Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
MIT Media Lab’s folding CityCar

‪BMW shows off their semi-autonomous driving system‬

Autonomous Transportation for the Year 2030

Automated Cars: Redux

Russell Blackford: Freedom of Religion

‪Jason Silva on Psychedelic Rapture, Ecstatic Awe‬ and Technology

Must the Rich be Lured into Investing? Who are the Real “Job Creators?”

I Want a God-Like Brain

SENS5 - Collective advantages of Life Extension

Malcolm Gladwell on Income Inequality: We’re Off the Rails


ieet books

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
Author
by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt

Freedom of Religion and the Secular State
by Russell Blackford

The Olympics: The Basics
by Andy Miah and Beatriz Garcia


comments

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)

Christian Corralejo on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 10, 2012)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv


IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > Vision > Virtuality > Fellows > Russell Blackford

Print Email permalink (2) Comments (2790) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Latest from JET


Posted: Feb 2, 2008

is a peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and edited by IEET Fellow Dr. Russell Blackford. The first two articles of Volume 17 have been published.

Alessandro Tomasi “The Role of Intimacy in the Evolution of Technology” Journal of Evolution and Technology (17:1) January 2008 - pgs 1-12

Abstract:  In this article, Georges Bataille’s notion of intimacy will be re-interpreted to show that it has a role to play in the evolution of technology. The specifically human form of intimacy can be experienced through the successful adoption of technological devices that have the qualities necessary to fit in and work out in our life context. If they manage to become part of our life, then we experience them as projections of our psychophysical personality, and, as such, they escape our positing, objectifying consciousness. Intimacy can be seen as the organizing principle that shapes the evolution of technology towards an ideal end that promises at least an approximation to the absolute intimacy that is unique to the gods.

Bill Hibbard’s “The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract” Journal of Evolution and Technology (17:1) January 2008 - pgs 13-22

Abstract: The progress of biology, neuroscience and computer science makes it clear that some time during the twenty- first century we will master the technologies of mind and life. We will build machines more intelligent than ourselves, and modify our own brains and bodies to increase our intelligence, live indefinitely and make other changes. We live together according to a social contract, consisting of laws, morals and conventions governing our interactions. This social contract is based on assumptions we rarely question: that all humans have roughly the same intelligence, that we have limited life spans and that we share a set of motives as part of our human nature. The technologies of mind and life will invalidate these assumptions and inevitably change our social contract in fundamental ways. We need to prepare for these new technologies so that they change the world in ways we want rather than just stumbling into a world that we don’t.

Guidelines for submitting to JET are here.

Contact Marcelo if you would like to be a JET article reviewer.


Print Email permalink (2) Comments (2791) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


I've been writting about the social contract theory and what it would take to make a valid ethical directive on the Abolitionist Society forums for some time. I think that the core premise that all humans have the same desires can be debated and tested scientifically - we don't have to settle for promoting diversity and libertarianism to the detriment of universal progress. It's time we had a debate about what humans really want - can't we find some universal common ground upon which to base a social contract? By this statement; "Changing Assumptions The social contract grows out of our human nature and is based on rarely-questioned assumptions, including: 2. Humans are motivated by the roughly the same set of values, as part of our shared human nature. Tax codes and other laws make many assumptions about human motives." Hibbard dismisses any valid social contract. I'm waiting for him to debate this and have contacted him directly.



What makes a social contract valid? If you propose that; "However, the technology of mind will give us freedom to choose the motives of machine and enhanced human minds, and we can design them to not to want to circumvent measures to protect others. We can design them to value the well-being of other humans." why is this a valid directive? It must be based upon universal traits and sentient desires. Liberty isn't part of a newborn's vocabulary - this happens when social theories come into play. Newborn's just try to avoid death and pain and seek pleasure. If we are talking about a singularitarian attempt to improve lifelong individual happiness - this goes against the self-direction of the individual as individuals cannot predict their own happiness. SEE : 'stumbling on happiness'. So Libertarianism and Singularitarianism are at fundamental odds. What really makes us happiest in terms of lifelong individual happiness is not what we would choose due to irrationality and learned mental habits. (How many are seeking brain implants actively in order to reliably improve lifelong individual happiness?) If a computer is making calculations and ensuring happiness (as singularitarians say will happen eventually) - the 'liberty of the individual will have to be defined in terms of avoiding suffering rather than catering to the percieved will power. However, there is no voluntary sufffering or volition. This requires free-will.



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Haldane, Bernal and Cascio

Previous entry: No Singing Allowed: Assumptions and Other Nonsense

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376