1. In the Transcend theory Garreau states that we are "patternseeking, storytelling animals"(259), meaning that we have constant desire to give meanings and to believe. In the process of cultural evolution to technological evolution, Garreau questions "if our narratives of how the world works are not matching the facts, are we seeking a new era of sense, intelligibility, clarity, continuity and unity?"(259). What is your response to this? If it is true, do you think there will or will be a necessity for a "Larger frame" than the former ones such as Christianity that has "fallen away"?
2. According to P232, transhumanists believe that the Genetic, Robotic, Information and Nano technologies are changing the way humans are. Do you think that human nature will be altered if we move on GRIN technologies? Or, do you think it will be still the same in the future? Give your opinion with specific supports.
Group Leaders
Asami Hashimoto
Kana Fukushima
2. I think that how we define human nature is a key concept here. As i said in earlier blogs, if we define human nature as the desire to constantly seek to evolve, then i think that the adoption of the GRIN technologies is inevitable. However, if we define human nature as something more abstract and vague (like unpredictability), then it will be hard to reconcile with the new technologies. For example, the use of nanobots to portray ourselves in any way we please, like a swarm of robots controlled by a human brain,can either be interpreted as the triumph of man over the selection processes of nature or the loss of man's ability to live with his drawbacks.
ReplyDelete2.I did not really understand the question, but what do you mean change? Do you mean like the concept of human nature will change completely or the way we think or feel will change? I think that the GRIN technology will not the concept of human nature, but will change how we think or feel. The concepts such as how we think or feel will never vanish. I wrote about the PWT on the hell scenario which means that I will agree to technology controlling humans, but I'm not sure whether that is true. I think that humans will have control of technology, and therefore the concepts of the human nature will not change. For an example, I can only think of our modern society. Even with the introduction of new technology, we have not lost any human concepts. But yes, there has been a changes inside the concepts of the human nature.
ReplyDeleteSo sorry for the late post.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that GRIN technology will change the way human beings are. I partly agree with Shantonu's idea that it depends on how we define human nature. However, it seems obvious that the concept of human nature will be alterd when genetic technology mess up our gene pool. It is usually said that "genes determine who we are" because it determine our character, physical appearance, ability, disablity and condition of health. They are all the fundamental elements of human nature. We don't know what will happen to those elements which made us up when genetic technology apply to human. From this viewpoint, I think GRIN technology will change the way we human beings are.
1. I'm not sure if the interpretation i have is right, but i think that there indeed will be a larger frame which will help give meaning to the world we inhabit. In today's world where everything is dynamic, i think that it is only natural that people will start seeking things which are unchanging or have persisted over thousands of years.However, as Kurzweil notes on page 262, Evolution entails towards higher ideals which are abstract at best and cannot be programmed for the simple reason that we don't understand it in its entirety.As technology tries to catch up spiritually, i think that humans will be pressed to come up with definitions for things which were previously 'felt' and 'sensed' and that this new found understanding will transcend all artificial boundaries like religion. In the book we have the example of compassion, and the fact that all human beings require in order to transcend into a world where technology can be equated with peace.
ReplyDelete2. I think that taking advantage of our human nature is a key to ensuring that technology leads to favorable outcomes. One example from the book (around page 264) says that ritualisation of technological advances leads to greater understanding of the responsibilities and requirements of the technology being used, and i believe from my personal experience that not rational facts but powerful beliefs dictate our actions. Therefore, integrating technology and religion or superstition may be an indication that we are headed for transcendence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.) I don't think that we are seeking "a new era of sense...unity" because we have been looking at the world through a distorted frame all this time. How we think the world works has always been different from the facts, especially where media is concerned. For example, what we see on the news is very limited since it is a particular subject that has been chosen from all of the other happenings in the world and is being shot from a particular camera angle, accommodated with certain language, etc. And the thing is that we don't notice this; we're not aware that the narratives we believe in are not exact projections of reality. So I don't think that these former frames have fallen away... With the progession of technology, some people like the Enhanced may get caught up in tiny frames; their main concerns will be the world of technology - how they want to update their digital devices, themselves, their children, etc. In this sense, there may be a need for larger frames that will widen peoples' view of the world so that they will focus on things like how to lessen the prosperity gap between the Enhanced and the Rest.
ReplyDeleteOh and I'm sorry about the late post too :(
ReplyDeleteI am so sorry for the very late post!!
ReplyDelete2. I think human nature will be altered if we move on GRIN technologies. As Kaori said, Genetic technology is the one that affects the human nature the most but I have kind of another view point. I also think that human nature will be changed because by using genetic technology, we will be able to create humans however we want. Designer babies give the good examples here, who are the babies whose genes were altered by parents’ desire. Thus, we will be able to “create ourselves”, which is the same as altering human nature.
Also, I think human nature is about our morality. In my opinion, genetic engineering is against morality because, again for example, we never know how genetically designed babies feel about their genes being altered. It is the same as people going against plastic surgery giving moral as the reason. Genetic engineering, when it comes to the point of affecting humans, it is morally wrong. If this kind of thing is considered normal, it can be said that the human nature is altered because we will be able to accept something that is morally wrong. Also, another part of GRIN technology is about robots being able to do everything instead of humans. This also alters human nature because humans then would not do what humans should be doing. From these points, I say that GRIN technology will alter human nature.
Hey Ms Doi, Ms Suzuki and Mr Abe, these aren't late yet! Last week's "Prevail" posts are late!! What happened?? And where are this week's Group Leaders' comments?? My how things really fall apart at the end...
ReplyDeleteI think that my position is different from Kaya's.
ReplyDeleteThe tremendous amount of information that we have at our fingertips is immense, and is made up of different viewpoints of the same event or happening, and this is forcing us to change the way we view our world. This logically leads to the second part of Kaya's argument where she says that we need larger frames to help explain the phenomenon around us. I do not think that we will not be boxed into a narrow school of thought.
Hey this is too late sorry
ReplyDelete2.I couldn't make the question either
What do you mean by altered?
By what?
Well my answer to this is that as it said in the previous chapter, humans have adopted to many things we perceive and that is what human nature is so what ever it appears and we asking it in some way we are just doing what we naturally do after all.
You could say changing people inside Is going to be something that may alter human nature but once that person is created he will just think the way he does and do not think he is unnatural to human nature
I may have gone off track but I believe that human nature is to adapt to new technology or else we will be denying our progress if our technology that changed our life.
And I think everybody has a different perspectives toward
Human Nature is different so it is very hard to determine what is right or wrong unless you choose by your own perspective.
To Shantonu
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering No.1. And I'm so sorry for the late reply:(
I agree with your idea, and I also think there will be a necessity for a larger frame for people to digest the understandable things occuring around them. It was even more convinsing because you used a quote from the book. Then, considering the fact that the larger frame is beyond boundaries like religion, by the time human adapt to the larger frame, do you think things like human cloning will not be banned anymore, like mentioned on page 260? Or... am I asking a question impossible to answer, since we still don't have an "agreed apon larger frame"?:p Sorry for the weird reply to your answer. The Transcend theory is hard for me to understand...
1. I do not think so much that cloning will be debated, but rather the purpose of cloning. If it is to just create a likeliness as a part of sign of one's megalomania for example, i think that it will be looked down upon. New powers call for new awareness, as we have learnt from history.
ReplyDeleteTo Kaya
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer to the first question.
Your idea was really interesting and I agree that our frame has been distorted all the time. And your example was very convincing because it is so true that the news we receive everyday is indeed biased. However is it true that everyone is fixed within the frame? I feel the development of technology is making us realise the existence of it. And realising the frame means there are chance for us to be free from it. For example, the news on the TV and on the newspaper used to be the only access to information for people, but nowadays the internet has made it possible for us to receive and search information from different viewpoints.
But I agree again about the Enhanced having their new frameworks. So, maybe
all humans are going to adapt to larger frameworks, except in the future the framework differs depening if you are the Enhanced or the Rest?:)
Sorry again for my late reply..X(
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>Shantonu
ReplyDeletethank you for your comment.
So sorry for late.
It was interesting to read your comment. As you say, it is hard to define "human nature" but it depends on how we define it. I had never thought about that. maybe, what you said
seems both correct. human nature may be vague and at the same time, it seeks development or improvement. People in every era try to move on and improve their lives and as its consequence technology is more advanced. but when thinking about consequences or issues we face now with technology, we seems like not being able to handle what we ourselves have created. it is hard to define human nature because we cannot see it, but I surely think that there is a human nature because without it we are completely different that we do not have things to share.
>Yuji
Sorry for bothering you understanding my question...IoI
I meant the concept of human nature.
I agree that how we feel and think has not been changed. It will not be changed even if technology is rapidly moving on and we depend on it much. (I do not know what will happen if we try to enhance humans by something like human engeneering. I wonder what will be the consequences of cutting open human skulls and implant chips into them. Chips are now really really tiny but might change the way we think.) But anyway as we can see poets and diaries, people in a long time ago were feeling the same way we do now and what they felt or thought gets to our heart.
So it may be true that something we share as human is not changed and will not changed either.
>Kaori and Yumi
thank you for your comment!
I think you guys' opinions are quite similar.
My side is similar but kind of different from you guys so I want to mention here.
I believe that technology is now changing the way we think and how we behave. For instance, information technology has been rapidly developed and people can get information really easily. It causes reduction of face to face communication and we tend to feel alone not knowing what others are thinking. It has been said that people especially young females think she or he does not have any real friends..I think these situations has been created from advancement of technology because it normally reduces face to face communication or closeness with other people such as family, friends, and neighbors. What we feel is still the same as people in old era so I have no idea how it will influence us and whether or not it will chnage human nature.
Sorry my statement may be hard to get so if you are unsure what I say please ask me.
>Yusuke
Thank you for your comment and also sorry for late.
When I came up with my discussion question I meant something like we have been keeping as our nature and sharing with other people like how we feel about things. I find it hard to define human nature when I think about it a lot...
Like you say I agree that human nature may be different for all. Also I thought about what will change by using and depending advanced technology how it will influence inside of ourselves.
If what we call human nature is not changed, how we think about things is changing and technology has so many impacts on our lives but fundamentally we are same compared to people long time ago so it can be said that technology has not changed human nature yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExcuse my late post!!!!
ReplyDelete1.Sorry to say but it was not clear to me what you meant with the question so my answer might appear to be a little too vague. Excuse me with that.
To begin with I do not think our world can be framed by one certain formula. It might have been able to before but not now. The world is too complicated containing a big variety of elements being so global and problematic. Thinking of this world as a alternation of Christian world does not reflect the fact at the first stage. We are not in the world in which just one domestic power controls everything and everyone. I actually want to question what kind of frame you would give to fit this world in.
To Sayaka
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering No.1:)
Sorry if my question was hard to understand..
You are right, maybe it is impossible to fix the world into one frame.
However, I do not think of a frame as a domestic power. I also don't think the frame meant something that controls human in the book.
This is not directly answering your question, but for example, people in the past used to reason the existance of human to Christianity. Or course, due respect to people who still do. However, science and technology has found a rather reasonable explanation to why we exist, and now this has become one of the frame for many people. This means Christianity for example has fallen away to some extent. In the past, Christianity used to be a must.
In addition, there might be an even more reasonable explanation in the future due to technology development. This in turn might become the larger framework.
Well, this was my interpretation of the frame in Transcend.
I hope it helps!
I'm sorry I'm late:/
ReplyDelete1, I'm sorry if I didn't get the question right too.
I know what Kana says. And in my opinion I don't really think the "Larger frame" would be needed. Before science replaced Christianity, people needed to believe in something in order to explain all the mysterious things happening around them.
But now, science explains pretty much everything logically. We are not really wanting any further explanations because they are already convincing and most of people accept them as a fact. (Well I'm not sure if Christianity was as persuasive to the people back then actually...)
Plus, I think it's unlikely that the sciences we believe today would lose all the credibility at once and totally new and more reasonable idea comes up and takes over everything, unless someone tells me that we are all dreaming and this world we know does not actually exist or something like that...then I may have to accept that science doesn't explain stuff.
2.I partially agree with what Yusuke has said. Human nature won't be altered even the GRIN and other advanced technology is improved, because those technologies are created by us, humans after all.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that what we call "human nature" now is completely different from what it was in 100 or 200 years ago when we didn't have any technology to create mobile phones or computers. Because at that time, nature of inter personal communication was to talk to other people to face to face, by looking into their eyes. However, if we use cell phones and skype or other phone technology, we dont have to meet.
What I want to say is that since the definition of human nature is keep changing, it is impossible to determine whether technology or other factors are depriving human nature or not.
sorry for the very late post!
1. Sorry if I didn't understand this question correctly.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the "Larger frame" is necessary nor Christianity has "fallen away". There are many contradictions in today's science and Christianity. For example, science explains that the universe started when the big bang happend but Christianity says that God created this world. However there are still so many Christians all over the world today in spite of the contradiction between them. So I don't agree with the idea that Christianity has fallen away and that a "Larger frame" is needed even if" our narratives of how the world works are not matching the facts".
I am so so sorry for the very late post..
ReplyDeleteId like to answer Q2.
Ive been thinking, but I still don't know the answer to it.
Like Shantonu said, I started from thinking the definition of human nature to answer this question. However, I couldn't come up with a nice clear definition. I got confused with what is our nature and which part was we are nurtured. I consider human nature to be something absolute and a very core part of human. Something millions of unique humans have in common. But when I think of this common nature, I just cant think of anything. How we feel is different, what we can do is different, how we think is different....
But I don't think such an absolute thing would never changes?
Sorry my opinion isn't quite an opinion...
Good luck for the exams CB buddies :)
Sorry, I think I’m always the last one to post a comment :(
ReplyDelete2. As Ayaka and many other people said, the definition of human nature would sway what the answer would be in this question. Ayaka said that she couldn’t get what human nature is in the previous comment. However, reading through her comment, I thought that if “How we feel is different, what we can do is different, how we think is different” then maybe “feeling”, “acting”, and “thinking” is human nature. I think to be ethical we need to do those kind of stuff. So to answer the question, i think it might depend on how much we apply GRIN technologies and if we are able to feel, express, think and be aware of things then it is not altering human nature.
Extremely late post. I am sorry.
ReplyDelete2. I do not know how others would define 'human nature', but I think that it is something that would change over time no matter what. With or without the technology we have today, like GRIN technology, 'human nature' would change anyway. I do agree that technology has effected how people see 'human nature'. But maybe, it could be the other way around. For example - because people began to see different on what 'human nature' is, they began to create these technologies. People who actually came up with human enhancement obviously thought it was okay to put some IC chips inside human brain. Maybe they focused on other facts to define human nature, and created or creating these technology. So, I do think that how people think of 'human nature' would change in the future. However, it might not be the result of those GRIN technologies. It might be ourselves changing the ideas of 'human nature'.
sorry for my delay ;_;
ReplyDelete2. Similar to other CBs are saying, the answer to this question depends on how we define the term "human nature".The book says that there is still no agreement on what the human nature is, however, I agree to the idea stated by transhumanists written on pg 232, that the human nature is a work-in-progress and GRIN technologies are likely to fundamentally alter the rules of us. With these emerging new technologies in the Curve, I think it is important to figure out HOW the GRIN technologies will change us, not just letting them alter our human nature. Human beings should realize the situation we are facing in the Curve, and should keep seeking where we are going. I personally believe that the GRIN technologies will change the basis of human conditions in better way, same opinion as transhumanists, but I strongly think all of us must critically think about the possible effects of the GRIN technologies. On one side, GRIN technologies will affect in a good way that "there might be pleasures whose blissfulness vastly exceeds what any human has yet experienced(242)." But on the other side, we might enter the Hell Scenario. So, what I want to stress is that we human beings should keep questioning how the GRIN technologies might change us in the future, not only receiving impacts of the technologies.
Sorry for my extremely late post!!!I've been lost in meditation:(
ReplyDelete2. I don't know what human nature is exactly like, but I think the definition is vague in the first place. So here I define human nature as the concept that tells us what normal humans are like in biological terms.
I think human nature will be changed by GRIN technology or any future tech because through the human history, we have been altered by the technology. It would be more precise to say that acquiring technologies is part of human evolution, as Stephen Hawking says. So it is natural to think that if technologies change, human nature will also change because part of human evolution means the introduction of the technology is like the acquisition of feathers.
Let me make it simple.
Birds got the ability to fly or widen their territory by acquiring feathers.
Humans got the ability to go to the moon or widen their territory by introducing technologies.
And the most striking difference which distinguishes birds from other animals is whether or not they have feathers.
So we can say here that having feather is a nature of birds. Of course it goes without saying that if the feather changes, the nature of the bird will also be affected to some extent.
So, why not human nature?
Some might say that having technologies is not part of human nature because it's not what distinguishes humans from other species.
But it's not true.
Please remember the history class.
Your teacher must have said that the most notable difference between humans and other species is whether they use tools or not.
So what is the technology?
It surely is a tool which has incredible potentials.
So I think GRIN tech will also change human nature.
I'm so sorry for my super late post;-;
ReplyDelete2.I agree with part of Kaori and Yumi's opinion.
When considering the Genetic technology, human nature might be altered. I agree on this point. However, I don't think that human nature would be altered in general. With GRIN technologies, how humans are and what humans are able to do might change according to the development, but human nature itself, for example emotion and instict, would never change. What i want to say is that by using technologies, possibilities will add up to human nature, but the human nature will always stay the same. Like other CBs mention, it's difficult to define human nature, but this is my image of human nature.
Finishing to post my last comment on this CB blog, it's a little bit sad to think that from now on, we wouldn probably not have discussions all of us together.
I want to say thank you to all of you CBs and Chris for active discussions and always inspiring my thoughts.
Wish you all good luck in the rest of ICU's critical thinking life:)
Haha guess I'm the last one!
ReplyDeleteSuper sorry for the super late post!!!
2) So.. It all comes down to human nature.. As many people are saying, this is an extremely hard word to define. If I may say, it could be a pretty optimistic way of thinking to assume that people shared something so called human nature just because they were humans. What if they didn't? What if every person was different and every value was questionable? It's not that a shocking thing to say.
I think GRIN would change our lives drastically, but maybe what we reffer to as human nature may not be altered. I think one of the things that could be considered as human nature is greed. People has alway wanted more and thus has produced technology and has tried to evolve in every possible way. I think that kind of notion to keep on wanting more will not be altered. No technology can be perfect and while it cannot be so, humans' bottomless pit of greed will not be fulfilled.
So in this sence, human nature will not be altered even after the introduction of these new technologies. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, as if it was just mere proof that people will never be truly happy, is still arguable.