration, superficiality and the gnawing chains of bondage, gradually attains an increasingly fuller and freer expression of love and ultimately disappears and merges in the Divine Beloved to realize the unity of the Lover and the Beloved in the supreme and eternal fact of God as Infinite Love."[72]

Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, espoused the view that "god" is a creation of man, rather than man being a creation of "god". In his book, The Satanic Bible, the Satanist's view of god is described as the Satanist's true "self"a projection of his or her own personalitynot an external deity.[73] Satan is used as a representation of personal liberty and individualism.[74] LaVey discusses this extensively in The Book of Lucifer, explaining that the gods worshipped by other religions are also projections of man's true self. He argues that man's unwillingness to accept his own ego has caused him to externalize these gods so as to avoid the feeling of narcissism that would accompany self-worship.[75]

"If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of "God," then why fear his true self, in fearing "God,"why praise his true self in praising "God,"why remain externalized from "God" in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god's name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his "God" he sees the demon of pride creeping forththat very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst?"

Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (18611947), while open theism is a similar theological movement that began in the 1990s.

In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. Process theology is compatible with panentheism, the concept that God contains the universe (pantheism) but also transcends it. God as the ultimate logician - God may be defined as the only entity, by definition, possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously.

A posthuman God is a hypothetical future entity descended from or created by humans, but possessing capabilities so radically exceeding those of present humans as to appear godlike. One common variation of this idea is the belief or aspiration that humans will create a God entity emerging from an artificial intelligence. Another variant is that humanity itself will evolve into a posthuman God.

The concept of a posthuman god has become common in science fiction. Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke said in an interview, "It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him." Clarke's friend and colleague, the late Isaac Asimov, postulated in his story "The Last Question" a merger between humanity and machine intelligence that ultimately produces a deity capable of reversing entropy and subsequently initiates a new Creation trillions of years from the present era when the Universe is in the last stage of heat death. In Frank Herbert's science-fiction series Dune, a messianic figure is created after thousands of years of controlled breeding. The Culture series, by Iain M. Banks, represents a blend in which a transhuman society is guarded by godlike machine intelligences. A stronger example is posited in the novel Singularity Sky by Charles Stross, in which a future artificial intelligence is capable of changing events even in its own past, and takes strong measures to prevent any other entity from taking advantage of similar capabilities. Another example appears in the popular online novella The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect in which an advanced artificial intelligence uses its own advanced quantum brain to resolve discrepancies in physics theories and develop a unified field theory which gives it absolute control over reality, in a take on philosophical digitalism.

The philosopher Michel Henry defines God from a phenomenological point of view. He says: "God is Life, he is the essence of Life, or, if we prefer, the essence of Life is God. Saying this we already know what is God the father the almighty, creator of heaven and earth, we know it not by the effect of a learning or of some knowledge, we dont know it by the thought, on the background of the truth of the world; we know it and we can know it only in and by the Life itself. We can know it only in God."[77]

This Life is not biological life defined by objective and exterior properties, nor an abstract and empty philosophical concept, but the absolute phenomenological life, a radically immanent life that possesses in it the power of showing itself in itself without distance, a life that reveals permanently itself.

Read the original post:

Conceptions of God - Wikipedia

American literary critic

Nancy Katherine Hayles (born December 16, 1943) is an American postmodern literary critic, most notable for her contribution to the fields of literature and science, electronic literature, and American literature.[1] She is the James B. Duke Distinguished Professor Emerita of Literature, Literature, Trinity College of Arts & Sciences at Duke University.[2]

Hayles was born in Saint Louis, Missouri to Edward and Thelma Bruns. She received her B.S. in chemistry from the Rochester Institute of Technology in 1966, and her M.S. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology in 1969. She worked as a research chemist in 1966 at Xerox Corporation and as a chemical research consultant Beckman Instrument Company from 1968 to 1970. Hayles then switched fields and received her M.A. in English literature from Michigan State University in 1970, and her Ph.D. in English literature from the University of Rochester in 1977.[3] She is a social and literary critic.

Her scholarship primarily focuses on the "relations between science, literature, and technology."[4][5] Hayles has taught at UCLA, University of Iowa, University of MissouriRolla, the California Institute of Technology, and Dartmouth College.[3] She was the faculty director of the Electronic Literature Organization from 2001 to 2006.[6]

From 2008 to 2018, she was a professor of English and Literature at Duke University. As of 2018, Hayles was the James B. Duke Distinguished Professor Emerita of Literature, Literature, Trinity College of Arts & Sciences at Duke University.[7]

Hayles understands "human" and "posthuman" as constructions that emerge from historically specific understandings of technology, culture and embodiment; "human and "posthuman" views each produce unique models of subjectivity.[8] Within this framework "human" is aligned with Enlightenment notions of liberal humanism, including its emphasis on the "natural self" and the freedom of the individual.[9] Conversely, posthuman does away with the notion of a "natural" self and emerges when human intelligence is conceptualized as being co-produced with intelligent machines. According to Hayles the posthuman view privileges information over materiality, considers consciousness as an epiphenomenon and imagines the body as a prosthesis for the mind.[10] Specifically Hayles suggests that in the posthuman view "there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation..."[9] The posthuman thus emerges as a deconstruction of the liberal humanist notion of "human." Hayles disregards the idea of a form of immortality created through the preservation of human knowledge with computers, instead opting for a specification within the definition of posthuman that one embraces the possibilities of information technology without the imagined concepts of infinite power and immortality, tropes often associated with technology and dissociated with traditional humanity. This idea of the posthuman also ties in with cybernetics in the creation of the feedback loop that allows humans to interact with technology through a blackbox, linking the human and the machine as one. Thus, Hayles links this to an overall cultural perception of virtuality and a priority on information rather than materiality.

Despite drawing out the differences between "human" and "posthuman", Hayles is careful to note that both perspectives engage in the erasure of embodiment from subjectivity.[11] In the liberal humanist view, cognition takes precedence over the body, which is narrated as an object to possess and master. Meanwhile, popular conceptions of the cybernetic posthuman imagine the body as merely a container for information and code. Noting the alignment between these two perspectives, Hayles uses How We Became Posthuman to investigate the social and cultural processes and practices that led to the conceptualization of information as separate from the material that instantiates it.[12] Drawing on diverse examples, such as Turing's imitation game, Gibson's Neuromancer and cybernetic theory, Hayles traces the history of what she calls "the cultural perception that information and materiality are conceptually distinct and that information is in some sense more essential, more important and more fundamental than materiality."[13] By tracing the emergence of such thinking, and by looking at the manner in which literary and scientific texts came to imagine, for example, the possibility of downloading human consciousness into a computer, Hayles attempts to trouble the information/material separation and in her words, "...put back into the picture the flesh that continues to be erased in contemporary discussions about cybernetic subjects.[14] In this regard, the posthuman subject under the condition of virtuality is an "amalgam, a collection of heterogeneous components, a material-informational entity whose boundaries undergo continuous construction and reconstruction."[15] Hayles differentiates "embodiment" from the concept of "the body" because "in contrast to the body, embodiment is contextual, enmeshed within the specifics of place, time, physiology, and culture, which together compose enactment."[16] Hayles specifically examines how various science fiction novels portray a shift in the conception of information, particularly in the dialectics of presence/absence toward pattern/randomness. She diagrams these shifts to show how ideas about abstraction and information actually have a "local habitation" and are "embodied" within the narratives. Although ideas about "information" taken out of context creates abstractions about the human "body", reading science fiction situates these same ideas in "embodied" narrative."

According to Hayles, most human cognition happens outside of consciousness/unconsciousness; cognition extends through the entire biological spectrum, including animals and plants; technical devices cognize, and in doing so profoundly influence human complex systems.[17][18] Hayles makes a distinction between thinking and cognition. In Unthought: the power of the cognitive nonconscious, she describes thinking:

"Thinking, as I use the term, refers to high-level mental operations such as reasoning abstractly, creating and using verbal languages, constructing mathematical theorems, composing music, and the like, operations associated with higher consciousness."[19]

She describes cognition:

"Cognition is a much broader capacity that extends far beyond consciousness into other neurological brain processes; it is also pervasive in other life forms and complex technical systems. Although the cognitive capacity that exists beyond consciousness goes by various names, I call it nonconscious cognition."[20]

Within the field of Posthuman Studies, Hayles' How We Became Posthuman is considered "the key text which brought posthumanism to broad international attention".[21] In the years since this book was published, it has been both praised and critiqued by scholars who have viewed her work through a variety of lenses; including those of cybernetic history, feminism, postmodernism, cultural and literary criticism, and conversations in the popular press about humans' changing relationships to technology.

Reactions to Hayles' writing style, general organization, and scope of the book have been mixed. The book is generally praised for displaying depth and scope in its combining of scientific ideas and literary criticism. Linda Brigham of Kansas State University claims that Hayles manages to lead the text "across diverse, historically contentious terrain by means of a carefully crafted and deliberate organizational structure."[22] Some scholars found her prose difficult to read or over-complicated. Andrew Pickering describes the book as "hard going" and lacking of "straightforward presentation."[23] Dennis Weiss of York College of Pennsylvania accuses Hayles of "unnecessarily complicat[ing] her framework for thinking about the body", for example by using terms such as "body" and "embodiment" ambiguously. Weiss however acknowledges as convincing her use of science fiction in order to reveal how "the narrowly focused, abstract constellation of ideas" of cybernetics circulate through a broader cultural context.[24] Craig Keating of Langara College on the contrary argues that the obscurity of some texts questions their ability to function as the conduit for scientific ideas.[25]

Several scholars reviewing How We Became Posthuman highlighted the strengths and shortcomings of her book vis a vis its relationship to feminism. Amelia Jones of University of Southern California describes Hayles' work as reacting to the misogynistic discourse of the field of cybernetics.[26] As Pickering wrote, Hayles' promotion of an "embodied posthumanism" challenges cybernetics' "equation of human-ness with disembodied information" for being "another male trick to feminists tired of the devaluation of women's bodily labor."[23] Stephanie Turner of Purdue University also described Hayles' work as an opportunity to challenge prevailing concepts of the human subject which assumed the body was white, male, and European, but suggested Hayles' dialectic method may have taken too many interpretive risks, leaving some questions open about "which interventions promise the best directions to take."[27]

Reviewers were mixed about Hayles' construction of the posthuman subject. Weiss describes Hayles' work as challenging the simplistic dichotomy of human and post-human subjects in order to "rethink the relationship between human beings and intelligent machines," however suggests that in her attempt to set her vision of the posthuman apart from the "realist, objectivist epistemology characteristic of first-wave cybernetics", she too, falls back on universalist discourse, premised this time on how cognitive science is able to reveal the "true nature of the self."[24] Jones similarly described Hayles' work as reacting to cybernetics' disembodiment of the human subject by swinging too far towards an insistence on a "physical reality" of the body apart from discourse. Jones argued that reality is rather "determined in and through the way we view, articulate, and understand the world".[26]

In terms of the strength of Hayles' arguments regarding the return of materiality to information, several scholars expressed doubt on the validity of the provided grounds, notably evolutionary psychology. Keating claims that while Hayles is following evolutionary psychological arguments in order to argue for the overcoming of the disembodiment of knowledge, she provides "no good reason to support this proposition."[25] Brigham describes Hayles' attempt to connect autopoietic circularity to "an inadequacy in Maturana's attempt to account for evolutionary change" as unjustified.[22] Weiss suggests that she makes the mistake of "adhering too closely to the realist, objectivist discourse of the sciences," the same mistake she criticizes Weiner and Maturana for committing.[24]

Go here to read the rest:

N. Katherine Hayles - Wikipedia

If you've been waiting to see Major Kusanagi and Batou in action in Season 2 of 'Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045', you might have to hold out until the premiere of the season. However, to stay up to date about the events of Season 1, 'Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045 Sustainable War' is here. In the movie, which is essentially a retelling of season 1, Major Motoko Kusanagi and Batou encounter the emergence of posthumans, a seemingly impossible threat to stop.

If you're looking for other anime series on Netflix, you might want to consider -- 'Record of Ragnorok', 'Yasuke', 'Seven Deadly Sins' and 'Eden'.

RELATED ARTICLES'He's Expecting': 5 things to know about Netflix Japanese comedy-drama series

Bubble: 5 things you need to know about Netflix's anime film

As seen in the movie and in Season 1, posthumans are extremely intelligent and have extreme physical powers, making them impossible to stop. As Kusanagi goes back to Japan to deal with three posthumans, they also encounter a string of deaths taking place across the country. While these deaths seem random as first, they soon realize that it is all connected via Thinkpol, a programme that allows the public to act as judge and executioner -- where people are allowed to deliver punishment to those they believe are criminals or who deserve it.

They soon realise that the programme was developed by a posthuman named Takashi Shimura, a high school student. As with all posthumans so far, they seem to be determined to deliver their brand of absolute justice and will go to any means to achieve it. Determined to find out what led to Shimura becoming a posthuman, Batou and Togusa go to investigate his aunty and uncle's home in Kyoto which has long been abandoned.

It is here that Togusa alone is able to discover what shaped Shimura into the person he is -- the death of his cousin had a profound impact on him, along with George Orwell's book, 1984. Followed by the suicide of his classmate, Shimura was now ready for an ongoing war. While Togusa believes he's a spectator of the events of the past, Shimura acknowledges his presence and asks him to join him. With Togusa mysteriously gone, Batou and Kusanagi are yet to deal with the rise of the posthumans and the motives of Suzuka Mizukane, which is yet to be revealed.

'Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045 Sustainable War' premieres on Netflix on May 9, 2022. The movie will be followed by the release of 'Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045' Season 2 on May 23.

View post:

'Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045 Sustainable War' Ending Explained: Is Togusa compromised? - MEAWW

Artists: Jeimin Kim, Lugas Syllabus, Kyoungha Lee, Lna Bi, Kim Seola, Hwang Moonjung, Tae Yeun Kim, Robert Zhao Renhui, Pei-ying Lin, Heeah Yang, Younghwan Cheon, Easthug, Changchun Project, (Chang Jun Young & Chun Jiyoon), Eun Woo Cho

Posthuman Ensemble, referring to posthuman individuals coming together in an ensemble, is an exhibition that seeks to investigate how humans can emerge from a human-centered thought to exist in harmony with other nonhuman beings.ACC FOCUS, an annual exhibition that centers on important issues every year, focused on the actions of artists constantly invoking the memory of the environment and the history as struggles at the boundaries that form the equilibrium of the ecosystem for its 2020 exhibition, Equilibrium. This years Posthuman Ensembleexemplifies ACCs participation in the efforts of those who think about the new meaning of posthuman and new identity, in the world left in the wake of a global pandemic, as a counterstrike by nature.

The word posthuman often brings up associations of the interface between humans and machinery. This is because of the more familiar concept of transhumanism, which focuses on the combination of humans with machinery in order to go beyond the ability of human in the vein of cyborgs such as Bionic Woman or Six Million Dollar Man and the like, formed during the 1950s and 1960s with the increasing focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and computing. Researchers of the posthuman have expanded their focus not only to encompass the familiar fields of transhumanism but also to include the nonhuman and humanitys relationship with those categorized as not human.

These efforts present a starting point for examining what the values we, as humanity, can pursue as posthuman in the Anthropocene period, an age where humanitys actions, as the masters of the world, lead the climate change and environmental damages. A piece of stone, a blade of grasseverything that exists around us, or defined by us as meaningless, actually exists in relationship with each and every action taken by the human. Even the artificial ones created by humanity and the humanity itself can be seen as existing in a relationship of mutual exchange with nature in the grand cycle of the ecosystem. The network between the human and the nonhuman has already been established, and all species in the ecosystem are circulating in it. Posthuman Ensembleseeks to recognize the existence of different types of nonhumans and propose a new nonhuman existence of emotionality.

Ultimately, it seeks to raise the questions on how humanity should understand its relationships with the nonhuman and communicate in that relationship. Thus, the exhibition first includes numerous beings that do not hold the attention of most humans, the ones that are deemed insignificant by humans, such as weed, fungi, and discarded items in the city. Second, it includes the unseen and the known, such as cells and viruses. Third, it includes emotions, which are a part of humanity but are not recognized by science as concrete, in the category of the nonhuman. In particular, the exhibition seeks to interpret the process involved in the interpretation of human emotions, transition of the interpretation of data, and actualization and objectification thereof by the machine being equipped with ever-developing AI technology through an idea of translation, and thus the concept behind the communication involved in it.

Ultimately, the exhibition examines how the two parties relate to and communicate with each other and thus achieve a harmonious coexistence based on mutual respect rather than superiority, and in that relationship of coexistence, how humanity can receive healing and solace from the nonhuman. The exhibition is constructed in a way that suggests whether the posthuman, to develop the gathering of the human and the nonhuman toward the configuration of an ensemble, should examine the wounded emotions of the human and the nonhuman not through the lens of charity, but rather through empathy, humility, and respect, in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic. That starts with the recognition of the nonhumans existence and their dignity as equal beings and will ultimately serve as an asset that the human can imbue the AI, hitherto seen with fear for its capacity to surpass and rule over the human.

Curated by Rue Young Ah (Asia Culture Institute, Senior Curator).

Read the original post:

Posthuman Ensemble - Announcements - e-flux

Infinity Chamber (2016)

A character wakes up in a room with no windows, walls made of metal and no earthlyidea how he got there. He finds a sarcastic robot guard for company. When he attempts to break out of the prison cell, weird things happen -- and by the third scene, you'll probably experience deja vu from the day you watched Ex Machina or Moon.

2016's Infinity Chamber -- currently streaming onAmazon Prime-- essentially follows everyone's favorite "mysterious sci-fi movie" template. There's a foreboding backdrop, clear integration of humanity and technology and an intelligent protagonist who appears to be the voice of reason while grappling with a curious dilemma.

Regardless, its cerebral story immerses you deeply enough to root for the main character through the finish line while he plays a posthuman version of escape-the-room.

And if you make it to the climax, you're in for a treat.

Constructed with an impressively low budget of just $125,000,partially funded by Kickstarter, director Travis Milloy's perplexing film experiments with a complex plot that'll test your ability to predict endings -- and your patience.

While Frank Lerner (Christopher Soren Kelly) tries to leave his forsaken locked-up space, he's panged with lucid dreams of sitting in a quaint coffee shop and speaking to a charming barista named Gabby (Cassandra Clark).

Immediately after, Frank abruptly wakes up once again in his little chamber with only the company of Howard, an assigned machine companion who's reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey's Hal, Interstellar's Tens and Moon's Gerty.

This sequence, which supposedly explains Frank's imprisonment, repeats itself again... and again... and again, giving Infinity Chamber its claustrophobic vibe. All the while, warm and genial robot Howard doesn't have much to say about any of this. Howard's only job is to keep Frank alive.

As the movie progresses, you start to realize what's really going on -- with Frank, Howard and even Gabby.

A self-proclaimed excellent twist-guesser, I was prepared to dismiss Infinity Chamber as a satisfactory retelling of the classic apocalyptic survival story. It's one of a slew of films that involve people puzzling their way out of a box-like room in a dystopian world. Some that fall into that niche genre include 1997's Cube, 2008's Fermat's Room, 2009's Exam and more recently, 2019's Escape Room.

But during the film's last 15 minutes or so, I let out a few involuntary "wait, whats" that were promptly followed by shock-fueled goosebumps. Infinity Chamber sets itself apart by taking overused tropes and adding flavor.

The chamber isn't just a room. Howard isn't merely a snarky AI and the dreams aren't random.

But while Infinity Chamber's ending is satisfying enough to deem the film a solid weeknight grab-a-glass-of-wine-and-chill choice, it's not without shortcomings. Those come from the film's half-baked sub-plots.

The movie introduces a love story, the notion of existing in your own dreams, the question of whether humans can truly bond with artificial intelligence and the ethics of prisons like the one Frank finds himself in.

Instead of delving into those concepts, however, a ton of time is spent rehashing Frank's pain of residing in the metal chamber and building up to the first milestone -- one that's so obvious, I was confused by how it was supposed to be a surprise at all.

Right around the halfway point, Infinity Chamber starts to get slightly boring shortly before picking up again for act three. Perhaps that could've been solved by exploring the film's other juicy sci-fi ideas -- there were so many interesting avenues left untaken.

Even so, from start to finish, Infinity Chamber is a delight. The shoestring budget and limited drawbacks are barely noticeable due to pristine production quality, terrific acting and a smart story chillingly tied together in its final scene -- one that makes the whole hour and 38 minutes 100% worth it.

The rest is here:

The sci-fi thriller on Amazon Prime Video with a big twist at the end - CNET

Bring Me The Horizon have discussed a delay in the release of the remaining EPs in their Post Human series.

The band released Post Human: Survival Horror at the end of October, and told NME that it would be the first of several EPs under the Post Human banner across the space of 12 months.

Now, in a new interview with Kerrang!, keyboardist Jordan Fish has explained how the project began to get bigger than the band anticipated, leading to delays.

Fish said: We planned to do four EPs in a year, but the last one was almost an album, so I think the spacing will be a bit longer than intended, just because theyre probably going to turn out bigger than intended, he added, while clarifying: That doesnt matter, as long as theyre all really good.

Jordan Fish performs live with Bring Me The Horizon. CREDIT: Getty

Weve been writing on and off for quite a while, so theres a lot of material thats being worked on, he continued. But we havent properly got into the rhythm of writing the next EP yet, well probably do that in the New Year.

Speaking to NME last year about the idea of the project, frontman Oli Sykes said: The idea behind Posthuman is looking at how weve stepped out of evolution and the food chain.

If we can do that, then we can take responsibility for what weve done to the planet and become something better than what humans are right now.

Reviewing Post Human: Survival Horror, NME wrote: Many bands in Bring Me The Horizons shoes would use this opportunity to go full Coldplay with a radio-friendly album primed for mass communication, but not Bring Me. Instead, theyre releasing four EPs across the next year, all themed around how humanity is totally screwed.

What could have been an act of self-sabotage or self-indulgence or both has transpired to be a welcome reminder of all that this band does best, rooted in raw relevance for today and the cyber-punk energy of tomorrow.

Watch Sykes give NME a track-by-track rundown of Post Human: Survival Horror above.

Go here to see the original:

Bring Me The Horizon explain delay in "bigger than intended" EP series - NME.com

A recent survey found that two-thirds of workers believe that by 2035 workers will have an edge in the labor market if theyre willing to have performance-enhancing microchips implanted in their bodies. Technologically enhanced humans have a rich history in science fiction, but there are many questions about what real-life cyborgs would look likeand whether they already exist.

In 2017, Kevin Warwick, a robotics researcher and posthumanism enthusiast, examined technologies for human enhancement. He defines posthumanism as the permanent or semi-permanent implantation of machine components into a human body to enhance its abilities beyond the human norm.

Warwick himself was the first person to get a radio frequency identification device (RFID) implanted, back in 1998. The devicea collection of microchips and an antenna that powers the device and emits signalsallowed him to control lights and open doors. Since then, nightclubs have used similar implants to grant access to guests, and the Mexican government has also used them for security purposes. Theyve been used for a long time in pets and for animal research, too.

Warwick envisions a future where people could use chips as keys, credit cards, or passports. While he does not specifically address microchips in the workplace, he notes that people dont want to feel anyone is forcing this kind of technology on them. He suggests that people might accept it voluntarily if it seems like a convenience.

Such might be the case if, for example, the implant enables the user to bypass queues at passport control because extra information could be directed to the authorities as the individual merely marches through, he writes.

Beyond microchips, Warwick looks at technologies intended to extend humans perception, such as magnets implanted under the skin to allow people to feel information gathered by external sensors. The most promising, and potentially most disturbing, type of technology he looks at is an array of microelectrodes attached to users brains. Here again, Warwick has tried out the technology himself, successfully receiving information from ultrasonic sensors and controlling external objects using neural signals. For example, while in England, he was able to control a robotic hand in New York and receive feedback from the robotic fingertips sent as neural stimulation. Elon Musks Neuralink company recently demonstrated a technology that can supposedly do something similar, but conveying more data using less-invasive hardware.

Ultimately, both Warwick and Musk envision a vast transformation in human capabilities through seamless connections between high-powered computers and human brains. That seems to be a long way from reality. But whether were talking about a leap forward for the species or just chips that unlock doors, one big question we may face is how much employers can ask workers to transform themselves for their jobs. That question is inescapably connected with power relationships. In the same survey for which workers assessed the advantages of microchipped employees, 57 percent said theyd be willing to get chipped themselves, as long as they felt it was safe. Only 31 percent of business leaders said the same.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

By: Kevin Warwick

Journal of Posthuman Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Journal of Posthuman Studies (2017), pp. 61-74

Penn State University Press

Originally posted here:

Are the Posthumans Here Yet? - JSTOR Daily

Some scientists believe that there's a 50-50 chance we really are living in a simulation, and now we have to wonder if The Matrix is looking more like a documentary than science fiction.

In a report from Popular Mechanics (via Scientific American), some scientists believe that the odds that life as we know it is a simulation could be as simple as a coin toss. This 50-50 coin toss approximation comes from the Scientific American-cited odds of 50.22222 to 49.77778 when determining whether or not life is a simulation. Scientific American, and subsequently Popular Mechanics, cite philosopher Nick Bostrom's 2003 paper, "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" to explain where odds like the ones above come from.

"I argue that at least one of the following propositions is true," Bostrom says in hispaper. "(1): the human species is very likely to become extinct before reaching 'posthuman' stage; (2): any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of its evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3): we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we shall one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation."

Bostrom's simulation theory focuses on computing power, much like The Matrix and its sequels did when discussing the idea of humankind simulation. It might be hard to believe there exists a computer powerful enough to simulate our entire existence but, if such a computer did exist, we would never be able to recognize it to begin with as we'd be inside of it, or rather, a part of its simulation.

Bostrom's theory of simulation sees the odds at nearly 50-50 and Columbia University astronomer David Kipping used Bostrom's theory as a guide for arriving to his own odds. Kipping's theory dictates that simulations cannot spawn their own additional simulations.

"That is because as simulations spawn more simulations, the computer resources available to each subsequent generation dwindles to the point where the vast majority of realities will be those that do not have the computing power necessary to simulate offspring realties that are capable of hosting conscious beings."

As Popular Mechanics points out, think of Russian nesting dolls. Each subsequent doll after the first doll must fit into the doll that came before it. As a result, each doll grows smaller and smaller in size and scale as you go deeper into the nest of dolls.

Basically, we are either in a simulation or we are not in a simulation. If humankind never creates its own simulation using conscious beings, then the odds of us living in a simulation tip further toward "yes," because if we are in a simulation, then we likely wouldn't be able to create one. If humankind does create a simulation of its own using conscious beings, then Kipping and Bostrom's theory about computing power are closer to being proven wrong and the odds of us living in a simulation shift more towards "no."

Regardless, it's probably not a bad idea to let Keanu Reeves know now just in case.

For more science, read about how some scientists claim evidence of a parallel universe where time runs backwardand then read about how this simulation might not matter because various species on Earth keep evolving into crabs.

Wesley LeBlanc is a freelance news writer and guide maker for IGN who becameincreasingly moreexistential while writing this story. You can follow him on Twitter @LeBlancWes.

Read the original:

There's a 50-50 Chance We Really Are Living in a Simulation, Scientists Say - IGN Southeast Asia

Bring Me The Horizon have shared a behind-the-scenes look at the video for Obey, their recent team-up with Yungblud.

Released earlier this month, the collaboration is the third single to be lifted from the Sheffield bands upcoming Posthuman project, following on from previous cuts Ludens and Parasite Eve.

Yesterday (September 16), BMTH posted a Making Of The Video clip to their official YouTube channel, giving fans an insight into how the epic, futuristic visuals came together.

Today me and Dom [Yungblud] are getting our faces moulded for the robots, says Bring Mes frontman Oli Sykes at the top of the clip. Should be pretty fuckin weird never actually done this before.

After cutting to a green screen studio, we hear Sykes explain how the video had been inspired by old Japanese Godzilla-type movies and Power Rangers. Later, the masked singer expresses his concerns over finishing the shoot on time. Im not panicking, he says. Its not my job to panic.

Elsewhere, Yungblud explains: I hope you all love this tune. I hope you all find anger and solace, and it helps you as much as it has us making it. Because we dont have to obey, man. We dont have to conform to an ideology that is placed upon our shoulders just because someone says so.

You can watch the full video above.

Meanwhile, Yungblud has announced his second album Weird with new single God Save Me, But Dont Drown Me Out. The 12-track record will arrive in November.

Read the original here:

Bring Me The Horizon share behind-the-scenes look at Obey video shoot - NME.com

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" could be the epigraph of Elena Ferrante's book The Lying Life of Adults (translated byAnn Goldstein), the "tangled knot" of truth and lies in which the first-person narrator Giovanna pours her aching heart.

The "beholder" in the novel is the protagonists father, Andrea Trada, a high-school teacher of "refined manner" and "inimitable elegance", who believes that twelve-year old Giovanna "is getting the face" of his sister Vittoria, in which "ugliness and spite were combined to perfection".

Even though she has no recollection of Vittorias appearance, Giovannas entire world crumbles upon realizing that she might have inherited her aunts features. A frantic search through familys old pictures bears no fruit; not only Vittoria has been blanked by Andrea in real life, she has also been erased from all the photos. A black square appears where her face should be. The estranged aunt is not just absent, she has been cancelled out, emblematically turned into a radical "other", a topic so current at this moment in time. Determined to resolve her identity crisis, Giovanna embarks on a quest to meet Vittoria, a wicked, vulgar, controlling woman whose affinity with Lila, co-protagonist of the four-novel saga My Brilliant Friend, is bound to spark the magic connection with the story that all Ferrante fans are longing for.

Listen:Enrica Maria Ferrara talks The Lying Life of Adults on RT Arena

Stepping into the Pascone neighbourhood, where aunt Vittoria leaves, marks Giovannas literal descent into a hellish underworld; here she discovers a Naples very different from the polished, Italian-speaking, middle-class suburb of Rione Alto, perched on the top of the hill, which Andrea now calls his home. The lower part of the city is riddled with petty criminals and uneducated plebs, "howling shapes of repulsive unseemliness" who speak the wrong language, the coarse Neapolitan dialect that Giovanna has been forbidden to use.

But why so? Are there any reasons for this fierce suppression of identity? Are Vittorias face and the Pascone neighbourhood really so ugly, as the "beholder" of beauty Andrea Trada suggests, or is he instead a flawed individual who parted ways with his past, his Neapolitan heritage, even his own family in order to fulfil his parvenu dream?

"Look at them, your parents, look at them carefully, dont let them fool you" - aunt Vittoria presses her - as Giovannas mobile gaze pierces through the thick blanket of lies enveloping her perfect family. This is when she discovers that Andrea has had an affair with Costanza, wife of his best friend, for fifteen years. Not only has he lied about his sister, whose face is "so vividly insolent that it [is] very ugly and very beautiful at the same time"; he has also unmasked, through his actions, the dualistic fallacy of a value system based on which parents teach their children the difference between right and wrong, ugly and beautiful. They act like "reasonable" adults until something happens that "reduce them to the most untrustworthy animals, worse than reptiles".

Eventually, Giovanna develops the powerful gaze of Lila in My Brilliant Friend, her ability (that Ferrante names smarginatura) to see a world in which the boundaries between self and other, human and nonhuman animals, mind and flesh, truth and lies (and all possible opposites) collapse and give space to a novel posthuman worldview. As she crosses the invisible lines separating the two Naples, the protagonist implicitly rejects the unreliable value system built by her father and all supporters of the patriarchy and attempts to build her own. However, the first path chosen by Giovanna to overcome the perceived mind-body dualism, at the root of all lies, is self-degradation. Refusing to be objectified by men, she objectifies her own body, using it to give men pleasure even if she feels nothing: "I felt no desire, it didnt seem like a fun game, I wasnt even curious". Ferrantes descriptions of these sexual acts are not for the faint-hearted: written in crude, obscene, graphic language, they read nearly like self-inflicted rape.

On the other hand, though, as most Ferrante characters, Giovanna builds her identity by interacting not only with other human beings but also with nonhuman objects, seemingly endowed with agency. We will remember, for example, the copper pot exploding or the panel going on fire with no human intervention in My Brilliant Friend. In The Lying Life of Adults the magic object is a bracelet Vittoria claims to have gifted to her niece when she was a baby. But Giovanna has never seen the jewel until it suddenly appears on the wrist of Costanza Andrea Tradas mistress. The restitution of the bracelet to Giovanna coincides with and somehow causes - her parents divorce. This is when the protagonist starts attributing magic powers to it, "as if impregnated with the moods of that affair the glitter of its stones scattered afflictions".

The shiny ornament is also the pretext on which Corrado, one of Vittorias adoptive son, pays Giovanna a visit that will lead to the girls first clumsy, gut-wrenching sexual experience. This leitmotif, goes on and on and on. The bracelet is another character in its own right and becomes the emblem of the same reality devoid of boundaries that allows the two friends of the Neapolitan quartet to merge into one. This time, it is the refined Costanza and the vulgar Vittoria who become entangled as "the bracelet pressed them into one another and confused them, confusing me". Indeed, this tangle of truth and lies, vulgarity and refinement, ugliness and beauty, clinging onto the luminous bracelet, is what lies beneath the black rectangle of Vittorias face once Giovanna is able to see it. The stream of consciousness echoing the visionary thoughts of the adolescent protagonist is where we find Elena Ferrantes storytelling at its best. Less entertaining are Andreas affair, his new family, and even Giovannas idealized passion for Roberto, a young man native of Pascone who reminds us too closely of Nino Sarratore, My Brilliant Friends handsome villain. And yet, even these lacklustre facets of The Lying Life of Adults are wiped away by the exhilarating, compelling rhythm of Ferrantes masterful narrative voice.

Enrica Maria Ferrara

The Lying Life of Adults by Elena Ferrante, translated by Ann Goldstein (Europa Editions) is out now. Enrica Maria Ferrara is an academic writer and a lecturer.

See original here:

Reviewed: The Lying Life of Adults by Elena Ferrante - RTE.ie

Bring Me The Horizons Oli Sykes has hailed Yungblud as a new breed of rockstar following their recent collaboration, Obey.

Released yesterday (September 2), the team-up serves as the third single to be lifted from BMTHs upcoming Posthuman project, following on from previous cuts Ludens and Parasite Eve.

Explaining the bands decision to recruit Yungblud (real name Dominic Harrison), Sykes told Loudwire: There was an energy to [Obey] where it felt heavy but then had some slight Britpop influences, which I hear in Yungbluds music.

With our last record [amo], we kind of looked outside the scene for people to collaborate with and bring something new to the table, and with this record we wanted to have people that reflect the scene at the moment and still not choose obvious people that you would expect us to work with.

Sykes continued: I really like what Yungbluds doing. I love his energy and I think hes reflective of a new breed of rock star. Were honoured, to be honest.

Meanwhile, Yungblud has been added to the line-up for next years Reading & Leeds festivals, which will be headlined by Stormzy,Catfish And The Bottlemen, Post Malone,Disclosure, Liam GallagherandQueens Of The Stone Age.

Harrison recently revealed that his second album will be coming out this fall, and has so far shared the tracks Lemonade, Strawberry Lipstick and Weird.

It legitimately explores the ideas of identity, of sexuality, of equality, of depression, of anxiety, of life, of love, of heartbreak, of everything, Yungblud said of the LP. Me and my fan base, were coming of age together. I want to do it side by side.

Excerpt from:

Bring Me The Horizons Oli Sykes: Yungblud is a new breed of rockstar - NME.com

Welcome back to our Fermi Paradox series, where we take a look at possible resolutions to Enrico Fermis famous question, Where Is Everybody? Today, we examine the possibility that we cant see them because they have us all inside a massive simulation!

In 1950, Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi sat down to lunch with some of his colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he had worked five years prior as part of the Manhattan Project. According to various accounts, the conversation turned to aliens and the recent spate of UFOs. Into this, Fermi issued a statement that would go down in the annals of history: Where is everybody?

This became the basis of the Fermi Paradox, which refers to the disparity between high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) and the apparent lack of evidence. Seventy years later, we are still trying to answer that question, which has led to some interesting theories about why we havent. A particularly mind-bending suggestion comes in the form of the Planetarium Hypothesis!

To break it down, this hypothesis states that the reason we are not seeing aliens is that humanity is in a simulation, and the aliens are the ones running it! In order to ensure that human beings do not become aware of this fact, they ensure that the simulation presents us with a Great Silence whenever we look out and listen to the depths of space.

Given the sheer size of the Universe and its age, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) seems like a valid enterprise. Consider the following: there are 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy and as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the Universe. Within our galaxy alone, there are an estimated 6 billion Earth-like planets, which means that there could be as many as 12 quintillion Earth-like planets in the Universe.

Meanwhile, it took humanity about 4.5 billion years to emerge on Earth, and the Universe has been around for 13.8 billion years. As such, its not farfetched at all to assume that intelligent life has had countless opportunities to emerge somewhere else in the Universe and plenty of time to evolve. In 1961, American physicist and SETI researcher Dr. Frank Drake illustrated this point during a meeting at the Green Bank Observatory.

In preparation for the meeting, Drake created an equation that summed up the probability of finding ETIs in our galaxy. Thereafter known as the Drake Equation, this probabilistic argument is expressed mathematically as:

The purpose of this argument was to summarize the challenges of SETI (i.e. the sheer number of unknowns) and put it into context. At the same time, it demonstrated that the odds of findings ETIs are quite good. Even employing the most conservative estimates for every parameter, the Equation indicates that there should be at least a few ETIs in our galaxy that we could communicate with at any given time.

Moreover, given the age of the Universe itself, there should be many species in our Universe that have evolved to the point where they could explore space and perform feats of engineering that would dwarf anything we can dream of. Which brings us to

In 1964, Soviet/Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev proposed that extraterrestrial civilizations could be classified based on the amount of energy its able to harness. In an essay detailing this idea, titled Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations, Kardashev proposed a three-tiered scheme the Kardashev Scale that stated the following:

From the standpoint of SETI, civilizations that fall into any of these three categories could be identified in a number of ways. For example, a Type I civilization is likely to have grown to occupy its entire planet and colonize Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with satellites and space stations. This cloud of artificial objects (aka. Clarke Belts) could be visible from the way it reflects the stars light during planetary transits.

A Type II civilization, according to Kardashev, is one that would be capable of building a megastructure around their star (i.e. a Dyson Sphere). This would allow the civilization to harness all of the energy produced by its sun, as well as multiplying the amount of habitable space in its home system exponentially. As Dyson himself stated in his original paper, these megastructures could be spotted by looking for their infrared signatures.

As for Type III civilizations, it is possible that a civilization capable of harnessing all the energy of its galaxy would do so by building an apparatus that encloses it. Or, its possible they would choose to enclose just a part of it, around its core region perhaps, and the supermassive black hole (SMBH) at its center. Regardless, it stands to reason that such an advanced civilization would be impossible not to notice.

Hence Fermis why famous question endures. To date, most attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox focus on how aliens could exist but be unable to communicate with us. In contrast, the Simulation Hypothesis suggests that they are deliberately not communicating with us, and even taking great pains to hide their existence. Their method of choice consists of keeping us in a simulated reality so that we are blind to their existence.

In 2001, famed science fiction author and mathematician/engineer Stephen Baxter wrote a seminal essay titled, The Planetarium Hypothesis A Resolution of the Fermi Paradox. In response to Fermis question, Baxter postulated that humanitys astronomical observations are actually an illusion created by a Type III Civilization who are keeping humanity in a giant planetarium. Or as he put it:

A possible resolution to the Fermi Paradox is that we are living in an artificial universe, perhaps a form of virtual- reality `planetarium, designed to give us the illusion that the universe is empty. Quantum-physical and thermo-dynamic considerations inform estimates of the energy required to generate such simulations of varying sizes and quality.

This concept is similar to the Simulation Hypothesis, a theory originally put forth by Niklas Bostrom of the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute (FHI). In a 2001 paper, titled Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?, he addressed the idea that what humanity considers the observable Universe is actually a massive virtual environment. This idea, where the very nature of reality is questioned, has deep roots in many philosophical traditions.

In this case, however, it is suggested that the purpose of keeping humanity in a simulation is to protect us, our hosts, and perhaps other species from the dangers associated with contact. Using human history as a template, we see countless examples of how two cultures meeting for the first time can easily end in war, conquest, slavery, and genocide.

However, there are limits. According to Baxters original paper, it would be well within the abilities of a Type III civilization to contain our present civilization within a perfect simulation. However, a single culture that occupies a space measuring ~100 light-years in diameter would exceed the capacities of any conceivable simulated reality.

In this respect, it would be within the Type III civilizations best interests to create a simulation that would contain no evidence of ETIs while also placing limits on our ability to expand out into the Universe. This could be done by including physics models that limit humanitys ability to leave Earth (i.e. its high-escape velocity) and our ability to explore and colonize space (the limits imposed by Special Relativity).

Naturally, the idea that were living in a planetarium created by advanced aliens is difficult to test. However, multiple studies have been conducted on the Simulation Hypothesis that have implications for the Planetarium Hypothesis. For instance, Prof. David Kipping of Columbia University and the Flatiron Institutes Center for Computational Astrophysics recently published a study on the very subject.

In this study, titled A Bayesian Approach to the Simulation Argument, Kipping conducted a series of statistical calculations designed to test the likelihood and the uncertainty associated with Bostroms hypothesis. In sum, Kipping argued that a posthuman civilization with the ability to generate such simulations would create far more than just one, which indicates a high probability that we are not in one.

At the same time, he indicated that the odds that we could be in one of many are close to being even:

Using Bayesian model averaging, it is shown that the probability that we are sims is in fact less than 50%, tending towards that value in the limit of an infinite number of simulations. This result is broadly indifferent as to whether one conditions upon the fact that humanity has not yet birthed such simulations, or ignore it. As argued elsewhere, it is found that if humanity does start producing such simulations, then this would radically shift the odds and make it very probably we are in fact simulated.

Thanks to endorsements by public figures like Elon Musk, who once said theres a billion to one chance were living in base reality, the concept has gained mainstream attention and acceptance. At the same time, though, both the Simulation and Planetarium Hypothesis have their share of detractors and counter-studies that question the merits of this scenario.

For starters, multiple researchers have questioned whether a Universe-level simulation is even possible given our understanding of the laws of nature. In particular, some researchers have used our own failures with quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations to argue that future humans (or an ETI) would not be able to generate a reality that is accurate right down to the quantum level.

Others have criticized the Simulation Hypothesis based on Ockhams Razor and what they see as the computational impossibility to simulate our something as huge as our Universe down to the granular level. Then there are arguments that use recent advancements in lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) to show how a simulated environment will inevitably be finite and vulnerable to discovery.

Of course, these criticisms can be countered by arguing that it is impossible to disprove the simulation theory based on physical arguments when the very physics we are referencing could be nothing more than the result of the simulation. But this counter-argument only reinforces the issue of how the Simulation Hypothesis is not falsifiable. In short, it can neither be proven nor disproven, so whats the point of debating it?

However, there are arguments concerning the Planetarium Hypothesis that are testable and can therefore be treated separately. For example, there are those who have argued that assuming the existence of a Level III Kardashev civilization is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption. In short, it assumes that the evolutionary path of advanced civilizations is based on expansion rather than optimization.

In a 2008 study, Against the Empire, Serbia astronomer, astrophysicist, and philosopher Milan Cirkovic argued the opposite take. In short, he tested two models for determining the behaviors of a postbiological and technologically advanced civilization the Empire-State and the City-State. In the end, he argued that advanced species would prefer to remain in spatially-compact optimized environments rather than spread outwards.

Some examples of this include the Dyson Swarm and the Matrioshka Brain, two variations on Dysons famous sphere. Whereas the former consist of smaller objects interlinked in orbits around a star, the latter consists of layers of computing material (computronium) powered by the star itself. The civilization responsible for building it could live on the many islands in space, or live out their existence as simulations within the giant brain.

At the end of the day, a species choosing to live like this would have very little incentive to venture out into the Universe and attempt to colonize other worlds or interfere with the development of other species. Nor would they consider other species a threat since they would be inclined to believe the evolutionary pathway for other intelligent life would be similar to their own i.e. in favor of optimization.

Unfortunately, such arguments require that evidence of ETIs be found such as the heat signatures produced by their megastructures in order to be considered testable. At this time, we have a hard time constraining what would be considered a sign of intelligent life and its activity (aka. technosignatures) because we know of only one species capable of doing that (simply put, us!)

Nevertheless, theories like the Planetarium Hypothesis remain fascinating food for thought as we continue to probe the Universe looking for signs of intelligent life. They also help refine the search by suggesting things to be on the lookout for. In the meantime, all we can do is keep looking, listening, and wondering if anyone is out there.

We have written many interesting articles about the Fermi Paradox, the Drake Equation, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) here at Universe Today.

Heres Where Are All the Aliens? The Fermi Paradox, Where Are The Aliens? How The Great Filter Could Affect Tech Advances In Space, Why Finding Alien Life Would Be Bad. The Great Filter, Where Are All The Alien Robots?, How Could We Find Aliens? The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), and Fraser and John Michael Godier Debate the Fermi Paradox.

Want to calculate the number of extraterrestrial species in our galaxy? Head on over to the Alien Civilization Calculator!

And be sure to check out the rest of our Beyond Fermis Paradox series:

Astronomy Cast has some interesting episodes on the subject. Heres Episode 24: The Fermi Paradox: Where Are All the Aliens?, Episode 110: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Episode 168: Enrico Fermi, Episode 273: Solutions to the Fermi Paradox.

Sources:

Like Loading...

More here:

Beyond Fermis Paradox VII: What it the Planetarium Hypothesis - Universe Today

In today's digital age, we have grown increasingly accustomed to understanding the world through fragmented information presented on screens. Rapid developments in transportation, communication, and media have also exacerbated the fracturing and destabilising of society. Zygmunt Bauman used the term "liquid society" to describe the current volatile state of our society. As social structures dissolve, seemingly from solid to liquid, and periodic reforms accelerate to constant change, instability permeates all levels of our lives.

Moreover, global capitalism continues to consume us, labelling materials and things with trademarks and prices to produce commodities. The relationship binding humans to things has become increasingly tenuous, and the ontological status of things are reduced to either pure sensory stimulation or hallucinations on identity. The alienation and commodification of people have also resulted from this. Whether we are rethinking old materialist views of the separation between human and nature, material and consciousness, examining the dynamism of things in the production of relationships, or immersed in the nostalgia for lost objects and skills, it is not enough to merely mend the modern by stitching up ruptures in society due to the relentless expansions of symbols and vantage points. Perhaps a better way is to withdraw from the vortex of fetishisation and to coexist with things through a new methodnamely, the Study of Things. To investigate the phenomena of things in order to understand their nature.

Furthermore, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the ecological crisis has become increasingly severe and irreversible. The structure of populations, geopolitics, and political economy have all changed drastically. The development of science and technology has left biopolitics and ethics in urgent need of discussion. Therefore, the human being, which has served as the measure all things since the age of Enlightenment, has become increasingly suspect. Our understanding of today's world is challenged. Theories and words have abandoned anthropocentric discourse and turned to matter. Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory and American scholar Jane Bennett's Vital Materialism provided the inspiration for the current exhibition. The former holds that both humans and nonhumans are actants, and that the network of connections and interactions between these actants serve as drivers of social and natural development. The latter emphasises that objects have lives and are alive. A They are alive in a non-biological sense, owing to the existence of interaction, entanglement, and action-oriented relationships that form open variables among things. At the same time, things have acquired political significance, not simply to conjure material contexts or material ends to political subjects, but to participate in the political process as active subjects akin to people.

Art as an activity of production maintains a strong interest in materials. It also faces a posthuman dilemma under the dual pressures of technological acceleration and global neoliberalism. Resuming the discussion of material and materiality under the wave of material turns across disciplines and geographic restrictions, what kind of revelation can we bring to the artist's work and practice beyond thought and theory? What cognitive perspectives appear when we no longer look at a specific thing in isolation, but place it in a dynamic network of relationships?

Proceeding from this, the exhibition will return to the intersection of material and imagination, gathering eleven artists' fetishistic longings and thoughts on the Study of Things. They focus on things that are within our reach, tracking their vitality and materiality, and follow the flow of things that transgress borders of time, history, and nationstate. Here, the flow of things is the process of their discovery, mining, production, distribution, and consumption; it can also be regarded as the flow of transregional society and culture, even that of the geological age. After examining an object's symbolic meaning, we go back to the formation process of its value. We question the current value system: How does the active nature of material function as a resource shaping behavioural tendencies in the development of modern humanity? Behind the trajectory of these things, how do we gain insight into the more complex social mechanisms, power structures, interests, and the cause and effect of internal power relations present in objects?

We attempt to stage things as the protagonist to tell a series of stories that are parallel and intertwined.

Press release courtesy Guangdong Times Museum.

Read more from the original source:

Curated by Tan Yue, Study of Things. Or a Brief Story About Fountain, Brick, Tin, Coin, Stone, Shell, Curtain, and Body. at Guangdong Times Museum,...

The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the first appearance of the term post-human as Maurice Parmelees 1916 Poverty and Social Progress. In a section entitled Eugenic Measures and the Prevention of Poverty, Parmelee, a sociologist, wrote:

But even though it is not possible, at present at any rate, to do much to improve the quality of the human stock by eugenic means, it is interesting and profitable to consider what would be the result if socially undesirable types could be eliminated entirely or in large part . . . . [But] it is evident, in the first place, that it is inconceivable that human nature could be changed to the extent that is contemplated by [the] theory of perfectibility. Such changes would bring into being an animal no longer human, or for that matter mammalian, in its character, for it would involve the elimination of such fundamental human and mammalian instincts and emotions as anger, jealousy, fear, etc. But even if such a post-human animal did come into existence, it is difficult to believe that it could carry on the necessary economic activities without using a certain amount of formal organization, compulsion, etc.[i]

Parmelees passage identifies several important issues that run throughout the lexicographical history of the term post-human into the present day. In answering What is the post-human? a corollary set of questions arise: Are we already post-human or is post-humanism permanently stuck in the future? At what point does a human stop being a human? What is the relationship between humans and animals? Does scientific advancement necessarily improve the human condition, or ought we limit it? If our social configurations (states, laws, families) are predicated on human nature, what happens to that order when we alter our nature? These inquiries stretch across disciplines from physics to anthropology, but they coalesce over the figure of the post-human. I would like to outline how three major thinkersN. Katherine Hayles, Jean-Franois Lyotard, and Jrgen Habermashave contributed to our understanding of the post-human. Speaking from different backgrounds and fields of study, Hayles, Lyotard, and Habermas each provide a unique perspective of the post-human, establishing multiple points of consensus and disagreement.

I: Hayles

We can infer much from the title of N. Katherine Hayles seminal book How We Became Posthuman: taken literally, the past-tense became connotes that the transformation from human to post-human has already occurred. But Hayles notes the multiple ironies of her title, since her thesis is more complex than That was then, this is now.[ii] Her argument is that human subjectivity is always historically specific: the changes [from human to post-human] were never complete transformations or sharp breaks; without exception, they reinscribed traditional ideas and assumptions even as they articulated something new.[iii] In other words, an element of or precondition for the post-human has always been among us (or more accurately, in us)hence, her title. People become posthuman because they think they are posthuman, not simply because they use dishwashers, the internet, or genetic engineering.[iv]

But Hayles does not deny that a real shift is taking place. Hayles impetus for her research was the 20th centurys articulation, by science fiction authors and cyberneticists like Norbert Weiner, that a great new epoch could be reached with the arrival of conscious computers, cyborgs, robots, and other variations of post-human beings which could finally separate mind from matter. She opens her essay Visualizing the Posthuman with the claim that, no longer a cloud on the horizon, the posthuman is rapidly becoming an everyday reality through physical prostheses, genetic engineering, and digital and artificial environments, all of which are necessary, but not sufficient, elements of post-humanity. [v] It is not that such technologies create the post-human object; rather, they allow for the possibility of a post-human subject. Thus, [o]ne cannot ask whether information technologies should continue to be developed. Given market forces already at work, it is virtually certain that we will increasingly live, work, and play in environments that construct as embodied virtualities.[vi]

Hayles elaborates her thesis by examining the practices of reading and writing within the digital media environment. For Hayles, the computer and digital technology have created the conditions for new conceptions of identity and subjectivity that demarcate the post-human era. In contrast to the pre-modern oral subject (fluid, changing, situational, dispersed) and the modern written subject (fixed, coherent, stable, self-identical), the postmodern virtual subject can be described as post-human because its subjectivity is formed through dynamical interfaces with computers:

The physics of virtual writing illustrates how our perceptions change when we work with computers on a daily basis. We do not need to have software sockets inserted into our heads to become cyborgs. We already are cyborgs in the sense that we experience, through the integration of our bodily perceptions and motions with computer architectures and topologies, a changed sense of subjectivity.[vii]

For Hayles the central issue in post-humanism is whether the body is superfluous: Should the body be seen as evolutionary baggage that we are about to toss out as we vault into the brave new world of the posthuman? she asks.[viii] In its philosophy and practice, the modern age sought to separate mind from body. It is only on that premise, Hayles argues, that we could conceive of discarding the body while keeping the mind, as many utopian/dystopian fictions describe, in scenarios predicting the downloading of brain matter. Instead, Hayles says our minds are bound up with our bodies, irrevocably: there is an inextricable intertwining of body with mind . . . . We are the medium, and the medium is us.[ix]

Thus, Hayles conception of the post-human is marked by two characteristics: it is not a sharp or radical break, but is a historically specific conception of subjectivity, just as Enlightenment humanism was. Because of this, the full-blown post-humanism of science fiction is necessarily incomplete: we can never completely isolate the mind and discard the body. Hence, the future is not pre-determined, neither as a positivist utopia with minimal labor, or as apocalyptic dystopia of human oppression: Technologies do not develop on their own. People develop them, and people can be guided to better or worse decisions through deliberation and politics.[x] Hayles goal is not to recuperate the liberal subject.[xi] Such a fantasy, she notes, was a conception that may have applied at best to that fraction of humanity who had the wealth power and leisure to conceptualize themselves as autonomous beings exercising their will through agency and choice.[xii] The post-human is, for better or worse, here: but it does not really mean the end of humanity. It signals instead the end of a certain conception of the human.[xiii]

II: Lyotard

Perhaps most poignant image of the post-human emerges from a thought experiment conducted by Jean-Franois Lyotard in his text The Inhumane. There, Lyotard asks, what happens when the sun explodes, as scientists tell us it will, in 4.5 billion years? It will surely mean the destruction of the planet. For Lyotard, this scenario is the prerequisite for post-humanity, and consequently, the only one worth philosophizing about as the sole serious question to face humanity today.[xiv] Even a world destroyed by nuclear weaponry does not suffice to create the post-human:

[A] human warleave[s] behind it a devastated human world, dehumanized, but with nonetheless at least a single survivor, someone to tell the story of whats left, to write it down . . . . But in what remains after the solar explosion, there wont be any humanness, there wont be living creatures, there wont be intelligent, sensitive, sentient earthlings to bear witness to it, since they and their earthly horizon will have been consumed.[xv]

Lyotards post-human is thus grounded not in the transcendence of certain human capabilities or features, like Parmelees emotions or Hayles digital subjectivity, but on a fundamental altering of the world as we have ever known it. For Lyotard, such a universe cannot even be thought ofbecause to grasp it in our minds still taints it with the trace of humanity. The universal apocalypse must remain unthought: if theres [total] death, then theres no thought. Negation without remainder. No self to make sense of it. Pure event. Disaster.[xvi]

But this does not mean we must take the attitude of Epicurus, referenced by Lyotard to stand for those who preach to only augment ones own worldly happiness. In a tone of urgency, Lyotard suggests that we must make way for the coming of the post-human. What is at stake in every field from genetics to particle physics is how to make thought without a body possible . . . . That clearly means finding for the body a nutrient that owes nothing to the bio-chemical components synthesized on the surface of the earth through the use of solar energy. Or: learning to effect these syntheses in other places than on earth.[xvii] Lyotard expresses nostalgia about this inevitability, concluding that we must say to ourselves . . . we shall go on.[xviii] This serves as the impetus for his exegeses on aesthetics and art, whose etchings and engravings capture the last vestiges of humanity, as he affirms: let us at least bear witness, and again, and for no-one.[xix] The possibility of a witness implies the possibility of a human. Thus, Lyotard presents a radicalized vision of the post-human as an essentially alien thing, even suggesting that the post-human condition is beyond the scope of our imaginations. The post-human is not a half-man, half-robot: he has no attachment to the earth whatsoever.

III: Habermas

A staunch defender of the unfinished modern project of human freedom, liberal philosopher Jrgen Habermas The Future of Human Nature speaks directly to the concerns raised by Parmelee on improving the stock of man. Habermas starting point is 1973, when the human genome was cracked. This scientific advance has allowed for embryo research and a liberal eugenics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which can manipulate an embryos eventual gender among other capabilities.[xx] Habermas believes developments of biology call into question our natural idea of the human being, and consequently, our laws, societal organization, nuclear families, and even philosophies. Mankind has hitherto taken birth (roughly) as a given fact of the world, meaning we make the assumption that the genetic endowment of the newborn infant, and thus the initial organic conditions for its future life history, lay beyond any programming and deliberate manipulation on the part of other persons.[xxi] However, modern technology is obliterating the boundary between persons and things because the embryo becomes subject to design, like any other object or commodity. [xxii] For the first time, the human species can take its biological evolution into its own hands. The post-human corresponds to the reversal of Jean Paul Sartres humanism, whose sloganexistence precedes essenceis now definitively called into question: now, a decision on existence or nonexistence is taken in view of the potential essence.[xxiii]

Because new technologies are regulated by supply and demand[xxiv] they leave the goals of gene-modifying interventions to the individual preferences of market participants.[xxv] But Habermas thinks merely intervening in the market through legislation cannot resolve the underlying conflict: Legislative interventions restricting the freedom of biological research and banning the advances of genetic engineering seem but a vain attempt to set oneself against the dominant tendency.[xxvi] Genetic technologies have obvious upsides that justify their application, like the eradication of debilitating genetic disorders. But the question is whether the instrumentalization of human nature changes the ethical self-understanding of the species in such a way that we may no longer see ourselves as ethically free and morally equal beings guided by norms and reasons.[xxvii] The strange science fiction accounts of humans being improved by chip implants is for Habermas only an exaggeration of an already present reality.[xxviii] Because genetic modification occurs before the moment of consciousness, subjects have no way of knowing that their characteristics were, to some degree, designed for them. In other words, the salient point for Habermas is the anti-democratic nature of the post-human: there is no choice of a red or blue pill, to use the famous scene from The Matrix.

Thus, in the post-human, Habermas sees the fate of the enlightenment project of freedom. While he does not clearly mark the threshold between human and object, his conception of the post-human is one where humans are not free to create themselves, connecting the human with the philosophy of humanism. In the mold of the Enlightenment philosophers, Habermas views humans as self-governing beings with the capacity for reason; new technologies, especially embryonic ones, undermine that modern view, ushering in the post-human.

[i] Parmelee, p. 350.

[ii] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p.6

[iii] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 6.

[iv] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 6.

[v] Hayles, Visualizing the Posthuman, p. 50.

[vi] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 48.

[vii] Hayles, Condition of Virtuality, p. 12.

[viii] Hayles, Visualizing the Posthuman, p. 50.

[ix] Hayles, Visualizing the Posthuman, p. 54.

[x] Hayles, Condition of Virtuality, p. 14.

[xi] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 5.

[xii] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 286.

[xiii] Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, p. 286.

[xiv] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 8.

[xv] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 10.

[xvi] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 11.

[xvii] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 14.

[xviii] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 105.

[xix] Lyotard, The Inhumane, p. 203.

[xx] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 43.

[xxi] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 13.

[xxii] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 13,

[xxiii] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 50.

[xxiv] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 30.

[xxv] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 19.

[xxvi] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 25.

[xxvii] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 40.

[xxviii] Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, p. 41.

WORKS CITED

Habermas, Jrgen. The Future of Human Nature. London: Blackwell, 2003.

Hayles, Katherine N. How We Became Posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1999.

-Visualizing the Posthuman

-The Condition of Virtuality.

Lyotard, The Inhumane: Reflections on Time. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.

Parmelee, Maurice. Poverty and Social Progess. New York: Macmillan, 1916.

Follow this link:

posthuman | The Chicago School of Media Theory

By David Cohen

HOW would you like to be a posthuman? You know, a person who has gone beyond the maximum attainable capacities by any current human being without recourse to new technological means, as philosopher Nick Bostrum of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford so carefully described it in a recent paper.

In other words, a superbeing by todays standards. If this sounds like hyperbole, bear with me. Behind the jargon lies a fascinating, troubling idea. Were not just talking about someone like Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius, who is augmented with technology to compensate for his disabilities and thus can outrun many able-bodied Olympians.

No, we mean people who, through genetic manipulation, the use of stem cells, or other biointervention, have had their ability to remain healthy and active extended beyond what we would consider normal. Their cognitive powers (memory, deductive thought and other intellectual capabilities, as well as their artistic and creative powers) would far outstrip our own.

Advertisement

Whatever it means to be posthuman, this discussion is too important to be left to academics

Is it possible to imagine such humans without recourse to science fiction clichs? And if we can, how would they affect how we see ourselves and each other? Would they change how we treat each other? Or create a society you would actually want to live in?

If this seems a stretch, consider this: preimplantation genetic diagnosis already lets us screen out some genetic abnormalities in our IVF offspring. And as evidence mounts for genetic components to the physical and cognitive traits we consider desirable, designer babies are surely plausible.

Then again, imagine if you were alive 150 years ago, and someone described life as it is today. Life expectancy then was a mere 40 years on average, with a few lucky individuals making it to 75 or more, though they would likely have succumbed to the first harsh illness they faced. Today, average life expectancy in rich countries hovers around 80; death and disease have all but disappeared from view, mostly into hospitals and hospices.

Our expectations of our bodies, their functional capacity and their term of service, are profoundly different from those of people living in the mid-19th century and, in the great scheme of things, that is a mere blink of an eye.

Have we reached a natural limit, or is there further to go? In his new book, Extremes, Kevin Fong, anaesthetist, part-time TV presenter and science cheerleader, recounts how maverick doctors exploring the extremes of our physiology have produced some amazing medical advances, giving us powers to suspend, control and augment life in ways that would have looked miraculous to our 19th-century counterparts.

Take one of Fongs examples, the practice of controlled cooling of core body temperature before certain types of surgery. In heart surgery, it prolongs the time surgeons have to operate before brain damage is irreversible. The patients heart is stopped, they are not breathing: to all intents and purposes, they are dead. Yet if reheated in the right way, with appropriate life support, they will awake as if from a deep sleep.

Just a few decades ago, a cold, pulseless, breathless body would be considered dead immediately, let alone after 45 minutes of suspended animation. Yet now we can snatch the patient back from the brink, blurring the line between life and death.

Advances in intensive care medicine, too, have endowed doctors with spectacular powers that effectively allow them to take complete control of the most fundamental parts of a patients physiology: their breathing, heart function and the chemical composition of their blood. Fong eloquently outlines the history of such advances, reminding us how experiments by plastic surgeons on second world war burns victims effectively paved the way for the first full-face transplants earlier this century.

He ends by devoting a couple of chapters to his other love, space exploration and the fate of the body out there. Astronauts, for example, lose muscle bulk and bone density in the gravity-free environment, and protecting them against this is no mean feat. Then theres the even greater problem of protecting the body from cosmic radiation a role Earths natural magnetic field does for us quite nicely.

The book is a heady ride through a cherry-picked crop of impressive discoveries in science and medicine, all of them made when the human body was pushed to what we now think of as its limits. And Fong weaves in his own personal experiences so that in places it feels like a thinly veiled autobiography. Hes had an impressive career so far (hes only just 42), working for NASA on space medicine, and as medic to a diving expedition. But you do occasionally wonder if some of this was written to impress his mates from university: it can all seem very Boys Own.

He does admit, however, that most of the improvements in life expectancy have been due to public health measures rather than high-tech medicine. His claim that the war between bugs and humans is won seems premature, especially in view of the growing disquiet among experts in infectious diseases that epidemics caused by antibiotic-resistant bugs are imminent: in the case of gonorrhoea it may already have begun.

Extremes is entertaining, informative, but intellectually lightweight. While Fong does attempt to draw together some of the threads in his book, instead of deep analysis of these undeniably revolutionary changes, we find trite comments about the human imperative to explore both outer space, and the inner space of our bodies because we must.

At the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum is The Posthuman, by philosopher and cultural theorist Rosi Braidotti. She could never be accused of triteness: her charge is one of incomprehensibility, since her language is dense and littered with allusions that make sense only to social science cognoscenti. It can sometimes sap the life out of what should have been a fascinating read.

That said, when clear, Braidotti is bracing. Her central argument is that medical science and biotechnology are fast remaking how we view our bodies, that they are becoming commodities to be traded. This matters greatly because it affects what we think is possible and reasonable to do to a person/body, and therefore has deep consequences for the moral and ethical dimensions of our choices in life. Poor women in India who rent their wombs out to rich families from developed countries are one manifestation; egg and sperm donors another.

Whatever your views on this, these practices can only increase. If you accept that our moral codes reflect to a fair degree the depth of our knowledge of contemporary issues at any one time, then just as our view of homosexuality morphed from repugnance to acceptance in under a century, so the multiple ways in which we can meddle with the body are likely to become the norm in the near future.

But theres an important proviso: these changes are happening dangerously fast, and will revolutionise all our lives, for good or ill. From Fongs extreme bodies to Braidottis bodies in extremis, the discussion is too important to be left to academics. To get the right briefing for this new frontier, we need someone with Fongs communication skills and Braidottis intellectual insight and gravitas to write a book to enlighten the rest of us.

This article appeared in print under the headline Whats death got to do with it?

More on these topics:

Read this article:

What does it mean to be posthuman? | New Scientist

1.

IMAGINE YOURSELF as a videoconferencing device.

As a self-driving nonhuman agent.

As an expanded sensorium surveying a field of visual data streaming live.

Your voice is projected through an amplified speaker, your face displayed on a screen.

You are embodied in a robotic avatar with geospatial coordinates removed from your own.

Inhabiting a mixed-reality environment through algorithmic vision with the pan-tilt-zoom functions of a multi-camera system.

In this mixed-reality, you navigate an exhibition that might otherwise require proximity to other visitors or transatlantic air travel.

Telepresent, the experience of physical presence where [you] cant be in person.

Imagine yourself caught in the infinite loop of an online viewing room.

Or, youre on a virtual museum tour, led by a digitized docent zigzagging back and forth across a series of paintings that all turn out to be Allan McCollums Plaster Surrogates.

After the global pandemic, we may need to cultivate something like this imaginary in the art field and beyond. Spurred by planetary accountability, or necessity, or both. We may need to imagine modes of presence that extend the materiality of human embodiment, that operate as copresence with nonhuman agents.

Aesthetic reception has historically been grounded in a particular model of embodiment in the physical and temporal copresence of live humans, presumed to be mobile and able-bodied.

The museum was initially a performance field where visitors displayed their membership in a civic body. It was a site for the physical enactment of collective, secular rituals. In Carol Duncans account, the museum was a backdrop against which visitors staged embodied performances of citizenship. Their performance was predicated on unmediated access to an auratic, singular commodity object. An object with physical properties and a presence in time and space, a unique existence at the place where it happens to be.

In recent decades, the live presence of human agents has become a luxury commodity in the art field, competing with the circulation of the markets system of objects. Per Hito Steyerl, the value of liveness has risen in correlation to the ubiquity of digital mediation. The result is an economy of physical human presence, privileging the seemingly unalienated experience and authentic encounter between humans.

The centrality of presence in the art field of humans as well as objects is evidenced by the economic impact of the current crisis on artists. A COVID-19 Impact Survey of over 10,000 United Statesbased artists and creative workers revealed that 95 percent of respondents experienced income loss from COVID-19. Sixty-two percent of respondents are now fully unemployed. The first item listed in W.A.G.E.s Recommended Best Practice Protocols for Institutions and Funders is compensation for online content, stipulating that content transferred online or commissioned exclusively going forward for web-based platforms should be paid for at the same or greater rate as prior to the pandemic. Moving forward, a wide-ranging reappraisal of digital labor will be necessary to ensure conditions of sustainability for art workers. This will require a reassessment of the assumptions that underlie the current framing of both presence and liveness as luxury goods.

Who, or what, is endowed with the capacity for liveness?

The human is a privileged term in economies of presence. Peggy Phelan famously described performance as the presence of living bodies. In the same vein, Philip Auslander notes that liveness has traditionally been understood as the presence of living human beings before each other. Complicating Phelans ontology of liveness, Jos Esteban Muoz has countered that the focus on presentness prevents us from directing our attention toward something else: the temporality of utopian performativity [] in the horizon, a mode of possibility a futurity that points toward new potentials for minoritarian belonging.

To borrow from Muozs formulation with a slight difference, a focus on the presentness of human agents in the here and now constrains efforts to imagine alternative futures and different configurations of the human there and then.

Liveness is a contingent category that emerges as a concept in direct relation to its other (mediation). It sustains the fiction that the human body has privileged access to the real. Mediation through nonhuman means, technological platforms, data storage methods: all these have served as the foundation against which liveness has been defined.

In this respect, liveness has always been nonhuman.

Why should the conditions of aesthetic experience matter now? Why should we concern ourselves with how liveness is formulated in the arts amid a global crisis? Or, in an ongoing series of pervasive global crises? As one recent online exhibition title deftly put it, How Can We Think of Art at a Time Like This?

We can think about art at a time like this, partly because the art field has participated in producing a time like this. Global arts ecologies generate unfathomable carbon footprints via international biennials, robust transcontinental lecture circuits, and the concomitant rise of a class of cosmopolitan curators and creative industry professionals whose frequent travel is coordinated in migratory coteries.

If, as Yale medical historian Frank Snowden observes, COVID-19 is emphatically a disease of globalization, then we would do well to recall that the art field is itself an agent of globalization, as Pamela Lee reminds us. Its activities contribute to the globally networked circuits of production and exchange that enable anthropogenic climate change alongside our current public health crisis.

In the wake of the pandemic, shuttered institutions have responded with virtual tours, online viewing rooms, and robotic telepresence opportunities. While much of this constitutes a market-driven stopgap measure, it also signals what might be a moment of epistemic rupture.

Today, the future of the human appears as a digitally encoded question mark.

Beyond the infrastructures we have known, how can we rethink liveness and the human anew in this context?

Rosi Braidottis theses on Anthropocene feminism offer possible directions. They describe:

a sort of anthropological exodus from the dominant configurations of the human a colossal hybridization of the species. The decentering of Anthropos challenges also the separation of bios, as exclusively human life, from zoe, the life of animals and nonhuman entities. What comes to the fore instead is a humannonhuman continuum, which is consolidated by pervasive technological mediation.

Dissolving the distinction between bios and zoe, we might begin by orienting ourselves toward a model of nonhuman liveness. In the conceptual space opened up by this reorientation, it could be possible to reimagine oneself through a variety of embodiments that enable what Donna Haraway calls multispecies flourishing: a robotic telepresence, an inhabitant of virtual space, a relational entity produced through intersubjective encounters with agents human and nonhuman alike.

2.

Who or what does the human denote in these formulations of liveness?

In the Global North, the human has historically been understood in oppositional relation to nature, technology, and racialized others.

The stark demarcation of human from nature emerges within a colonial classificatory logic. Where the terrain of natural resources presents an inert arena against which the human actors extractivist narratives and territorial expansion unfold. The current pandemic has upended this conceit, reminding us that the human is just one organism among many in a natural ecosystem: acting with and acted upon by microbial agents. Our fate is inextricably linked to what Anna Tsing calls interspecies entanglements.

More saliently, the invention of the human as an ontological category proceeds from the colonial encounter with racialized others. Theres much to learn on this subject from Sylvia Wynter. Wynter shows how the concept of the human emerges in relation to colonized peoples who were made into the physical referent of the idea of the irrational/subrational Human Other. For this reason, one cannot unsettle the coloniality of power without a redescription of the human.

In 1994, Wynter assessed the categorical boundaries of the human in the text, No Humans Involved: An Open Letter to My Colleagues. Her letter is instructive in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd and the groundswell around the Black Lives Matter movement. Responding to the acquittal of police officers responsible for the 1991 assault of Rodney King, Wynter describes how the Los Angeles judicial system assigned the classification NHI (No Humans Involved) to the case. The acronym was used to label trials involving young and unemployed Black men. Wynter expands outward from this example to underscore how the human has been conflated with North Americanness, whiteness, and middle-class identity.In this way, the judicial apparatus deployed the human as a classificatory tool for encoding and legitimizing violence.

At the same time, the human has been mapped as distinct from technology. Scholars in media studies, science and technology studies, disability studies, and queer and feminist studies have disputed this dualist framing from the posthuman articulated by N. Katherine Hayles; to the queer, crip cyborg outlined by Alison Kafer; to the assemblage theorized by Jasbir Puar. Amid physical distancing measures, those with the privilege of access to consoles and computing devices encounter a scenario where human activity is enabled by technological platforms.

As Paul B. Preciado suggests, patterns of confinement and remote labor during COVID-19 threaten to make 24-hour teleproducers of everyone with the luxury of working from home. Here, teleproducers are understood as codes, pixels, bank accounts, doors without names, addresses to which Amazon can send its orders. With the intensification of reliance on always-on devices, the already outmoded distinction between the human and its technological prostheses becomes increasingly untenable.

We can think of the human as an algorithmic function correlated to a specific set of terms and outcomes.

From its inception, this algorithm has been designed to retrieve certain results while suppressing others, trained by a narrow coterie of developers on datasets that reinforce patterns of exclusion and structural violence.

The algorithmic logic of the human is predictive:it purports to neutrally forecast the future while scripting it in advance. In this respect, the radical uncertainties of the present offer an opening. A space of rupture where we might encode alternative conceptions of the human and of (co)presence where we might retrieve unforeseen outcomes.

Note from the author:Early portions of this essay were written in April, others in June. I am profoundly grateful for the dialogue and input of Danny Snelson, Iggy Cortez, Jeanne Dreskin, and my remarkable colleagues and interlocutors in the Transformations of the Human program.

Follow this link:

Updating the Human Algorithm - lareviewofbooks

Two years after the death of the Icelandic film composer Jhann Jhannsson, his only movie as director has become available in the UK on streaming platforms. It is a 70-minute cine-novella or essay film: a meditation on humanitys future and what it means, or will mean, to be post-human.

The score is by Jhannsson, working with sound artist and composer Yair Elazar Glotman, and this eerie, breathy soundtrack works well with its unearthly images. Last and First Men is inspired by the 1930 novel of the same name by British SF author William Olaf Stapledon, narrated by a figure from humanitys final evolutionary form billions of years in the future. This voice is performed with crisp lack of affect by Tilda Swinton.

The visual images Jhannsson finds to accompany this prose-poem are strange and disturbing sculptures that look like something built on Earth by aliens, a mix of Stonehenge and Angkor Wat. I wondered if Jhannsson had had them designed and built. In fact, these are the brutalist Spomeniks, the socialist-era monuments in former Yugoslavia, mostly in remote windswept landscapes, built in the 1950s and 60s to commemorate the tragedy of the war and the resistance to fascism; they are truly strange in their fierce, concrete giganticism, and have a cult following.

By detaching them from their historical context, Jhansson finds something very unsettling in these sculptures: they really do look like creations from the future, not the past. Last and First Men is an interesting if minor work, perhaps comparable to Nikolaus Geyrhalters Homo Sapiens or Michael Madsens Into Eternity.

Last and First Men is available on BFI Player from 30 July.

Go here to see the original:

Last and First Men review eerie sounds and unearthly images from a posthuman world - The Guardian