Talk:Posthuman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Posthuman article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] About the See also / Related pages section

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this rule? 125.236.161.132 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have a link. It is something that a few Wikipedia administrators have told me. That's why it's called a “rule of thumb”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "no see also sections" thing you've heard is correct. There is an official guideline on such sections, and there are several featured articles with "See also" sections. --Explodicle (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right, elaboration is preferable. However, this does not mean an article cannot still be good. --Explodicle (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I never argued the opposite. --Loremaster (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What were you arguing when you said "good articles have no See also sections"? --Explodicle (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Posthuman Isn't

"Posthuman" does not denote just anything that happens to come after the human era, nor does it have anything to do with the "posthumous". In particular, it does not imply that there are no humans anymore. A posthumanist, on the other hand, is simply someone who advocates posthumanism.

This sentence keeps being removed by Karl Bunker I have and will continue readding it because I think it is useful information to counter the confusion many people have regarding the terms 'posthuman', 'poshumanist' and 'posthumanism'. --Loremaster 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The second time I remove it, it was because we were editing at the same time, and the easiest way to resolve the conflict was to stomp on your edit, and frankly, I was hoping you wouldn't notice. However, I don't think there's much merit in keeping two of these three clarifications. Anyone who isn't clear that "posthumous" is a different word from "posthuman" simply doesn't know how to read, and this isn't supposed to be a reading instruction manual. And the fact that "posthuman" in this context doesn't refer to "what comes after humans are extinct" is completely obvious from the article. OTOH, I do think there should be a note that clarifies that "posthumanism" doesn't relate to "posthuman" as it's used in this article.
So I propose that the following be removed:
"Posthuman" does not denote just anything that happens to come after the human era, nor does it have anything to do with the "posthumous". In particular, it does not imply that there are no humans anymore.
and the sentence that comes after that be changed to:
"Posthuman" should not be confused with "posthumanism," which is a European philosophical extension of humanism.
My apologies again for stomping on your edit. KarlBunker 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with your argument since many Wikipedia often provide instructional manual-like information to both help and inform readers, I will rephrase the first sentence rather then removing it. --Loremaster 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite a sentence, which is currently:
It is a common error for social commentators to use "posthuman" to denote just anything that happens to come after the human era or imply that there will be no humans anymore.
I think saying that this is a "common error" is questionable, since it's perfectly valid to use "post-human" to refer to a future where humans are extinct, and leaving out the hyphen doesn't necessarily constitute an error. Furthermore, "just anything that happens to come after the human era or imply that there will be no humans anymore" is awkward and unclear writing.
I agree. This wasn't my writing. I was simply working with the content already on this page. However, I deleted the line The term "post-human" would be more correct for this because I don't think this distinction is tenable or accurate. --Loremaster 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

'"Posthuman" should not be confused with "posthumanism," which is a European philosophical extension of humanism.'

[edit] On Posthumanism

Posthumanism should better not be characterised as an "extension" of humanism. Posthumanism is explicitly antihumanist. Moreover, in Europe the philosophical (postmodernist) posthumanism paved the way for the engineer's posthumanism of the Moravecs, Minskys etc.: Posthumanist philosophers and authors belonged to the first people in Europe who made references to Moravec etc. and included texts by the posthumanist engineers in their publications. One central common feature of both posthumanisms is the idea that machines (including machine intelligences) will become ever more important "actors", and that for this reason the centrality of the human being (as in classical humanism) is an old-fashioned idea. I think it would be better to delete the sentence or to extend the article. (I'm afraid my English is not good enough for doing this myself.)

I think it would be more useful to have place your comments on the Talk:Posthumanism page. --Loremaster 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Local Memory!

The memory (stored data) ISN'T local, but NON-LOCAL. That is simply a fact ! How can any real futurist think that the brain is some 'hard drive' (?), when it is a sort of 'antenna' (plus 'processor' of information, but stored elsewhere)... so that depiction of brain as a 'STORAGE' on this picture is simply erroneous and even ridiculous)... Refer to work of Rupert Sheldrake, and the theory of morphic fields. Even in Vedas, 5000 yrs ago, were mentioned 'Akashic Records' (actually morphic fields of an individuals' past) as something non-local (to brain), being a sort of cosmic 'library'. Also, many other scientists are aware of the NON-LOCAL nature of memories, eg. Nikola Tesla, who gave the AC electricity to the world(and opened the doors to 'modern age') knew a whole century ago, that brain is just a sort of antenna to somewhere else where these data are actually stored. Plus, if there was any physical traces of data IN the brain, it would have been already detected with some nano-hi-tech equipment, but of course weren't since data are simply NOT IN THE BRAIN. greetings

What does rant have to do with the article on posthuman? Please see the new message at the top of this page. --Loremaster 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing really relevant is that the whole subject is based on something essentially ERRONEOUS (and not if the message is properly signed or not). Saying the memory is something local and 'material' is simply a falsification of the facts! That is the only thing that matters, the FACTS. And memory is NON-LOCAL. It is not a 'ranting', but presenting the facts... 64.187.60.69 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Greetings
Putting aside the fact that your views regarding memory are pseudo-scientific and not widely held by members of the scientific community or the public at large, where exactly in the Posthuman article does it state that memory is something local and material? --Loremaster 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at the Primo_Posthuman picture, and you'll see the brain depicted as Data memory STORAGE (!?) system! Absolutely wrong and even ridiculous... Data are NOT stored in the brain. Brain is a 'processor' and an 'antenna', but NOT a 'storage'. Of course the greedy capitalistic demons will try to maintain that erroneous idea of brain-as-a-storage, since the idea of sharing (the experience-memories) is so alien to them. Not only personal memory-experience is non-local (stored in some 'fields'/'hyperplanes'/'records_in_UNIVERSAL_database') but all the cosmic experience (including personal). And not only mental, but all the organic experience as well. Genes are only 'keys' to unlock some information from this (non-local) database (fields/hyperplanes), ie. non-locally stored. Genes are NOT information themselves. 64.187.60.69 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) greetings
Please read the Pseudoscience article. --Loremaster 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that this view of 'memories-IN-the-brain' is what is pseudo! Science DIDN'T find any physical traces of memories IN the brain and will never find them, so how can a view that is based on memories being STORED IN the brain be non-pseudo, and something that doesn't contradict the reality (since reality is that they are NOT found IN the brain) be 'pseudo'... 64.187.60.69 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC) greetings
This talk page is not the place to debate the merits or flaws of your views on memory. Please stop it or you will be reported to an administrator. --Loremaster 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I know it's months later but I couldn't help commenting... even if the pseudo scientific view that memories are stored out side the brain somewhere was correct... which it clearly is not... then the poster would still be missing the point ... the picture shows an arrow pointing out additional nanotech storage, like a hard drive in the head, not the natural storage that any human would have. Kiffer.geo 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. --Loremaster 11:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Why don't the references in the Posthuman article produce footnotes on the page?

Sorry, still kind of new at this. --BartlebyScrivener 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. --Loremaster 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! BartlebyScrivener 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Posthuman Conceptions

Loremaster, I encountered you on the posthumanism page and again on here. I just want to point out that "posthuman", as thought of by "posthumanists" like N. Katherine Hayles, is not exactly like what is described in this article and is directly opposed to humanist practices of life, which as I understand are still relied on by transhumanists (at least to some degree). I would propose some sort of separation, but I can't add content right at this moment, so I'm just throwing the idea out there for now. Hopefully, I'll be able to write something more substantive soon, but I wanted to engage in the discussion and see if this is perhaps the right place for this distinction to be made. I think it is, as there is no posthuman (critical) entry. --AdamFJohnson 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I am aware of the fact that the concept of "posthuman" for thinkers like N. Katherine Hayles is not similar to the one discussed in this article. No one has suggested that it is. Therefore, I think it might best that you contribute to the Posthuman (critical theory) article when you find the time. --Loremaster 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posthuman still mammal or at least based on DNA?

What I miss in the article is a clarification whether the term "posthuman" as applied to a being still requires that the being is a biological one, meaning either still being a mammal or at least still having DNA encoding of the design of its body as its basis. Could someone knowledgable please add detail on that? --Dan Polansky 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A posthuman does not even have to be a physical entity. It can be a process hosted by a computer. It follows from that [1] and [2]. --Dan Polansky 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of the smoothness of the transition

I do not see the significance of the statement that posthuman was once a human, or at least one of his ancestors was. Imagine I have a triangle that I smoothly morph into a square. Would the resulting square qualify as a "post-triangle" only because it was created through a smooth transition? Or in a similar vein, is a human actually a post-ape, post-mouse, post-frog, post-dolphin or even post-amoeba or post-bacteria? --Dan Polansky 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Post" means both "after" but also has connotations toward "re-writing,""re-thinking,""re-tooling," etc. At least for Posthuman (critical theory) the transitional nature of the posthuman is what is important. Your point is interesting in this context.--AdamFJohnson 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HG Wells form of future human evolution

Just a note that this might be a good add into the article: Human species 'may split in two'

It's a theory put out by a London School of Economics scholar so it's a legitimate postulate as to human evolution. -- Permafrost 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of giving undue weight to the science-fictional speculation of only one scholar. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the inclusion of several different points of view. --Loremaster 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved page

I have moved the page to Posthuman, since this is by far the most common use of the word. --Explodicle (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In future, please use the "move" button rather than cutting and pasting the article contents - moving the page you did removes the article history. See WP:MOVE. I have fixed this one. Neıl ☎ 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried that first, but it didn't work, I guess because there was already an article by that title. If I ever run into the problem again, I'll let you know. --Explodicle (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)