opnet [OpNet] Rehashing Old Threads, part II

[Ashnod]

Quote:

Originally posted by Glenn 'Alchemist' Roberts:
Transhumanism implies that we improve upon what we gained from our humanity. The Null Manifesto requires that we forsake certain aspects of that humanity, but strongly suggests that we forsake ALL aspects. Neither one is suitable in all cases.

For the moment, all participating in this next thread please ignore Dr. Smith's supposition that the word human applies equally to all sentient life. This is not out of spite but rather a matter of necessary sematics. We will discuss this next issue under the guidelines that "human" indicates baseline life and "nova" indicates erupted life.

Dr. Robert's post leads me to ask the following:

1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

2) What aspects of "humanity" should novas not forsake, even if they are not native to the nova species?

3) Are there aspects of "humanity" that are not native to the nova species?

4) Can "humanity" also lose these aspects of "humanity" and if so, what does the human that loses them become?

[kestrel404]

That's why I like you, Ashnod. You're always asking worthwhile questions.

1) Without any significant sampling of nonhuman sentience to work from, this is a very difficult question, and is open to wide interpretation. One could postulate a form of intellect that would be so alien as to have nothing in common with humanity.

I'll answer this as best I can, by answering the inverse: What aspects of humanity are inherent to all sentient life? In other words, what are the minimum qualifications for sentient life?

We'll start with a definition of sentience:

The state of basic and/or undifferentiated consciousness; preliminary to but including the potential for reception and processing of sensation, perception, ideation, awareness; Unstructured available consciousness, includes the potential for the achievement of a state of conscious perception and the processing thereof.

This is a typical definition of sentience, in that the only requirements are awareness, consciousness, and the ability to process information recieved from the senses. Really, these are the minimal requirements for sentience. Thus, anything beyond that, from specific concepts like good & bad, to way in which humans perceive the world, are specific to human existence, rather than sentience.

This may seem like an unhelpful answer, but I think it is very enlightening. Novas have the ability to alter themselves to the point where they can change their own perceptions of the world, develop concepts that humanity would be incapable of conceiving of, unlearn those concepts they do not agree with, and in all other ways to fundamentally change their own sentience. Thus, the very minimalism of sentience as defined above shows how much difference there could be between a nova and a human.

2) I doubt this question has a definitive answer. As in all things relating to novas, the answer is specific to the nova in question, and in many cases there are many possible answers for each individual nova.

As I did for the first question, I will answer by starting with a different question. Why should we want to forsake an aspect of ourselves?

Regardless of belief or dogma, in the instant after a nova errupts, they are still completely human. They have had no time to change, learn, grow, or in any other way become something other than human. Unless they've been prepared for it, known about their latency in advance, a newly errupted nova acts just like a human would if given phenomenal powers or were cursed with horrible deformity, and even if they were prepared for it, they would still act just as a human, only one who was expecting their new abilities. What relevance does this have? Simple. In order for the human with powers to become a nova, they must unlearn the former limitations of human life. In other words, they must forsake their old limitations and accept their new ones. Thus, to become a nova, you must forsake at least this small aspect of humanity. Otherwise, you remain bound to your human limitations, and never consciously grow into something other than an empowered human.

What other aspects of humanity are worth forsaking completely?

There are several negative aspects of humanity's existence that would be worth purging from nova existence, but they are difficult things to get rid of, and others will likely disagree with any specific list I put forth. Some things I feel are superfluous, like boredom, do serve an indirect purpose, while other things, like pain, are no longer necessary but very difficult to dispose of because of the many evolutionary hooks it has in both our consciousness and our past evolution. Suffice it to say, there are many aspects of my humanity that I could live without, but that list is in no way universal.

3) In first generation novas, those born of humanity who errupt in their midst, I would say no, all aspects of humanity are native to these novas, because they have been human for all their lives until that point. For those second generation novas who are raised wholely in the company of errupted novas and know they will one day be novas themselves, I suspect, but cannot be certain, that certain aspects and expectations within them could be wholely alien to humanity, but I also suspect that they would be capable of relating to all aspects of humanity.

Once there is a third generation of novas, one raised entirely away from the baseline population that gave us birth, and those first generation novas who are so human as to be indistinguishable from baselines, we may see individual novas who errupt without the ability to relate to every aspect of humanity. I do, however, believe that all novas who are born latent will have the capacity to understand the human condition, if only because they will have experienced some version of it during their developmental years.

4) Of course. Otherwise, the expression 'inhuman' would never be applied to a person. But you see it all the time applied to psychopaths, those individuals who live at the outer edges of society, and even those who are simply considdered strange. Much of what we considder 'human' is a learned response developed during early childhood. A child who was born blind often seems to be preternaturally perceptive, and even capable of 'seeing' without looking, but that is simply the adaptiveness of the mind, using the other senses in place of sight. Of course, the answer to this question also depends greatly on what you considder part of 'humanity'.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Ashnod: 1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

Extremely difficult to answer with only two samples and those two close or identical. One point does not define a curve.

If we look at pre-1998, I’d say that mankind is the most social animal. We form social groups of any number. We communicate across generations and on a wide range of topics.

Ashnod: 2) What aspects of "humanity" should novas not forsake, even if they are not native to the nova species?

Ashnod: 3) Are there aspects of "humanity" that are not native to the nova species?

I’m not sure there is anything native to baselines that isn’t also native to novas. Novas are, so far at least, heirs to what I’ll term the human condition. Mankind is the social animal. We have all the petty jealousies and grandiose dreaming. We show all the love, the hate, and the office politics.

We can be what we want. We have the choice of taking along the best or the worst.

Ashnod: 4) Can "humanity" also lose these aspects of "humanity" and if so, what does the human that loses them become?

Yes they can, and sometimes they do. When we are lucky they go off and become hermits in log cabins in the middle of nowhere. When we aren’t lucky they become serial killers. When we are very unlucky they spark movements that lead to things like the holocaust.

[Ashnod]

Quote:

Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Yes they can, and sometimes they do. When we are lucky they go off and become hermits in log cabins in the middle of nowhere. When we aren’t lucky they become serial killers. When we are very unlucky they spark movements that lead to things like the holocaust.

Please elaborate on this. What aspects of humanity have been lost in this situation?

[Tommy Tomorrow]

1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

Compassion.

Love.

Creativity; at least in the sense that we create when we have no practical reason to create.

Empathy.

2) What aspects of "humanity" should novas not forsake, even if they are not native to the nova species?

I've heard arguments for the transcendant path, mostly that we'd rise above the qualities I listed above, but without actually interviewing someone who transcended I don't know what it would be like. There would be fewer limitation, more freedom, but would it be worth it? It seems more likely, to me anyway, these qualities would remain but be expanded beyond the limitations we've shed in transcending.

3) Are there aspects of "humanity" that are not native to the nova species?

I was born human in a social sense if not a genetic one. I lived as human. Eruption brought awareness my limitations were not those of other men. There was fear and a sense of freedom that I still feel today, One day I'll probably write about that but for now I'm still doing the research. I can say there are moments the world seems so small and everyone so frail. I'm not sure what I would think of that if I hadn't been born and raised as a human being.

4) Can "humanity" also lose these aspects of "humanity" and if so, what does the human that loses them become?

Ostracized. Seperated from the rest. Sometimes it's accompanied by a ceremony involving tar and feathers. Other times the person dwells within the group but does not interact with them.

I think there is sometimes confusion when others believe these qualities have been lost in an individual when the qualities are actually there but unrecognized, as opposed to the individual actually losing the qualities. I do notice the confusion is mainly on the part of those that define reality by the opinions of the majority.

When I wrote my second book I researched a pseudo-historical vigilante figure in the early 20th Century. Those few references I could find of his existence pointed to a very isolated man. I was very sure that I would find proof of his existence, that he was the kind of person Ashnod asks about and Smith describes. A sociopath. A creature superficially human but operating strictly on his own skewed internal logic. He wasn't, though I have problems understanding some of what he did. Who Owns The Night? turned out to be the most difficult book I've written because the man was human yet the things he did in his war on crime...

Amazing. Terrifying but amazing.

[Ashnod]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Micro:
1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

Compassion.

Love.

Creativity; at least in the sense that we create when we have no practical reason to create.

Empathy.

You believe these qualities are unique to "humans" and to no other sentient life?

[Tommy Tomorrow]

I've met no sentient life that could claim it was unaffected by human sensibilities. You're questioning the nature of that non-human life but I've no experience with it yet.

[Ashnod]

Mr. Micro,

The parameters of the discussion define "human" as baseline and nova as "non-human."

As this thread stems from Alchemist's statement of, "The Null Manifesto requires that we forsake certain aspects of that humanity, but strongly suggests that we forsake ALL aspects. Neither one is suitable in all cases," I am seeking clarification on exactly what aspects he, and others of like mind, are referring to.

I did not provide examples of "non-human" aspects, nor did I provide aspects of "human" aspects, as this is a question I am asking those who are defining the quality of "humanity" in terms of "aspects."

I am asking those that feel it can be categorized and defined to please do so.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

I am seeking clarification on exactly what aspects he, and others of like mind, are referring to.

I thought this thread was open to all. Because I did, I answered your questions to the best of my experience while admitting my experience with non-humans is minimal.

[Ashnod]

I was not chastising you, Mr. Micro, only trying to clarify what I am seeking. Apologies if it was taken otherwise.

[Y.T.]

What is in a name?

[Splitmind]

1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

Since "human" equates to "baseline," and since I don't know the exact ways in which sentient aliens might differ from baselines, I will stick with a strict definition. Baselines have a genetic structure which defines "homo sapiens" while at the same time lacking the node that defines "homo superior." And make no mistake; there are not nearly enough genetic differences between baselines and novas to justify calling us separate species except in certain rare cases, and even in those cases there is no evidence that the Nova in question no longer has a human mind. You can add the genes to a lab rat to cause it to grow unnecessary organs, but that does not make it less of a rat.

2) What aspects of "humanity" should novas not forsake, even if they are not native to the nova species?

Here I have a little more freedom. Rather than focusing on what baselines don't share with other sentient life forms, I can focus on aspects that they do have without regard to whether other life forms have them.

Honestly, I believe that Novas should keep the same aspects of humanity that I think baselines should keep: respect for life, a capacity for caring and reasoning, and an ability to think creatively. I don't think that Novas should be selfish, cruel, hateful or sadistic, but then I don't think that baselines should be, either. I'm aware that this places a high priority on my own moral views, but I make no apologies for that. Morals aren't morals if you don't hold everyone accountable.

3) Are there aspects of "humanity" that are not native to the nova species?

Yes, the lack of a node impinging on the forebrain. A genetic structure that does not code for a node. Seemingly "inhuman" actions are likely very human actions taken made from a point of view that may be warped (or raised) above the average point of view. As a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm well aware that people consider some of my actions alien, but if they had to concentrate to tune out a seemingly constant undercurrent of codes and whispers in order to decipher a normal conversation, they would act similarly.

4) Can "humanity" also lose these aspects of "humanity" and if so, what does the human that loses them become?

Baselines can certainly lose compassion, empathy, caring, and many other seemingly "human" aspects. Likewise, so can Novas. However, the very shape of our brain limits the ways we can think. No Nova that I've ever heard of is capable of making one plus one equal three even in their own mind, and if they were, it seems unlikely that they would be able to create a stable mental framework encompassing this fact and all of its repercussions.

Baselines cannot, however, ultimately lose certain basic underlying instincts and reactions. Even masochists have an automatic aversion to pain which must be overcome with force of will. These instincts cannot be erased, merely overcome: someone born without the ability to feel pain does not lose the instinct of pain avoidance, but instead never has the opportunity to practice it. It's ultimately the basic, animalistic, genetic things under our veneer of sentience that keep baselines human regardless of their emotions and reasoning capability, and it's these same things that keep Novas from becoming too alien. Novas who can change the shape of their brain have to do so from some overarching point of view, which necessarily includes these instincts.

This isn't to say that I can't foresee a situation in which a Nova becomes so changed that it can no longer be classified as human-like. But this is by necessity a physical change more than a spiritual. The brain imposes certain methods of thought upon thought processes, and the pre-eruption thought processes impose certain methods of thought upon post-eruption thought processes, especially since these thoughts are what influence the nature of the eruption in the first place. In order for me to say that a Nova had truly lost all semblance of humanity, I would require proof that it had lost all genetic and structural relation to a human form, and further that there was at some point a break wherein the baseline mind shut down and some new, alien mind with no dependence on human brain structures spontaneously arose to take control of the non-human body. The only Novas I can think of for whom this might even be a possibility are Novas like Revenant, because his brain was shut down for a time. However, I know of no evidence that his new mind was anything but a continuation of the old.

Micro: Ostracized. Separated from the rest. Sometimes it's accompanied by a ceremony involving tar and feathers. Other times the person dwells within the group but does not interact with them.

Mr. Micro, ostracism can occur for reasons other than lost elements of humanity. Please consider that sometimes the outcasts have retained their humanity, but act from a different point of view not easily recognized by their peers. Further, please remember that many people throughout history have lost the elements of humanity you described, and oftentimes they were anything but ostracized. It's not how human you are that affects whether others will accept you, it's how "human" you can act. Sometimes the most compassionate, loving, creative and empathic people (to use your qualifications for humanity) are the very ones accused of having lost all humanity.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Splitmind:
Mr. Micro, ostracism can occur for reasons other than lost elements of humanity.

Thank you, but its already been pointed out I'm not a participant in this thread.

[Madison 'Vali' West]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashnod:
For the moment, all participating in this next thread please ignore Dr. Smith's supposition that the word human applies equally to all sentient life. This is not out of spite but rather a matter of necessary semantics. We will discuss this next issue under the guidelines that "human" indicates baseline life and "nova" indicates erupted life.

Dr. Robert's post leads me to ask the following:

1) What aspects of "humanity" are not inherent to all sentient life, and are in fact, uniquely "human?"

That begs the questions: what do you consider sentient life?
Barring the whole sentient life aspect, I consider humanity to be
-the ability to think of situations beyond yourself and your immediate needs.
-to hold a sense of community with others of not only your own species, but of other species, and for this to be considered normal.
-to have compassion/love/sympathy for those not of your own group, or kind, or even of your previous knowledge.
-to hold fear/hatred/anger towards the same.
-to understand one can be better and to actively and purposefully work toward that goal.
-to create with out purpose.

2) What aspects of "humanity" should novas not forsake, even if they are not native to the nova species?

None. I was raised being told that nothing was beyond my capacity. I can be human, humane, and more than human at the same time, if I but try.
Forsaking things implies self-limitation. While there are possible reasons to do this for the short term, in the long term, it is accepting weakness and a lack of possibilities within oneself.
To me, having never been human, it is the struggle to move forward and accept humanity as part of who I am right now than to forsake it for something easier. I feel the struggle to be human while becoming something more is important.

3) Are there aspects of "humanity" that are not native to the nova species?

No. Novas will only cease to be human-like if they choose to be, or if they are denied the possibility.

4) Can "humanity" also lose these aspects of "humanity" and if so, what does the human that loses them become?

Humanity already makes these decisions. That is why they war upon, execute, imprison, and exile one another.
What does this mean for the one who has lost their humanity? Loss of community. Even if their loss of humanity is not noted by their community, alienation is a common aspect.

[Ashnod]

Hmmm.

I do not feel any more informed on this subject than when the topic began.

Dr. Roberts, could you please clarify or elaborate on your post?

[Jordan]

Perhaps then, you have defined the paramaters of your debate too narrowly?

I am curious; while I accept that you are using the term "human" to define Baselines and "nova" to define the Erupted, are you questioning the psychological or the biological makeup of Humanity as it relates to Novakind?

I would like a clarification from you before I attempt to answer your questions.

[Ashnod]

It matters not to me, Jordan, either is fine. However, I did not define the parameters of this line of thinking, Dr. Roberts did. I cannot clarify this position for you because it is his perspective, and examples of "aspects" that I, myself, need clarification on.

[Madison 'Vali' West]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashnod:
Hmmm.

I do not feel any more informed on this subject than when the topic began.

Dr. Roberts, could you please clarify or elaborate on your post?

Two things, please.
One, answer the questions you posted, as it may help the rest of us understand were you are coming from.
Two, please try not to appear so condescending when the rest of us are honestly responding to your posts. After all, you said,

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashnod:
However, I did not define the parameters of this line of thinking, Dr. Roberts did. I cannot clarify this position for you because it is his perspective, and examples of "aspects" that I, myself, need clarification on.

but, you also said,

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashnod:
Dr. Robert's post leads me to ask the following:

You did define the parameters of the questions, though the line of thinking may have been inspired by someone else. You posted this thread not to Dr. Roberts attempting to have him clarify his position, but because his post lead you to ask us some questions.
This was not about his perspectives, and we were asked to accept certain terms as given.

[Ashnod]

Quote:

Originally posted by Madison 'Vali' West:
You did define the parameters of the questions.

Correct. I defined the parameters of the questions. I did not, as I stated, define the parameters of the line of thought that resulted in this thread.

You posted this thread not to Dr. Roberts attempting to have him clarify his position, but because his post lead you to ask us some questions. This was not about his perspectives, and we were asked to accept certain terms as given.

Incorrect. This is about his perspectives, and those that agree with them.

One, answer the questions you posted, as it may help the rest of us understand were you are coming from.

I cannot. As I said, I myself am seeking clarification on this. I have no answers for the questions. I am not in agreement with Dr. Robert's line of thinking, hence why I am seeking further insight into what he was getting at.

The basic premise, as I understand it, is that The Null Manifesto demands of novas forgo "certain aspects" of "humanity" but strongly suggests forgoing all of them.

As Dr. Roberts' reply states that neither is acceptable in all cases, it implies that it is acceptable in some or a few, or, at the very least, some of these aspects are not necessary while others are vital.

As a summary, the definition of humanity thus far given by the participants of this thread is for the most part an examination of what we consider "intelligent and sentient" life, which is probably from the phrasing of my initial question. Of that, the fault lies with me.

I have no interest in personal definitions humanity as it applies strictly to morality, or of simply the sentient, intelligent condition. Unless we are defining humanity as "morale, sentient, intelligent" life, where the lack of morality makes one "sentient and intelligent" but lacking of "humanity" thus "inhuman," I feel either I have not explained what I am looking for properly, it has not been answered properly, or the question begs answers for which the answers cannot be supplied.

please try not to appear so condescending when the rest of us are honestly responding to your posts.

Apologies. I am not intending to insult. I simply do not wish this to be yet another dicussion on the idea that "humanity" = "morality" or "conscience."

[kestrel404]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashnod:
I myself am seeking clarification on this. I have no answers for the questions. I am not in agreement with Dr. Robert's line of thinking, hence why I am seeking further insight into what he was getting at.

If you wanted to know what I meant by that comment, you should have asked in a more straightforward manner. I took your questions as a genuine interest in how we perceive the concept of humanity. That's the question I attempted to answer in my first post. I'll try to answer what you really want to know.

1) The Null Manifesto requires that we forsake certain aspects of humanity:
"If you choose to live under the law of Homo sapiens sapiens, you choose to waste your power and purpose"
"To allow or encourage any nova to wallow in the base and rapine pleasures of Homo sapiens sapiens is the very definition of pointless waste"

I'd call that a pretty clear requirement that we forsake:
Obeying human laws - an undeniable part of human life, and a conscious choice, thus an aspect of humanity.
Acting human while dormed, for pleasure - in other words pretending to be human. I actually considder this a purely inhuman activity, since baseline humanity does not have any need to pretend to be baselines. But the statement also implies that we give up whatever Divis Mal considders a 'base and rapine pleasure' of baseline humanity. I would think that surfing the OpNet may fall in that category, but since I've never met him, I couldn't say.

2) It also strongly implies that we forsake all aspects of humanity:
"this, a call for all members of Homo sapiens novus to reject the shackles that baseline humanity has ventured to place upon us. We have unknowingly and willingly yoked ourselves to their closed-minded, simplistic morality and
shortsighted, atavistic agendas."
"The very nature of Homo sapiens novus is intrinsically different from that of its baseline predecessors"

Perhaps not the best quotes, but the first and most famous. This, as well as the quote given above, strongly imply that there are few if any aspects of our original human existence that are worth keeping.

3)What do I considder an aspect of humanity:
Any human activity, concept, or goal that pre-dates the advent of novas. I limit it to pre-nova existence because there have been examples of each developed since then that I considder to be impossible without novas, or technology that lies outside the current grasp of humanity.

4)What do I considder uniquely human:
Not much, actually. Since human existence is very nearly a subset of nova existence, I cannot at the moment think of any aspect of humanity that is uniquely human.

Does this clarify my position any better?

[Ashnod]

Thank you, Dr. Roberts.

[Lemmy Chillmeister]

Okay, most of this I don't get, but I'll try.

1) What's not inherent in sentient life but is 'human'?

Love? Bullshit, talk to a guy who can actually talk to a dolphin or a chimp or what have you and you know that's crap.

Hatred? Bullshit. Hatred comes out of fear and anything that can think can fear.

Passion? See #1.

Creativity? Listen to whale song. Creative shit, Maynard.

Empathy? Dude, you ever have a really bad day, come home growling and pissed and have your dog come over, snuggle up close and put their head on your lap? If that ain't empathy....aw fuck it, that is empathy.

2) Why forsake any of it? Use what works and toss the rest.

3) Dunno. Not a very smart guy I guess.

4) Good question. Shit yeah. I doubt most folks would have called Jack the Ripper a very human human. What they become? Something that needs killing? An abomination?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Well said Lemmy.

Ashnod: Please elaborate on this. What aspects of humanity have been lost in this situation?

I'm not really sure, it's not my field nor is it something I've experienced. I think on some level I've always avoided researching this because it might hit too close to home.

Empathy perhaps. Sanity definately.