Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 7

message: I would like to link the following text: 'humanity's technological capacities' to the Wikipedia image page showing the logarithmic graph of technological change, but I don't know how to do it without displaying the image itself.--StN 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try placing it in single brackets.  -Seth Mahoney 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Or try text, but I don't see why we cannot just put the images in the article. As far as 'logarithmic graph of technological change' go, I recommend one of the graphs shared with us by Ray Kurzweil - see law of accelerating returns for the graphs to chose from.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--I had turned up that solution in a search.  And the image I had in mind was the one Loremaster suggested earlier, in fact a Kurzweil graph.--StN 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical criticisms 

message: I added "libertarian transhumanism," for I feel it has been long-needed.  Considering that both Glenn Reynolds and the author of the Fight Aging blog, Reason, have described themselves as "libertarian transhumanists," and that extropianism as defined by Max More used to include libertarianism in the definition, I believe that libertarian transhumanism is actually one of the larger currents.  I will get to work on an article for it as soon as I have some free time, which should be in late May. --SpaceTycoon 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a legitimate current. I also think an article on the subject is a good idea. I've created a stub for it so feel free to expand it. However, great care should be taken by all contributors to ensure NPOV in order to not only avoid spreading misinformation but also avoid edit wars. --Loremaster 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Currents

message: I think carnal art is a subgenre within transhumanist art but not a current within transhumanism. Perhaps we should create small Art section or transfrom the Fiction into Fiction and Art section in order to include the mention carnal art in this article. --Loremaster 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can now see StN has followed my suggestion. --Loremaster 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am quite impressed by the work that has been done in this section. --Loremaster 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite that fact that I understand why transhumanists or anyone might feel uneasy about being associated with Michael Jackson, I agree with StN. Simon Smith of Betterhumans.com also agrees. --Loremaster 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to press this issue. There's no source to suggest that Michael Jackson sees himself as involved in art of any sort, let alone transhumanist art, by undergoing all that plastic surgery. Nor is there any source to suggest that it is popularly or academically understood as art. With all respect to you both and to the lecturer StN mentions (and that person's oral comment to an editor here is not a verifiable source), there is a huge difference between someone like Orlan, who claims that what she is doing is art, and Michael Jackson, who may be modifying his appearance for any of a wide range of motives that may have nothing to do with it being art. At the most, we can say that Simon Smith has interpreted it that way, with a reference, if that's what he actually said. I'm going to leave the phrasing there, rather than revert, and just ask you both to be responsive to my cogent argument. :) To be honest, I thought that someone was making a joke - I didn't realise it had come from one of you. Metamagician3000 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to respectfully disagree, Metamagician.  Michael Jackson is an artist, albeit a popular artist, and his physical presentation of himself is part of his art (as it is for David Bowie, Madonna, Natasha Vita-More, and was for Salvador Dali and the jazz musician Miles Davis.)  What does it matter what his personal motivations are for wanting to blur gender, race and age?  What are Natasha Vita-More's personal motivations?  I once heard her say that her main desire was eternal youth.  A mundane objective, but one that can be turned into art.  Michael Jackson's transformations over time were achieved by technological means (including oxygen chambers and skin-lightening drugs in addition to plastic surgery) and became inseparable from the public's perception, and reception, of his work, pro and con.  I am not saying by any means that his personal life is wholesome, but this is irrelevant to consideration of him as an artist.  What do we know about the personal lives of the other artists or thinkers we have discussed?  The search term combination "Michael Jackson" + transhumanism brings up more than 600 hits on Google, showing that he is part of the discourse on this subject.  One example is http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~freuden/Valis/transhumanism.html, not an academic article, to be sure, but as interesting as some of the other online material we have linked to.  Is Michael Jackson a "serious" artist or artifact?  Was Andy Warhol?--StN 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A course listing at UC Santa Barbara: http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/curriculum/courses/schedule_classnotes.asp?CourseID=157&EventID=3063--StN 00:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection is not to Michael Jackson being connected in a loose way with the discourse surrounding transhumanism - indeed, I think the comparison/association is quite appropriate as he is obviously using technology to alter himself in ways he that considers desirable. My objection is to the unattributed claim that his transformation of himself is "art" in the way that Orlan's transformations are uncontroversially art (or at least uncontroversially presented as such). A claim like this about Jackson is a controversial matter of interpretation, and should be attributed and referenced in the article. I'm sure that others would be making the same criticism in the FA process. I haven't deleted it now it's back there and know who wrote it, but I'm saying you really must attribute it to someone and provide a verifiable reference. By the way, I realise that Natasha Vita-More is an artist, among other things, but that does not entail that her cosmetic surgery is intended or "read" by others as an example of her art. It may be, but it would also require a referenced source if someone made such a claim in the Wikipedia article about her. I'd say the same about Dali's moustache. It's not up to me to make a claim that it was part of his artistic oeuvre, but if an art critic said it that would be fine - we could attribute it and provide a reference. Metamagician3000 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StN, I've just checked your latest change on this subject. What you have there now is much better. I'm fine with it. My points above don't apply to the new wording. Metamagician3000 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. (I don't want to mess with "your" section. ;). --Loremaster 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Hey Vita-More is around *50* not 60+ -- get your facts straight - HEHE. The Michael Jackson reference is pure shit. Even Orlan is far from transhumanism. Stelarc is a better example of a transhumanist artist, David Bowie tops the list. There is a faq at the arts and culture site you guys should reference. Send an SOS out for help on the arts section. --Egghead2001"
I don't necessarily agree with everything he said but we should probably analyze and summarize and cite information provided on the new and improved Transhumanist Arts & Culture website. --Loremaster 19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read the History section at this website and don't see anything of significance that we have neglected.  At that site "automorphing," a species of transhumanist art, is defined as "self-sculpting."  This fits both Orlan and Michael Jackson to a T. Stelarc is already mentioned.--StN 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanist Art 

message: I've taken the liberty to radically edit the content of the Eugenics War argument due to a lack clarity but also upon hearing and reading that it was being misinterpreted by a few readers. --Loremaster 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to thank StN for improving my sentences. Much appreciated. --Loremaster 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section looks much better now. It was one of the areas where I thought the counter-arguments given to the transhumanists looked rather weak. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing depends on your POV. But really, the work you guys have done has produced something much better. Metamagician3000 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics Wars 

message: User 212.202.37.164 added the following text to the Criticisms section, which I promptly deleted:
:The Disableds Reasoning
:The only thing clear is that all this arguing has no point for a society that is based on the principle of ever growing ability. All of the above is cowardice. We have to take risks to gain experience. Besides Your(ALL OF YOU) point is the unwillingness/disability of all to understand/comply to moral standards. A Bit of Explanation: Democratic societies are based upon choice of oneself and the experience and knowledge gained throught failure and the possibility to enhance oneself bychoice through methological means. May it be technology or magic. Without distorting the will of others and helping them to achieve their goals. Unfortunately OUR current society is totally distorted. A way out of this mess is communication. We have to start talking and stop blubbering. Question One: What Do I Want!? Question Two: How Can I Achieve My Goals WITHOUT or LEAST hurting others? We are not at the stage of NOT HURTING anyone, but it's POSSIBLE! And a great goal is to achieve it as fast as we can. 'Question' Three: Can I Do It On My Own? Answer: NO ,'cause it's URGENT. Jangirke@gmx.net this is no trolling if YOU revert the article YOU will have to add my pov soon.
Since this is a clear case of trolling, we should be vigilant for any edits by this user. --Loremaster 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling? 

message: The following sentence appears in this section: "Some precautionists believe humanity's collective intelligence should organize first and thus be ready to overcome any dangers from Skynet-like artificial intelligences that do not share human morality."  Unless this can be referenced it should be deleted and the previous sentence joined to the preceding paragraph.--StN 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Greenpeace's Future Technologies, Today's Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics; A technical, political and instituational map of emerging technologies  might be a reference. --Loremaster 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StN, has this document provided with you with the information you wanted? I think it should find a way to cite it as source in the article. --Loremaster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes--very much so.  Thank you for finding this valuable report.--StN 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are of course correct about this theme.  But the section relates to other themes of the series as well, and the Terminator (1) image is more striking.  The two faces on the Terminator 3 image used previously look pretty human to me.  I'd be interested in seeing what others say.--StN 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who added the Terminator 3 image in the first place, I agree with StN that the Terminator 1 image is more appropriate. --Loremaster 12:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminator argument 

message: We make a claim about Kalle Lasn's views but there is no citation to support it. Source? Or should we delete? Metamagician3000 08:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think James Hughes' interview of Kalle Lasn might be a source. Lasn co-wrote the Cyborg Manifesto spoof as a critique of libertarian transhumanist techno-utopianism, and 2) he publicly has identified himself as a neo-luddite who advocates the relinquishment of technological progress. --Loremaster 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kalle Lasn

message: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_transhumanist_and_Template:User_anti-transhumanist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanism userbox delete 

message: User talk:Christopher Sherman and User talk:Egghead2001 might be attempting to "character assassinate" some of the contributors of this article. Please see their respectives talk pages to discuss the issue in a civil manner. --Loremaster 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask you to give your real names when editing this Article, if you have nothing to hide. For the record, you bullied my contribution without compromise and discarded the content as insignificant by your biased standards. Wikipedia states - "policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Forgetting this, you deleted my entry based on your bias and then made personal attacks on my entry. Wikipedia states - "When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary."  The inflammation is on your part since I came here in good faith and you blocked me. I have the right to edit these pages just as you do, although I did not delete your entries and then make personal attacks on people. If you want this Article to be a fine piece of writing then  represent "all majority and significant-minority views"  fairly. (Wikipedia) Christopher Sherman
Christopher,
# Correct me if I am wrong but Wikipedia does not have a policy that requires people to use their real name. 
# There is no way for us to know that Christopher Sherman is your real name!
# Although I chose the user name Loremaster simply because I thought it sounded perfect for a contributor to what can be considered an online collection of "lore", I didn't do it to hide my real identity. However, after an ugly experience with another user who threatened to slander other Wikipedia users on his website simply because we (and Wikipedia moderators) disapproved of his vandalism of a particular article, I've decided to remain anonymous to protect my privacy and reputation from lone nuts.
# For the record, we never attacked you personally. However, all your contributions to Wikipedia are open to criticism. Don't confuse yourself with the content of your contribution.
# Metamagician said it best on the User talk:Egghead2001 page: The objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. university students) who is interested in the subject. I am currently focused on cooperating with StN (whose views are very different from mine), Loremaster (who perhaps has broadly similar sympathies, but doesn't always agree with me), and anyone else who wants to contribute, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. The record shows that StN, Loremaster and I have all had a lot of disagreements among ourselves. We've been handling them in an amicable and mature way, I think, but we are far from being a gang of conspirators.
# Metamagician has also explained to you that: I have nothing against Natasha Vita-More, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. I think that we give her adequate recognition for her historical role in the transhumanist movement. If there is more that should be said about her - e.g. if she has put cogent arguments defending transhumanism in her writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what she has said. But putting in a lump of her "musings", or whatever, without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.
--Loremaster 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Note pertinent to point #1:  the Wikipedia Contributing FAQ states quite simply, "Real names are not required; some Wikipedians use real names; some don't."  The Why create an account? page says, in bold, "You do not need to reveal your offline identity." Anville 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Anville. --Loremaster 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanist conspiracy? 

message: I am finding that letters with diacritical marks have become corrupted over the past day.  I fixed Übermensch, but now I see the same thing has happened to Raëlism.  I have seen this on several independent computers.--StN 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed Jürgen Habermas. --Loremaster 23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritical marks