Category Archives: Transhumanist

Are you a deathist? A deathist is someone who accepts the fact of death, who thinks the ongoing massacre of us all by ageing is not a scandal. A deathist even insists that death is valuable: that the only thing that gives life meaning is the fact that it ends an idea not necessarily embraced by someone about to be murdered on video by an Isis fanatic.

But what is the alternative? There has never been one, which is why until recently no one needed to coin the term deathist. But now many tech entrepreneurs and scientists take a different view: death, they say, is simply an engineering challenge. Biotechnology should, in principle, be able to reverse the wear-and-tear on cellular machinery in our bodies and keep us in our prime indefinitely, barring violent accident. Consider how many lives this would save. If you think such research should not be pursued, then you are a throwback, a deathist, a morose Luddite thanatophile.

Anti-deathism is one of the main strands of a set of sci-fi dreams that come under the umbrella term transhumanism, the subject of the Irish literary critic Mark OConnells engaging tour. He visits a cryonics facility in the desert outside Phoenix, where customers have paid to have their whole bodies or just their heads (called, Greekly, cephalons in the facilitys distancing jargon) preserved by freezing, in the hope that science will one day figure out how to revive them. He goes to a robotics fair where the audience gasps at humanoid robots that can operate door handles or egress successfully from a car. He hangs out with a gang of grinder cyborgs, that like to implant boxes of electronics under their skin in order to, say, be able to sense the presence of an electromagnetic field. He interviews people working on the idea of uploading human minds to computers, and those like the philosopher Nick Bostrom who fear that one day soon they, and we, might be killed by an omnipotent artificial intelligence of our own creation.

This is all related in a sort of wryly melancholy version of gonzo narrative non-fiction, structured in the simple What I Did Next For My Research style. Think a more overtly erudite version of Jon Ronson. As with that writer, you do occasionally feel that OConnell is expending energy on a less interesting figure simply because they provide so much freakish colour. Some of his transhumanist subjects are pitiful (the virginal man who looks forward to sexbots) but others for instance, the American scientist Laura Deming, who focuses on life extension research are extremely intelligent and persuasive. Overall, the book is thoughtful, modestly unsure of its own opinion, and often disarmingly funny. (Cryogenically frozen brains are left in their skulls, OConnell explains, because technically, it is kind of a hassle to remove the thing entirely.)

The author is especially alert to the assumptions encoded within tech-utopian rhetoric for example, the habit of saying that we should solve death:

The word solve seemed to me to encapsulate the Silicon Valley ideology whereby all of life could neatly be divided into problems and solutions solutions that always took the form of some or other application of technology.

And the very prefix trans- in the word transhumanism expresses, for some, a forlorn desire for spiritual transcendence of mere meat. As one cyborg tinkerer explains to the author:

Ask anyone whos transgender. Theyll tell you theyre trapped in the wrong body. But me, Im trapped in the wrong body because Im trapped in a body. All bodies are the wrong body.

The apparent paradox, then, is that so many transhumanists, while bent on defeating or solving death, also seem rather, well, misanthropic. To be transhumanist is on some level also to be anti-humanist: people tell OConnell what contemptible monkeys current humans are, how disgusting it is that they are doing all this breeding, and how theyd rather be machine-based consciousnesses exploring the vastness of space. But when it comes down to it, you might think there is not all that much to distinguish this, as a consummation devoutly to be wished, from good old-fashioned death.

More here:
Who on earth wants to live forever with the people who want to live forever? - Spectator.co.uk

Some weird religious stories w/ transhumanism Expect the conflict between religion and transhumanism to get worse, as closed-minded conservative viewpoints get challenged by radical science and a future with no need for an afterlife: http://barbwire.com/2017/04/06/cybernetic-messiah-transhumanelligence/ & http://www.livebytheword.blog/google-directors-push-for-comps-explain/ & http://ctktexas.com/pastoral-backstory-march-30th-2017/

By J. Davila Ashcroft

The recent film Ghost in the Shell is a science fiction tale about a young girl (known as Major) used as an experiment in a Transhumanist/Artificial Intelligence experiment, turning her into a weapon. At first, she complies, thinking the company behind the experiment saved her life after her family died. The truth is, however, that the company took her forcefully while she was a runaway. Major finds out that this company has done the same to others as well, and this knowledge causes her to turn on the company. Throughout the story the viewer is confronted with the existential questions behind such an experiment as Major struggles with the trauma of not feeling things like the warmth of human skin, and the sensations of touch and taste, and feels less than human, though she is told many times she is better than human. While this is obviously a science fiction story, what might comes as a surprise to some is that the subject matter of the film is not just fiction. Transhumanism and Artificial Intelligence on the level of the things explored in this film are all too real, and seem to be only a few years around the corner.

Recently it was reported that Elon Musk of SpaceX fame had a rather disturbing meeting with Demis Hassabis. Hassabis is the man in charge of a very disturbing project with far reaching plans akin to the Ghost in the Shell story, known as DeepMind. DeepMind is a Google project dedicated to exploring and developing all the possible uses of Artificial Intelligence. Musk stated during this meeting that the colonization of Mars is important because Hassabis work will make earth too dangerous for humans. By way of demonstrating how dangerous the goals of DeepMind are, one of its business partners, Shane Lange is reported to have stated, I think human extinction will probably occur, and this technology will play a part in it. Lange likely understands what critics of artificial intelligence have been saying for years. That is, such technology has an almost certain probability of become self aware. That is, becoming aware of its own existence, abilities, and developing distinct opinions and protocols that override those of its creators. If artificial intelligence does become sentient, that would mean, for advocates of A.I., that we would then owe them moral consideration. They, however, would owe humanity no such consideration if they perceived us as a danger to their existence, since we could simply disconnect them. In that scenario we would be an existential threat, and what do you think would come of that? Thus Langes statement carries an important message.

Already so-called deep learning machines are capable of figuring out solutions that werent programmed into them, and actually teach themselves to improve. For example, AlphaGo, an artificial intelligence designed to play the game Go, developed its own strategies for winning at the game. Strategies which its creators cannot explain and are at a loss to understand.

Transhumanist Philosophy The fact is many of us have been physically altered in some way. Some of the most common examples are lasik surgery, hip and knee replacements, and heart valve replacements, and nearly everyone has had vaccines that enhance our normal physical ability to resist certain illnesses and disease. The question is, how far is too far? How enhanced is too enhanced?

Go here to read the rest:
The Cybernetic Messiah: Transhumanism and Artificial Intelligence - Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

Transhumanism, a controversial and interesting topic, could save the world from many things. It could lead the world to think smarter and faster. It could also make us live longer and happier lives. It could lead us to be able to take full control of our minds making us able to indefinitely remember things we enjoy and completely forget anything we dont want to remember. Transhumanism could make us who we want to be and be able to remove anything we dont like.

Technology has caused major changes throughout the human race. It has made us able to multi-task and produce things much faster than before. Transhumanism is the science of combining the human body with technology to improve many parts of ourselves. Transhumanism seeks to this as well, but there is one major difference. Transhumanism seeks to do this in your mind and body instead of in factories or computers. It will make you able to do all of the things a calculator can do but in your head.

When taken to the extreme transhumanism could make your eyes display the trajectory and movement path of a ball before you ever even throw it. This indeed could be used to cheat in various scenarios such as sports or college exams but when it comes down to it if we actually reach that level of technology and its in public hands then the majority of people would have and be using those skills.

Within the work force, a transhumanist would be at the top. They would be able to do more and get it all done more efficiently. This would push for more people to become transhumanist. Leading to people living longer and throughout their life almost always being in peak condition. This could make many people more happy and able to do whatever they want to in life.

This does not mean however that for things such as the Olympics participants would not have to train all of their lives or for jobs in Science or Law you would not have to attend school for many years. This is because we would still need to be taught and we would still need to earn our diplomas. Likewise the years of school and training will be made much easier through transhumanism.

An important part of transhumanism is to remember that it is expanding our control of ourselves. We would be able to expand our memories and control what resides in them. We would be able to learn things and never worry about forgetting how to do them. If you ever had a traumatic experience that you never ever wanted to remember again you could delete it like junk mail in your email. The expansion of our memories could lead to better solved crimes and putting fewer people in jail that dont deserve it. This could however be used against us in cases of brain washing but if we were to think of it as if our minds were computers, we could easily make an external backup of our entire brain.

The combination of technology and body could lead to many crazy and amazing things such as taking pictures and videos with your eyes to share with your friends, or being able to play video games or read books without ever physically touching a controller or book. Transhumanism could lead to extreme virtual reality in which you are mentally removed from your own body and put into the game world.

Though many people fear that things such as this could lead to detachment from humanity or cause people to forget about reality so that they may just live in the virtual world this would be impossible due to our bodies needing nourishment making so that if certain bodily things are required we would be pulled out of the virtual worlds without worry.

In conclusion, transhumanism can be used and advanced in many ways to improve the human race as a whole. Though there is still much that is unknown about transhumanism the movement continues to grow and develop becoming safer and more advanced with every discovery. In the end, transhumanism will have its ups and downs just as any other movement does. Transhumanism has great potential and if done correctly it has the ability to change the world forever.

Kalob Watkins is a student at Edison State Community College

.

Read the original post:
Secret to a better life? - Piqua Daily Call

New article by Transhumanist Party:

Gennady Stolyarov II

The Spring 2017 issue of the magazine Issues in Science and Technology, published by the National Academy of Sciences, features an article by Professor Steve Fuller, the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. This article, entitled Does this pro-science party deserve our votes? discusses the Transhumanist Party from the time of Zoltan Istvans 2016 run for President.

In this article, which offers both positive discussion and critiques of Istvans campaign, Professor Fuller writes:

What Istvan offered voters was a clear vision of how science and technology could deliver a heaven on earth for everyone. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights envisages that it is within the power of science and technology to deliver the end to all significant suffering, the enhancement of ones existing capacities, and the indefinite extension of ones life. To the fans whom Istvan attracted during his campaign, these added up to liberty makers. For them, the question was what prevented the federal government from prioritizing what Istvan had presented as well within human reach.

See the original post:
U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed - Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

Jason who?

You may or may not have heard of Jason Silva.

However his thoughts and videos are going viral on Facebook and YouTube.

Jason Silva describes himself as a philosopher, futurist and to Nat Geo, a filmmaker. Hes the guy behind the show Brain Games, currently available on Netflix, as well as the recently released 8-part series, Origins, discussing the origins of a number of things. However, one thing that sets Silva apart for many of his philosopher contemporaries is his description of himself as a futurist and transhumanist.

What the hell is a transhumanist, you might be asking? Well transhumanists are a sect of philosophers who are part of a movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical and psychological capacities per Wikipedias definition.

If you ask Silva himself, he would tell you that transhumanism is all about harnessing technology to overcome the limitations of humanity.

Paraphrasing Silva, Transhumanists support the creation of technology that transfers your consciousness into an immortal coil like software being run on better hardware.

In a very interesting yet provocative quote, Silva states, iPhone, therefore I am implying that technology is an intrinsic part of ourselves.

As soon as humankind started making stone tools, the wheels were set in motion for our species to develop more and more with time and the world around us to create what we have to today as well as who we are today.

Silva states, So you might say that who we are is due to the feedback loops between us and our tools, to the degree that our tools become extended appendages, even though they are not without our biological skin tissue, they are nonetheless part of our cognitive arsenal.

In Silvas, and most other transhumanists minds, the idea of computers and technology becoming so sophisticated as to merge with that of humankind is not viewed as a threat but as an achievement. Silva references another futurist, Ray Kurzweil, who, in a very long quote I will shorten, basically says that its only the beginning for our ability to create cognitive scaffolding that was sufficient to usher in technology. Weve spilled out of our minds. This is our triumph. This is what it means to be human.

Here is the original post:
Jason Silva's take on the merging of man and machine - The American Genius

Blogs | Apr. 2, 2017

Do transhumanists believe in the soul, or in materialistic reductionism? Or could it be both at the same time?

The Cartesian idea of the spirit or soul as a disembodied presence merely using or occupying a body, rather than the two being integrally connected, is a cardinal principle in transhumanism, the ultimate goal of which is to transcend the limitations of corporeal existence through technology.

So I wrote in my recent review of the transhumanist fantasy Ghost in the Shell, starring Scarlett Johansson. In the combox a longtime reader who goes by Pachyderminator challenged this:

Modern transhumanists tend to hold a scientific materialist worldview, which is often concerned specifically to refute Cartesian dualism and replace it with physical reductionism, which holds that any system can in principle be modeled without loss solely with reference to its lowest-level parts.

This is quite true of many (not all) transhumanists a point I would have noted myselfin a piece on transhumanism. Since I didnt, I thank Pachyderminator for highlighting this point.

This is precisely what makes it so odd that, juxtaposed with this penchant for reductionistic materialism, transhumanist imagination also embraces, at least in its more quasi-religious or existential forms, a Cartesian notion of the self as not bound or defined by the material reality supporting the self a ghost in a shell, as the Japanese franchise, unambiguously an expression of transhumanist imagination, proposes.

The reductionist side of transhumanist thought lies in the notion that the mind, and more fundamentally the self, comprises a system that can be fully replicated, thus becoming equivalent to the original system.

The Cartesian side of transhumanist thought lies in the aspirational hope that replicating the mind and uploading ones memories, thought patterns, etc. can preserve ones identity or self that the me currently residing in my body can be transferred into a completely different form, and this too will be me, continuous with the me I have always been.

Only last week this fantasy was given imaginative expression in an article on transhumanism in the Guardian:

You are lying on an operating table, fully conscious, but rendered otherwise insensible, otherwise incapable of movement. A humanoid machine appears at your side, bowing to its task with ceremonial formality. With a brisk sequence of motions, the machine removes a large panel of bone from the rear of your cranium, before carefully laying its fingers, fine and delicate as a spiders legs, on the viscid surface of your brain. You may be experiencing some misgivings about the procedure at this point. Put them aside, if you can.

Youre in pretty deep with this thing; theres no backing out now. With their high-resolution microscopic receptors, the machine fingers scan the chemical structure of your brain, transferring the data to a powerful computer on the other side of the operating table. They are sinking further into your cerebral matter now, these fingers, scanning deeper and deeper layers of neurons, building a three-dimensional map of their endlessly complex interrelations, all the while creating code to model this activity in the computers hardware. As the work proceeds, another mechanical appendage less delicate, less careful removes the scanned material to a biological waste container for later disposal. This is material you will no longer be needing.

At some point, you become aware that you are no longer present in your body. You observe with sadness, or horror, or detached curiosity the diminishing spasms of that body on the operating table, the last useless convulsions of a discontinued meat.

The animal life is over now. The machine life has begun.

You see how this is imagined to work? The piece posits continuity of consciousness (a first-person experience of self, addressed here in the second person) between you that submits to the operation and the you that at some pointbecome[s] aware that you now exist in another form, leaving behind only discontinued meat. Pure Cartesian imagination.

Crucially, bolstering this mental sleight of hand, the scanning and the consciousness of ones self in the new form is imagined to be simultaneous with a process of destroying what is scanned. If we were to adjust the imaginative scenario so that the scanning process is conceived as non-invasive and non-destructive, you would still have the (imagined) phenomenon of a conscious awareness in a new form but you would also continue to be conscious and aware in your own body.

This alteration reveals that the consciousness we imagine in the machine is in fact a copy of the consciousness in our minds; if I can continue to exist as me in my own body, side by side with the version of me imagined to be in the computer, then I have not escaped or transcended death at all. In this scenario, I would continue to exist in my body for my natural lifespan and then die like anyone else, and the copy of me in the computer would be like a clone with implanted memories, a new self or consciousness based on me, but not me.

As an aside, Christopher Nolans The Prestige explores these implications (in a non-transhumanist cultural context) with his customary ruthlessness. To enjoy Star Trek, on the other hand, we are obliged to ignore the reality that if a viable transporter were ever invented, it wouldnt really transport a person from one place to another; it would kill the original person and create a copy in another location. (The Next Generation comes perilously close to admitting this in the episode where Commander Riker is inadvertently duplicated in a transporter accident, with one version stranded on a deserted planet for years and another version going on to a successful Starfleet career.)

To be sure, there are hard-headed transhumanists who will admit all this, at least in principle. The frankest will admit that, on their own reductionist principles, the notion of a continuous self is an illusion; there is no continuous underlying reality uniting what I call me today and what called itself me yesterday or will call itself me tomorrow. In fact, there is no I or self at all; selfhood itself is a chimera.

On this model, memory fools us all. I have inherited the memories of past iterations of me, which, they say, tricks me into feeling as if or believing that some underlying, continuous reality has had all of these experiences. But this is all unreal. There is no survival of the self from death, but then there is no survival from day to day either, or even from hour to hour.

So they say. Yet they generally believe, for example, in keeping their promises, i.e., promises of which they have inherited memories, though presumably they would not feel bound by promises remembered by what they knew or believed to be false, implanted memories.

Even if they were real promises made by someone else and then copied technologically or telepathically into their minds, they would hold the original promise makers, not themselves, responsible for them. Yet on their own principles its not obvious how the inherited memory of a promise transmitted organically differs from one transmitted from one mind to another.

For that matter, its not clear how much sense the notion of a promise makes at all. A promise creates what we conceive as an obligation for who? Not for me, for by hypothesis I dont exist at all, and certainly I wont exist at the future date when the obligation is held to apply. That will be some other iteration of me, with memories of what I have done to be sure, but the me that made those promises no longer exists, and its far from clear why the me that inherits those memories should be obliged by them.

If artificially transmitted promises dont count, then a consciousness into which all my memories and thought patterns had been poured would be no more bound by my promises than a mind that received them via artificial or telepathic means. But thats another way of saying that the copy of me isnt really me at least, as long as they hold that I am bound by my own promises.

At any rate, such hardheaded materialistic reductionism hardly seems to comport with quasi-religious zeal for achieving immortality through mind uploading. Yet this zeal for immortality is not only often found among those who theoretically acknowledge the illusionary nature of the self, it seems to be an important motive, perhaps even the motive, driving much of the enthusiasm for the transhumanist project in all its forms, technological, biological, cyborganic, etc.

Like a ghost in a shell, a Cartesian notion of the self as an actual, intangible thing lurking inside the biological machines of our bodies, a valuable presence that can be saved from organic frailty and given digital eternal life, coexists anomalously with a reductionistmaterialist view of our cerebral hardware as nothing more than the sum of its parts.

Transhumanists may or may not say out loud that we have no souls, but this doesnt stop them from hoping for the salvation of their souls in a way fundamentally convergent with believers in conventional religions. The main difference isnature of the deity and the hoped-for eschaton.

See also Ghost and the Shell (review)

See the rest here:
Ghosts and Shells: Is Transhumanism Cartesian? - National Catholic Register (blog)

Like many libertarians, I was initially excited when Zoltan Istvan announced his candidacy for Governor of California.

Istvan is the founder of the Transhumanist Party and author of The Transhumanist Wager, which is considered a manifesto on transhumanist philosophy. The basic premise of transhumanism is that the next step in human evolution will be to improve our bodies and expand our lifespan with radical technology, eventually leading towards immortality. While he still needs to obtain the nomination, having someone announce their intents this early gave me hope that maybe the party would have a shot at making an impact in the California mid-terms.

As I learned about his transhumanist ideas, I became increasingly hopeful that his views on radical science and medical technology would be able to appeal to the far-left base of California and introduce a wider range of people to libertarianism. However, after doing some research Im not so sure Istvan is the best candidate to represent the Libertarian party.

On the surface, the former presidential candidate seems to align with the libertarian views of bodily autonomy (transhumanists call it morphological freedom) and the non-aggression principle, he even called himself a left-libertarian on the Rubin Report.

He believes people should be able to use technology to make modifications to their body as they please, if it doesnt harm anyone else. For example, Istvan has a chip implanted in his hand which allows him to open doors in his home and will send texts to a persons phone.

Also within his conversation with Dave Rubin, he discussed regulating industries for artificial intelligence multiple times. He went so far to say I dont believe we should develop artificial intelligence thats unregulated and part of the reason AI remains an unregulated industry is because no one knows how to regulate it.

During his 2016 run for the presidency, part of his platform was to, Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.

This type of language reminds one of the paternalism and protect one from themselves legislation typical of todays Democrats and Republicans.

Finally, one of the partys proposals is to adopt a Transhumanist Bill of Rights that would advocate for legal and government support of longer lifespans, better health and higher standards of living via science and technology.

While its not clear what government support would entail, state-funded creation of life-expanding technologies would pale in comparison to what the market could create.

Article I of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights claims that every citizen has a right to technology that reduces suffering, improves upon the body and can give one an infinite life-span, which reminds one of the current leftist agenda claiming healthcare is a basic human right.

The best way to ensure that everyone can have access to the technology that would accomplish Istvans Transhumanist vision, would be to allow private companies to produce these technologies and compete with other firms and bring prices down. As weve seen with universal healthcare, entitling a service to every citizen lowers quality, and increases prices.

While his intentions are noble, requiring access to this kind of technology would decrease the number of people who could obtain it and aggress on a business owners right to sell their product. This is one of many problematic parts of his presidential bid; others included free public education, mandatory college education and preschool, and a sort of affirmative action to create an equal representation of former careers in politicians.

To give the potential candidate some credit, he does oppose the War on Drugs and wants to shrink the size of government through technology.

Istvan seems to be a situational libertarian. While he may appeal to more Californians with his views on science and seeming acceptance of some forms of regulation, he would not be the person the party would need to explain libertarian philosophies and represent us to the masses.

* Luke Henderson is a composer, economics enthusiast, and educator in St. Louis, MO. He is a budding libertarian and joined the party in 2016.

Like Loading...

Read more:
Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian? - Being Libertarian

Movies | Mar. 31, 2017

Scarlett Johansson stars in Hollywoods latest transhumanist fantasy, an adaptation of the influential manga/anime franchise.

Steven D. Greydanus

Scarlett Johansson is becoming no, at this point its safe to say she is the default Hollywood poster girl for transhumanism.

She has played a member of a clone community cultivated as organ donors to extend the lives of the wealthy and powerful (The Island); a seductive predator whose human appearance hides an alien body (Under the Skin); an artificial intelligence that evolves beyond humanity after a romantic fling with a human (Her); and a woman transformed by a superdrug into a superhuman who transcends human limitations and ultimately corporeal existence itself (Lucy).

Ironically, her biggest role to date is one of the few superheroes in Disneys Marvel universe, Black Widow, who is not more than human (though who knows; Iron Man 3 temporarily gave superpowers to Gwyneth Paltrows very ordinary Pepper Potts, and a future installment could do the same for the Black Widow).

In Ghost in the Shell a Hollywood adaptation of a Japanese multimedia sci-fiaction franchise best known in the U.S. via a pair of well-regardedanime films Johansson plays that penultimate transhumanist aspiration, a cyborg created by transplanting a human brain into an android body. Her living brain is her only real vulnerability; the transhumanists only fonder hope is to upload consciousness itself into a fully digital world, leaving behind the last vestiges of biological corporeality.

The story takes place in a dystopian future of variously cybernetically enhanced humans. A bit like Big Hero 6s East-meets-West city of San Fransokyo, the sprawling urban setting is an immense mashup of Tokyo or Hong Kong by way of Blade Runners Los Angeles.

The global cast includes Juliette Binoche, Japanese superstar Beat Takeshi Kitano, Danish actor Pilou Asbk, Fijian Australian Lasarus Ratuere, Romanian actress Anamaria Marinca, and London-born actress Danusia Samal, who is of Kurdish and Polish origin and, of course, the controversially cast Johansson, whose portrayal of an iconic Japanese heroine has elicited charges of whitewashing.

Director Rupert Sanders demonstrated a visual flair in his debut film, Snow White and the Huntsman, and he confirms it here, not only in the decadent eye candy of production designer Jan Roelfs shiny-nightmarish neon-hologram illuminated city, but also in some of the more striking action sequences. Ghost in the Shells best and most colorful sequences look like nothing else in mainstream Hollywood action moviemaking, though these alternate with gritty, dingy sequences reminiscent of every other big-screen dystopia.

While many aspects of Ghost in the Shell will be familiar to Americans from the likes of Steven Spielbergs Artificial Intelligence: A.I. and Minority Report, James Camerons Avatar and above all The Matrix, thats a tribute to the massive cultural influence of Ghost in the Shell. (In turn, visual and thematic similarities to Blade Runner attest to influences running in the opposite direction, and all these works are indebted to cyberpunk and sci-fiauthors like William Gibson and Neal Stephenson.)

Johansson plays The Major, the ultimate weapon of a military-industrial complex encompassing Hanka Robotics and an antiterrorism unit called Section 9. According to her backstory, shes the first of her kind, a purely synthetic organismwith nothing human except the rescued brain of a refugee-ship disaster, transplanted into her new body by Binoches maternal Dr. Oulet, who remains on hand to repair The Majors body any time its damaged in the line of duty.

The Majors artificial body is capable of a range of superhuman feats, including a cloaking effect built into her skin, requiring her to strip naked to go into action. Unlike the anime, which takes a relatively naturalistic approach to this, uh, combat nudity, this film gives the Majorthe same sort of mannequin or Barbie-doll nudity the X-Men franchise gave Mystique. From the neck down, the Majors artificial skin has a plasticky sheen and modular components that sometimes shimmer and pulse, making her look like a curvy actress in a form-fitting bodysuit with a CGI polish.

The Majors living brain supplies her artificial body with intuition and passion, apparently still valuable commodities that cant be replicated by A.I. She has almost no memories of her past life as a human being, but Dr. Oulet says her memories will return with time and gives her medicine to help her brain recover. Can anyone reading this not guess where this is going? Raise your hands.

Asbk plays Batou, The Majors dedicated second in command, a hulking bleach-headed warrior who hardly looks like he needs high-tech enhancements, though like everyone in The Majors team, he carries his walkie-talkie in his skull. If Binoches character is The Majors surrogate mother, Kitano is a paternal or perhaps grandfatherly presence as Section 9 chief Daisuke Aramaki. Then theres Michael Pitt (The Village) as a shadowy terrorist who calls himself Kuze and appears to be out to destroy Hanka Robotics for reasons you will never, ever guess, unless you think about it.

In its Japanese incarnations, at least the original manga graphic novel and anime film, Ghost in the Shell raised philosophical questions about the nature of identity and personality in a world of cybernetic implants, synthetic bodies, artificial intelligence, false memories and translation of the mind into other forms.

The American version gestures at some of these concepts, but has no interest in pursuing them. An African diplomat endorses implants while expressing concerns about messing with the human soul, and Oulet opines,We cling to our memories as if they define us. But its what we do that defines us, but such notions like this mean little if they arent developed.

Like Kristen Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman, Johansson is a talented actress playing a placeholder rather than a developed character. Major, of course, has no memory, except being trained and used as a weapon, but for a story that turns on the ghost the spirit or soul in that shell, the film seems more interested in the shell than the ghost.

The Cartesian idea of the spirit or soul as a disembodied presence merely using or occupying a body, rather than the two being integrally connected, is a cardinal principle in transhumanism, the ultimate goal of which is to transcend the limitations of corporeal existence through technology.

From the earliest attempts at cryonic preservation (beginning with psychology professor James Bedford in 1967; contrary to urban legend, Walt Disneys head was not cryonically preserved) to the latest advances in brain-computer interfaces and 3-D bioprinting, transhumanism has a powerful hold on the popular imagination not least among the elites of Silicon Valley, for many of whom the notion of curing death through science has become a postmodern religious obsession.

Like religious apocalypticists attempting to calculate the date of the eschaton, many cling to Aubrey de Greys famous prediction that the first person who will live to 150 has already been born (a sharp hedging of his earlier 2004 prediction that the first person to live to 1,000 might already be 60!).

All of this is antithetical to real humanism, whether secular humanism or Christian humanism. Christian anthropology in particular affirms that human nature, in all of its biological specificity, is central to who we are. A person is not a Cartesian spirit in a body, a ghost in a machine shell. I am neither a soul with a body nor a body with a soul; I am a unity of body and soul, two sides of a single coin. In becoming human, moreover, the Son of God took to himself human flesh as well as a human soul, redeeming both. In this, not technology, we place our ultimate hope for immortality.

That makes transhumanist fantasies like Ghost in the Shell or Avatar, which I nevertheless enjoyed a lot, despite reservations problematic. Thats not necessarily a telling objection; Christians have always enjoyed stories and depictions of pagan gods and other stories based on sub-Christian premises. Even as wholesome and beloved a classic as Its a Wonderful Life offers some eschatological imprecision in the notion of humans dying and becoming angels.

I enjoyed Avatar above all for its visionary, colorful worldbuilding, its thoughtful xenobiology and the pleasures of life among the Navi, not least the exhilaration of flight. To the extent that it offered a transhumanist arc of a human being becoming something else, it was at least rooted in biology, community and spirituality rather than technology. And it was only one persons story; it wasnt framed as the next evolutionary stage toward which humanity was pressing.

Ghost in the Shell also offers some striking worldbuilding, though, unlike Pandora, its not a world I would want to inhabit for any length of time, and the rules arent as well worked out as Id like.

What we see of the world of Ghost in the Shell is almost unremittingly unpleasant, punctuated with heavy violence and a body count of scores. Theres a place in the world for unpleasant, violent dystopias, but this world leaves so little room for humanity that it soon becomes alienating and never recovers.

Then theres the way The Majors arc ends. No one paying attention will be surprised (spoiler alert anyway) when its revealed that The Major like Johanssons character in The Island is a victim of transhumanist meddling who has been given lies and false memories about her origins. To that extent, Ghost in the Shell could be taken as a cautionary tale.

Ultimately, though, it seems The Majors makers have done the right and necessary thing in the wrong way. Im the first of my kind, she sums up in a closing voice-over, but I wont be the last. In other words, this is where humanity is heading. Ill take a pass.

Steven D. Greydanus is the Registers film critic and creator of Decent Films. He is a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. Follow him on Twitter.

Caveat Spectator: Pervasive deadly sci-fi and action violence; torture; stylized nudity; limited crude language and cursing. Mature viewing.

Read more here:
SDG Reviews 'Ghost in the Shell' - National Catholic Register

SexyCyborg FAQ

Im flattered that anyone is curious but it was taking a lot of time to answer the same questions and this way I can post one version with decent, proofread English thats a bit more readable.

There are some interviews online that go into detail about me:

http://www.atimes.com/article/meet-chinas-sexycyborg-goddess-geeks/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandoalfonso/2016/06/30/for-chinese-reddit-bombshell-tech-is-sexy/

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/sexycyborg-is-dismantling-cliches-about-women-in-tech-one-boob-shot-at-a-time

https://www.exolymph.news/2016/07/05/sexycyborg-shenzhen-3d-printing/

All of my pictures are posted here: http://sexycyborg.imgur.com

Sometimes I post on Twitter at https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg

My videos are here: http://www.youtube.com/c/SexyCyborg

Thingiverse (3D design files for my projects): http://www.thingiverse.com/SexyCyborg/designs

Unfortunately I am still a bit awkward on video. Because of this they take me a long time to shoot so updates are infrequent. I'll continue to practice but please be patient.

I have no Instagram, Snapchat, Kik, Facebook or Weibo account, anyone claiming to be me there isn't. The Facebook page in particular causes a lot of problems but there is apparently no way to remove it.

*Who are you?

I'm Naomi Wu, a coder and Maker.

*Where are you from?

Shenzhen, China. Your cell phone and a lot of your household electronics were probably made here, or nearby. Im Cantonese. My pictures and videos show life here. Its a pretty great place and I am happy here.

*What is your job?

I am a web developer. Mostly using Ruby on Rails but transitioning to JS. I primarily do software but I have a little bit of exposure to hardware- Arduino and 3D printing. I am passionate about Open Source. I work at home doing freelance work for overseas companies. None of my clients know about my online persona. I'm keeping it that way until I see what sort of direction things take me and if there are any significant negative repercussions. That being said, coding is becoming increasingly challenging given the Internet access issues we have here in China so I may transition to something else.

In the past year I have become much more involved in Making, and the Maker movement. My projects are still very simple but I enjoy working on them and people seem to find them fun. I am well aware that most of the attention they get probably has little to do with their technical merits. I do my best to promote STEM careers and Maker culture as something that all women, from all walks of life can comfortably participate in should they be so inclined.

*Do you have your own website?

No..."The shoemaker's children go barefoot" as the Western proverb goes. I have to do Web sites for work, don't feel like doing one in my free time.

*Where can I buy things from you?

Very kind of you. Sorry I am not selling anything.

I don't have any commercial affiliation at the moment (although I love to be sponsored quality tools and equipment). All this is still just my hobby.

*Why do you look like...that...

Visible body modification, weight issues and odd (or even inappropriate) taste in clothing are pretty normal for technical and creative types. I just take it in a direction that makes some people a bit uncomfortable (which artistic expression kind of should sometimes I think?). I live in a city of 12 million and not a single other person has my style clothing or my body mods. I don't know a person in my profession who looks like me. As a creative person that is a source of pride, as a person living in a society where we are taught from an early age to value conformity above all else, it is also very challenging.

"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity." Bill Vaughan

*How can you wear those clothes?

Not an issue here in Shenzhen. No one bothers me. They notice but there is no problem. Our sex workers do not wear this kind of clothing as Chinese men prefer an innocent/cute/childish look. You can see from my 360 videos on YouTube that aside from curious looks no one bothers me or cares very much. Mostly they enjoy the novelty and ask to take pictures with me.

Beside personal taste, the other issue is my appearance is effective. Female Makers- or Women in Tech are rarely featured in Chinese news, it's just not something that gets much interest and there is no community of like-minded women I can look to. Sexy girls are still the delivery vector for nearly all messages in tech here. If I want to get my message out- that these new technical tools are accessible, and that there are well-paying jobs available for women that master them, I have to do so in a way that will actually reach my audience. I'm sure the high road is nice- but in China no one will hear a word you say while you are on it.

For people making negative comments- while sex workers in your country might wear some similar clothing, women in your country also wear and do things that only sex workers in other, even more conservative countries would do. While we all would like to think our country sets the standard for the world its polite not to impose our standards on each other- no matter how surprising the differences. You can be sure if I visited your country I would dress so as to not cause offense.

*Why are you so skinny?

Genetics. Like a lot of geeks I have less than ideal diet and exercise habits. I eat an enormous amount and never exercise. My mother is the same. I mostly eat meat and vegetables though. I dont like bread, rice or pasta very much. No, it's not fair- so I make to show solidarity with larger women and speak up when I can.

*What are your measurements?

Im only 161cm tall 🙁 41kg (53 90lbs).

*How old are you.

23

*Are you a model?

No.

*Were you a guy before?

(People actually ask this!) No, I was always a girl.

*When will you post more projects?

Sorry but I work full time and dont often get the chance to take them. I post project files, videos and pictures as I can. Please be patient.

*Are your boobs real?

No. They are 800cc cohesive gel implants. I have had no problems with them.

*Why did you get breast augmentation?

I could not get longer legs (height is most important in China) so I decided a big chest was the next best thing for looking more interesting. I am a transhumanist with an interest in any kind of human augmentation. Any robot parts I can get I would- thats why Cyborg.

*When will you visit America/Europe etc.?

Probably not for a while. I really like China. There is a lot of opportunity here and I can wear what I like and look how I like. I am told this would be a problem elsewhere.

*Why do you speak English? Were you educated abroad?

I was educated entirely in China. Normally my English is just ok- particularly if I am writing quickly and trying to answer questions. We study English in school but the quality of instruction is not very good. I had private tutoring which helped a lot. Also watching American TV shows and transcribing them for writing practice. Now I work in English, that helps. For this FAQ and online interviews where it's important that I not be misunderstood, I have my English proofread and corrected by friends who are native speakers.

Link:
SexyCyborg FAQ - Pastebin.com

A tragedy of being human is that our organs often fail before our brains do. If you agree with this statement, you may agree with transhumanist Zoltan Istvan, who believes the next life-extending medical breakthrough will be in the field of synthetic organ replacement.

The longest life now clocked is 122 years. Transhumanists believe humans will soon be able to live far longer than this even hundreds of years with the help of technological advancements that enhance human physical, intellectual, and cognitive capacities.

A prime example is also the subject of my previous research: patients with a failing heart are opting more and more to be implanted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) instead of waiting for a heart transplant. That is, they are increasingly choosing to put an electromechanical device made of titanium and plastic in their chests as a permanent rather than temporary solution instead of facing the unlikely arrival of a natural, human heart.

These LVAD patients may not consider themselves transhumanists, but they ascribe to the distinctly transhumanist idea that human life and health spans can benefit from using medical devices to assist or even replace our organs. This choice to assist our bodies with technology that is immediately available, rather than wait for scarce organic commodities to appear, marks an increasing, if not inevitable, acceptance of mechanical, electrical, and digital devices into our lives and into our bodies.

Companies like SynCardia in the United States. and Carmat in Europe manufacture artificial human hearts to extend the life span of terminally ill patients by up to four or five years. That may not sound like much, but consider that it took David Foster Wallace less than five years to write his magnum opus, Infinite Jest. Composer Franz Schubert composed over a thousand works of music in only six years. You can do a lot in five years, no matter your age. Look at the physicist Sir William Crookes, who invented the first instruments to study radioactivity at the ripe age of 68.

Transhumanists like Istvan say this is just the beginning. He predicts artificial organs will help not only to replace our hearts, but our kidneys, our lungs, virtually any parts of us that are failing due to sickness or old age.

The assumptions underlying transhumanism, or the more widespread drive to enhance human longevity through technology, force us to think critically and imaginatively about our future. They are also the subject of my current work, which looks at the visions, aspirations, and promise of human longevity research.

The study, lead by Dr. Christopher Scott, explores how major stakeholders in longevity and aging research imagine and anticipate the future. In this study, we will help identify the major players, like Istvan, in the quest to extend human life, and how they are helping to transform not just our lifespan, but our very beliefs and assumptions about what constitutes a fully human life.

The question of whether artificial organs will help to extend life has been answered. Millions of people are already living longer not just with LVADs, but with artificial or even bioartifical organs.For example, asynthetic trachea grown entirely in a London lab using a patients own stem cells saved the life of a Swedish man with late-stage tracheal cancer. With growing knowledge of synthetic tissue growth and improvements in 3D printing, the medical devices we are putting in our bodies may soon all be made of our very bodies. The distinction between man and machine will become difficult to make when the two are of the same, organic material.

For some of us, this sounds promising and amazing. To others more accustomed to strong distinctions between man and machine, it sounds justifiably scary.

Whatever your position, we are undeniably witnessing an increasing cultural acceptance of integrating our bodies with technology not just so that we can open the front door of our house by waving our micro-chipped hand in front of it, as Istvan can, but to live longer and healthier lives.

-By Kristin Kostick, Ph.D., research associate in the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine

Follow this link:
Of man and machine: The evolution of transhumanism - Baylor College of Medicine News (press release) (blog)