The usual resource can be relied on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

the rapid progress in limb replacement technology, and the interesting experiments in 3d organ printing. There is serious stuff going on, there is also a lot of bullshit.

theists generally want the whole subject to go away as it assumes that consciousness is material and not some divine blessing.

enough to understand that our consciousness rises from entirely material organs.

I'd go so far as to call it willful stupidity to pretend otherwise.

are pretty much the nail in the coffin of non-materialism.

independently generates all of the content that comes out of it because it broke last week and now nothing comes out of it.

If not, then the analogy is bullshit.

which in turn behaves in a consistent, predictable manner. Similarly, I can alter a simple transistor radio to consistently and predictably pick up air traffic control. While the analogy was (and is) tongue in cheek, I still think you are overstating the case for physicality.

One of these:

I guess there was no honest desire to discuss TH in that one. I'm shocked.

it is a movement that advocates the improvement of humanity via technology. I don't know a lot about it, but I don't see how it has any relation to Christmas?

I don't see that.

I'd start with this talk here. She can do things, I cannot. That's awesome.

http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics

The "its all bullshit" approach has to redefine that as "not part of what we're talking about".

then via the web , he could visit every boy and girl in one night, provided they have internet access.

Thanks Obama for wrecking Christmas with your transhuman santa claus.

is a naughty country anyway.

Is Trans-humanism just another name for a process of embracing Kurzweil's Singularity concept?

...just an intellectually derived substitution for heaven?

Just another expression of the human desire to live forever?

Cute, but just another desperate attempt (albeit with technology) to create a framework of false hope for immortality?

You are probably referring to consciousness portability, which would in fact raise practical issues of relative immortality.

...isn't necessarily a separately derived conscience, but an melding of all existing human consciences into a machine/digital framework.

Everyone who is alive (biologically) at the the the singularity is created can opt to be part of that entity and "live forever" (some restrictions may apply).

(apologies for my low response rate, my wifi is overheating again and I am losing bandwidth)

...god(s)? Up to the point just before it comes into being, and then does it (the God concept) become irrelevant?

If you mean "supernatural entity", no. "the machines" will just be smarter than we are. We may not understand what they are doing or how they are doing it, but they won't be supernatural entities.

By the way it may already have happened. How would we know?

...not sure what I mean either.

Have to munch on this for a bit.

A racist?

I am aware of sociobiology, but not a racial remarks by him.

Didn't know Wilson was part of that.

That's really bad.

Wilson agreed with Schockley, Jensen and Murray.

I can only find places where he is portrayed as a Democrat with strong conservation ideals.

advocacy that genetically determined intelligence resulted in inferiority and superiority within human populations.

In many ways, Wilson's use of genetics to describe unalterable group traits, as well as his conclusions, are much more far-reaching and damaging than simple intelligence testing.

Here's one critique. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species

If you want to go to the beginning of the controversy, this is a good start: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/nov/13/against-sociobiology/?insrc=toc

If not, then he is simply a data point, in that he has an opinion on the subject.

I have opinions as well. That doesn't mean I agree with Messerly in any fashion.

(Edit: That is slightly facetious, I know full well the concept is older than his entire lifespan. Nor does transhumanism imply or require eugenics anyway.)

Wilson was raised in the American south and has stated that he was raised a racist. He long ago left those views behind. He has made unfortunate remarks about eugenics, however, even those remarks were tempered by an admission of a current ignorance that prevents any implementation of such a program.

An excerpt from The Evolutionary Ethics of E O Wilson:

I know that some people claim that Wilson is a racist. They base that claim on inferences they draw from what he says, not on any direct statement from him. People who believe that a eugenics program is necessarily racist seem to be making some racist assumptions. Can you cite a statement by Wilson that is racist? I scanned the articles and didn't see one. I disagree with Wilson on any number of questions. However, I consider him to be a scientist trying to learn the truth through research. I don't believe that he has any racist intentions and I haven't seen any racism in his writings that I've read. The articles that you cited didn't change my mind.

The conclusion to the Guardian Profile:

Are you asking for a statement from Wilson that "I am a racist?" Or a passage akin to Mein Kampf?

You may find his discussion of “democratically contrived eugenics" on page 198 of On Human Nature to be of interest.

The "inferences" are conclusions based on his work. Endorsements from Diamond, Dawkins and McEwan notwithstanding.

The social Darwinism that Wilson, even to this day, promotes was the ideological cover for the European empires and sounds so much more reasonable than "white man's burden".

A statement by Wilson that he believes in the white man's burden would suffice.

Are you calling Wilson a racist because you have heard other people make that charge? Or, are you calling Wilson a racist because of something you have heard him say or seen in his writing? If it's something that you have heard him say or have seen in his writing, please repeat those statements here so that people can judge the accuracy of your claim. If you have to refer to a whole book or a chapter in a book, then you are basing your charge on inferences that you are making rather than on any direct statements that he has made. If you are aware of racist statements that he has made, you should be able to repeat those statements here.

Let's be honest. A racist can interpret the Sermon on the Mount as supporting his position. After all, it divides the world into the Blessed and, by implication, the not-so Blessed - clearly us and them. Does a racist interpretation of the Sermon imply that Jesus was a racist? Few people, hearing the words of this sermon, would conclude that it is racist. That is why I would like to hear Wilson's own words that mark him as a racist.

That passage follows his comments about &quot T)ruly exceptional individuals, weak or strong" being the result of random selection. He proposes gene pools, (democratically controlled I'm sure) presumably to eliminate the weak and promote the strong.

It's raw eugenics and it's racist, regardless of what a fine fellow he is.

Re-read the paragraph. Then read the next paragraph.

And that's what he proposed. Notwithstanding how many rational ants he posits.

No, eugenics is not at all compatible with human rights.

So, why is he advocating democratically contrived eugenics?

and for no better reason than to disrupt.