Avatar
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg
eda96cb93aecdd61ade0c1f9d2bfdf95a7e76cf1ca89820c38e6e4cea55c0c05
Christian, Husband, Father. Confessionally Reformed catholic/Presbyterian. Austro-Libertarian. Anti-woke. #Bitcoin #Nostrich #Liberty #2K since 778676 | 2023-02-28

Don't let your day happen to you

Act

Replying to Avatar jimbocoin 🃏

Let’s take the example of brain chips. By this I presume you mean neural implants that either communicate with the outside world, or enhance cognition in some way. (If you mean something else, correct me as it’s not my intent to straw man).

Glasses or contact lenses are external aids that enhance perception. Hearing aids are even better examples because they have an internal/surgical component.

We don’t think of these things as transhumanist, but I suspect that’s because they’ve existed for a long time (familiarity) and they’re considered assistive rather than excessive. That is, they bring the user up to par, rather than putting them ahead.

There are technologies to increase kinds of cognition. Calculators aid in arithmetic. A person with a calculator far outperforms a person without. But we don’t think of this as transhumanist because the device resides outside of the body envelope.

My position is that the body envelope is not the special case people seem to think it is. As soon as the enhancement in question is to alleviate a disability or illness, we’re OK with considering internal remedies. We’re even OK considering internal remedies for cosmetic effect (breast augmentation, liposuction, etc.)

It seems odd to me that people are OK with cognitive enhancements that are technological and external (calculators), pharmaceutical and internal (caffeine), but not technological and internal (brain chips).

Note: I’m not saying I personally would volunteer for a brain chip. Just that I have no problem with other people doing so with informed consent. To me it’s not categorically different from other internal/external cognitive/adaptive/cosmetic interventions.

Using tech to correct is one thing. Using tools to increase producticity is another. Using either to attempt to transcend our nature is yet another thing (named hubris). It can be hard to draw lines between them, and sometimes it's more about the intent than the tool or tech itself.

I believe in such a thing as human nature, that it was given, and that whenever we try to transgress the natural order, that hubris is met with retribution and tragedy. This is one of the more important lessons, I believe, not only from Graeco-Roman, but also Judeo-Chrsitian, heritage--which is to say, from Western Civilazation as a whole.

Transhumanism, as I understand it, is by definition the goal of crossing the line of what it means to be human--because it's "not enough."

Actualizing natural, latent potencies is quite different than artificially augmenting them. I'm not talking about using tools on our environment, or even on ourselves to restore health--I'm talking about brain chips, grasping for immortality, freezing our heads, etc.

Hubris is not knowing our place--intruding into the realm of the divine. "...and ye shall be as gods," hissed the Serpent.

STACK HUMBLE AND STAY SATS, #PLEBS

🤙🏼

gm #plebchain #coffeechain

Up since 4 AM... 🙃 ...but put in some solid 'proof of work' -- finished van Wirdum's [The Genesis Book: The Story of the People and Projects That Inspired Bitcoin](https://amzn.to/3HtOJ66). Half cypherpunks, half 'Austrian' economists. Fun read.

🤙🏼

...for good reason: the Extropians and cypherpunks were enormously influenced by Hayek in particular. (Not a single mention of Rothbard in this book--surprising since many of these players were crypto-anarchists).

Finished in the wee hours this morning--hard to put down, honestly. Recommended.

van Wirdum, [The Genesis Book: The Story of the People and Projects That Inspired Bitcoin](https://amzn.to/3HtOJ66)