Comments on: On the differences between the cyborg and the posthuman http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/ part of the MSc in E-learning at the University of Edinburgh Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:27:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Daniel Griffin http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-150 Daniel Griffin Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:35:16 +0000 http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/?p=6205#comment-150 Fuller seems like an interesting character. I haven't been able to get a hold of the text but I have found some rather stylish promotional videos on youtube. In the past I would have agreed with him, especially after reading Bart Kosko's Fuzzy Future many years ago where he describes the surgical process of a gradual, neuron by neuron (hence fuzzy) transfer of consciousness into silicon. Nowadays however I think I would lean more towards Hayles view that attempting to move consciousness must necessarily modify it in some way, ie "even assuming such a separation was possible, how could anyone think that consciousness in an entirely different medium would remain unchanged, as if it had no connection with embodiment?" (Hayles, 1999, quoted in Badmington, 2003). If our consciousness is formed and matures within the physical body, then moving it to some other medium would most likely be an extremely traumatic experience indeed. Fuller seems like an interesting character. I haven’t been able to get a hold of the text but I have found some rather stylish promotional videos on youtube. In the past I would have agreed with him, especially after reading Bart Kosko’s Fuzzy Future many years ago where he describes the surgical process of a gradual, neuron by neuron (hence fuzzy) transfer of consciousness into silicon. Nowadays however I think I would lean more towards Hayles view that attempting to move consciousness must necessarily modify it in some way, ie “even assuming such a separation was possible, how could anyone think
that consciousness in an entirely different medium would remain unchanged, as if it had no connection with embodiment?” (Hayles, 1999, quoted in Badmington, 2003). If our consciousness is formed and matures within the physical body, then moving it to some other medium would most likely be an extremely traumatic experience indeed.

]]> By: Jeremy Keith Knox http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-129 Jeremy Keith Knox Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:03:38 +0000 http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/?p=6205#comment-129 Perhaps part of the distinction between the cyborg and the posthuman is a type of mind-body problem? Indeed. Steve Fuller suggests the mid-body problem has been replaced by ‘those who, on the one hand, would continue to anchor humanity in our carbon-based bodies or those who, on the other, would leverage humanity into more durable silicon-based containers’ (2011, p3) Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: What it means to be Human, past present and future (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan) Perhaps part of the distinction between the cyborg and the posthuman is a type of mind-body problem?

Indeed. Steve Fuller suggests the mid-body problem has been replaced by ‘those who, on the one hand, would continue to anchor humanity in our carbon-based bodies or those who, on the other, would leverage humanity into more durable silicon-based containers’ (2011, p3)

Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: What it means to be Human, past present and future (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan)

]]> By: Daniel Griffin http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-124 Daniel Griffin Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:06:28 +0000 http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/?p=6205#comment-124 That's an interesting point I missed, the posthuman perspective viewing the cyborg as the entire sum of its parts rather than a consciousness plus a set of deeply integrated tools. It gets me thinking about upgrades. If a cyborg upgrades its parts, is it still the same entity? Or does the modified functionality offered by the new parts also modify the being itself? Perhaps part of the distinction between the cyborg and the posthuman is a type of mind-body problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem An interesting avenue to explore. Thanks Jeremy. That’s an interesting point I missed, the posthuman perspective viewing the cyborg as the entire sum of its parts rather than a consciousness plus a set of deeply integrated tools. It gets me thinking about upgrades. If a cyborg upgrades its parts, is it still the same entity? Or does the modified functionality offered by the new parts also modify the being itself? Perhaps part of the distinction between the cyborg and the posthuman is a type of mind-body problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

An interesting avenue to explore. Thanks Jeremy.

]]> By: Jeremy Keith Knox http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/2011/11/13/on-the-differences-between-the-cyborg-and-the-posthuman/#comment-88 Jeremy Keith Knox Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:49:43 +0000 http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/danielg/?p=6205#comment-88 You highlight an interesting perspective here Daniel, that prosthetics primarily function to normalise the human, where a human might be perceived to be deficient. I certainly think there is much in the cyborg and 'transhuman' fantasy that preserves the human as an ideal unitary form, which technology must uphold. It seems as if prosthetic limbs preserve the *idea* of a 'fully formed human'; the technology allows us to 'correct' what we see as something not fully formed. What you cleverly highlight here is how the cyborgian idea of prosthesis, whilst attempting to transgress boundaries, often actually serves to maintain the status quo by re-establishing our notions of what the human form *should* be. For me, the posthuman set outs to trouble what we understood as 'human' in the first place; challenging dualisms such as organic/inorganic, internal/external; question just what the 'us' is. Where you define 'a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts', the posthuman perspective would surely say the cyborg *is* its parts, rather than preserving a subjectivity 'behind' the components. Great post Daniel! You highlight an interesting perspective here Daniel, that prosthetics primarily function to normalise the human, where a human might be perceived to be deficient. I certainly think there is much in the cyborg and ‘transhuman’ fantasy that preserves the human as an ideal unitary form, which technology must uphold. It seems as if prosthetic limbs preserve the *idea* of a ‘fully formed human’; the technology allows us to ‘correct’ what we see as something not fully formed. What you cleverly highlight here is how the cyborgian idea of prosthesis, whilst attempting to transgress boundaries, often actually serves to maintain the status quo by re-establishing our notions of what the human form *should* be.

For me, the posthuman set outs to trouble what we understood as ‘human’ in the first place; challenging dualisms such as organic/inorganic, internal/external; question just what the ‘us’ is. Where you define ‘a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts’, the posthuman perspective would surely say the cyborg *is* its parts, rather than preserving a subjectivity ‘behind’ the components. Great post Daniel!

]]>