Anarcho transhumanism

Can anyone recommend any good introductory texts to anarcho-transhumanism? I don't think I know much about the ideology, and me and a friend are interested in learning

I think these two books are a good introduction into what you're looking for.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-bookchin-towards-a-liberatory-technology Always good to throw murry bookchin in any anarchism mix

These are a bit more in the vein of accelerationism than pure transhumanism, but as a transhumanist I've found alot of joy in reading accelerationist literature. Accelerationist Reader https://libcom.org/files/Accelerate%20-%20Robin%20Mackay.pdf CCRU 1997-2003 https://libcom.org/files/%5BCcru,_Nick_Land%5D_Ccru_Writings_1997-2003(BookZZ.org).pdf Land - Fanged Noumena https://syntheticzero.net/2019/11/14/fanged-noumena-pdf-by-nick-land/

>>4078 Anyone who tells you that you can download your mind into a computer or robot-body or "the cloud" is themselves a huge moron or a comic book tier villain.

>>4095 I'm glad those people hardly exist anymore.

>>4105 The dotcom bubble was a bizarre and naïve time.

>>4106 >>4105 >>4095 Uhhh Jeffrey Epstein and Ray Kurzweil were/are very much into that

>>4108 Well, lain did say "comic book tier villian".

What's so comic book about it, exactly? The brain is just a deterministic mechanism, however complex. We can understand it, and thus emulate it. From there, it is only a matter of time before we can record the contents of the brain's structure and recreate it in silicon.

>>4599 I remember the same overly optimistic mindset from the people who were working on the BRAIN Initiative, or going back some years, the Human Genome Project. In both cases it turned out that accomplishing their proposed goals was a lot more difficult than perceived at the beginning. Both projects have had a lot of successes and have been important, but they're still far, far away from what they were supposed to achieve. Thus, something like "emulating" the brain is literally sci-fi right now.

>>4599 The problematic assumption isn't just that the mind is deterministic (although that alone is a pretty bold statement and is not at all to be taken for granted) it's also not obvious that the mind is finite. There's no reason to believe that your mind is not influenced by the interactions of ever smaller particles and forces "all the way down" so to speak. Chaos theory and all that. If this were the case you couldn't simply make a shallow copy of the connectome and expect the digital instantiation of it to behave anything like a human, let alone a particular human. I'm obviously not going to say that copying "infinitely deep" things is categorically impossible, but it's definitely well outside the realm of what digital computers are capable of. By my estimation we'll be growing cyborg brains in jars and simply wiring them to a digital interface centuries ahead of our ability to assemble minds "from scratch".

>>4106 I'm sad I missed out on it. They truly thought the singularity was coming in 10 years max.

>>4078 >>4600 Reminder that the human genome project also left even more questions with epigenetics Ironically the gubmint has already been exploring transhumanism for decades >DTIC ADA346285: The Soldier-Cyborg Transformation: A Framework for Analysis of Social and Ethical Issues of Future Warfare https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA346285 https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA346285/mode/2up

>>4598 The K word should filter to this.

>>4599 It's not deterministic. It grows in peculiar ways based on millions or billions of environmental factors, your DNA, etc., and thus changes its own behavior.

>>4926 that's still deterministic if you accept that the universal laws of physics are deterministic. but there's no way to prove they are and insisting that they are in absence of evidence is kind of dogmatic.