Creations of many contemporary artists indicate the emergence of technoculture. Although artistic manifestations of technoculture may appear to be a provocation, they encourage fundamental ontological questions, such as whether a person has unchanging nature; what was and is our relationship to the Other, and what it should be; to what extent can body and mind be altered before they stop being “human”; what is the future of our species. To properly understand the works of technoculture artists, it appears necessary to (...) have a thorough grasp post- and transhumanism as their key sources of inspiration. As a result, the developed tools will be employed to indicate which aspects of technoculture are a manifestation of post- and transhumanist ideas. This analysis is based primarily on the works of Stelarc and Orlan – two widely commented artists of technoculture. (shrink)

Stanisław Lem, a philosopher and futurologist, in his many works devoted much attention to the condition of human and the relation between human and technology. He coined the term ‘autoevolution’ in the course of forecasting unlimited technological augmentation of human abilities. Nowadays, the term may be associated with the conceptions presented by transhumanism, a 20th-century-born philosophical movement which advocates radical transformation of Homo sapiens by means of the achievements of scientific and technological progress. Lem’s attitude towards such a transformation of (...) human is complicated yet ultimately critical due to the fact that it poses a threat to human culture as such. The phenomenon of autoevolution undermines existing values and raises a question of authenticity of a future posthuman. We examine dependence between technology and culture, present Lem’s conception of autoevolution and his philosophy of culture, then we sketch a post-metaphysical dispute about authenticity, and finally show that Lem’s thought belongs to one of the arguing sides. (shrink)

Zwolennicy transhumanizmu upatrują przyszłego podmiotu wiedzy w maszynach, które miałyby być inteligentniejsze od ludzi, ich twórców. Jeżeli raz zaistniałaby taka możliwość stworzenia inteligentniejszych podmiotów, to w kolejnym kroku maszyny inteligentniejsze od ludzi stworzą następne pokolenie maszyn bardziej inteligentne od samych siebie. To zapoczątkuje dalsze etapy procesu gwałtownego wzrostu inteligencji aż do osiągnięcia stanu osobliwości (ang. singularity). W niniejszym tekście omówione są wątpliwości dotyczące drugiego z kluczowych stwierdzeń uzasadniających transhumanistyczną tezę o osobliwości, a mianowicie gwałtownego wzrostu inteligencji. Te wątpliwości dotyczą możliwości (...) replikowalności wiedzy danego podmiotu poznawczego jako warunku gwałtownego wzrostu. Inspiracją tych wątpliwości jest program epistemologiczny, który mógłby wydawać się wzorcowym protoplastą programu transhumanizmu, a mianowicie program epistemologiczny R. Carnapa, którego ucieleśnieniem jest tzw. robot Carnapa. W ujęciu synchronicznym zasadniczo taka replikowalność ograniczałaby się wyłącznie do strukturalnych własności wiedzy, co nie daje wystarczającej podstawy do stwierdzenia gwałtownego wzrostu. W ujęciu diachronicznym, możliwości dynamicznego zwiększania zasobów wiedzy robota Carnapa są w sposób nieusuwalny uwarunkowane przyjętymi subiektywnie schematami, a wybór pomiędzy nimi dokonuje się pragmatycznie. W tym przypadku stawianie pytania o wzrost jest bezpodstawne. (shrink)

The article presents relations between transhumanism and religion with emphasis on their ambiguity. Despite its decidedly secular self-interpretation, tranhumanism appears to be smuggling religious or crypto-religious contents. Attempting to show this, I begin with short, general characteristics of transhumanism. Then its eschatological and metaphysical themes are pointed as the main bearers of religious dead weight. This allows to depict the ways transhumanist thinkers try to elaborate religious undercurrent of their own stance, and the critique of transhumanism developed by Christian theologians (...) and philosophers of religion. (shrink)

For the prominent figures of dystopic posthumanism biotechnological progress means not only new possibilities of solving the most nagging problems, but also many extremely dangerous consequences: a modification of social organization, an undermining of morality, and some changes in the way we understand our identity. Thinkers such as Fukuyama, Kass, Sandel and Habermas consider those consequences as a threat to human nature. In the article I examine the way they construct the latter notion (i.e. human nature) in their arguments.

As one of the most prominent figures of dystopic posthumanism Francis Fukuyama views biotechnological revolution as presumably the most dangerous challenges we are going to face in what he calls our posthuman future. In his opinion human enhancement will lead inevitably to some forms of eugenic practices, blurring the difference between humans and other live forms, posing the problem of legal status of modified individuals, etc. Hence he calls for establishment of a new regulatory instruments for controlling biotechnological research and (...) development. Those instruments, Fukuyama says, should refer to and protect his original notion of human nature. In the article I try to criticaly examine the way Fukuyama constructs this notion. (shrink)