Advertisement

The Quest for Immortality as a Technical Problem: The Idea of Cybergnosis and the Visions of Posthumanism

  • Oliver Krüger
Chapter

Abstract

In the middle of the 1980s, some American researchers in the fields of robotics, cybernetics, and physics created the philosophy of posthumanism, proposing that within the next century, the human race would have been swept away by the tide of cultural change, usurped by its own artificial progeny: robots and artificial intelligence. This future of life on earth has been described as “postbiological,” “posthuman,” or “transhuman.” While considering the extinction of the human race as necessary progress in the history of evolution, posthuman thinkers connect this idea with the vision of the technological immortalization of mankind. All or some human beings should be scanned and loaded up into the storage of computers; there they should live forever as an exact simulation of their original personality. This vision has often been perceived as a postmodern form of Gnosis or Platonism. This essay argues that posthumanism has to be understood as a utilitarian philosophy in the context of the European philosophy of progress.

Keywords

Body Immortality Cybergnosis Posthumanism Transhumanism 

References

  1. Anders, G. (1983). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen: Ueber die Seele des Menschen im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution (6th ed., Vol. 1). München: Beck.Google Scholar
  2. Assmann, J. (2005). Death and salvation in ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, J. D., & Tipler, F. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, K. (1984). Gnosis/Gnostizismus I. In G. Müller & G. Krause (Eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Vol. 13, pp. 519–535). Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Birtel, F. (1995). Contributions of Tipler’s Omega point theory. Zygon, 30, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blount, T. (1656). Glossographia: or a dictionary, interpreting all such hard words of whatsoever language, now used in our refined English tongue. London: Newcomb.Google Scholar
  7. Böhme, H. (1996). Die technische Form Gottes: Ueber die theologischen Implikation von Cyberspace. Praktische Theologie, 31(4), 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, E. (1998). Techgnosis: Myth, magic, mysticism in the age of information. New York: Three Rivers.Google Scholar
  9. Dery, M. (1996). Escape velocity: Cyberculture at the end of the century. New York: Crove.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, G. (1994). Piety in the sky. Nature, 371, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esfandiary, F. M. (1973). Up-wingers. New York: John Day.Google Scholar
  12. Ettinger, R. C. (1972). Man into superman: The startling potential of human evolution and how to be part of it. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  13. Haeckel, E. (1899/1992). The riddle of the universe (J. McCabe, Trans.). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hassan, I. (1977). Prometheus as performer: Toward a posthumanist culture? A university masque in five scenes. Georgia Review, 31(4), 830–850.Google Scholar
  15. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heim, M. (1993). The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heimerl, T. (2003). Das Wort gewordene Fleisch: Die Textualisierung des Körpers in Patristik, Gnosis und Manichäismus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  18. Keel, O., & Uehlinger, C. (1998). Gods, goddesses, and images of God in ancient Israel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
  19. Krüger, O. (2004). Virtualität und Unsterblichkeit: Die Visionen des Posthumanismus. Freiburg: Rombach.Google Scholar
  20. Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  22. Lem, S. (1981). Summa technologiae. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. List, E. (1996). Platon im Cyberspace: Technologien der Entkoerperlichung und Visionen vom koerperlosen Selbst. In I. Modelmog & E. Kirsch-Auwaerter (Eds.), Kultur in Bewegung: Beharrliche Ermaechtigungen (pp. 83–110). Freiburg: Kore.Google Scholar
  24. Minsky, M. L. (1982). Why people think computers can’t. AI Magazine, 3(4), 3–15.Google Scholar
  25. Minsky, M. L. (1988). Society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Minsky, M. L. (1994). Will robots inherit the earth? Scientific American, 271(10), 108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moravec, H. (1988). Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Moravec, H. (1999). Robot: Mere machine to transcendent mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moravec, H., & Pohl, F. (1993). Souls in silicon. Omni, 16(11), 66–76.Google Scholar
  30. Pannenberg, W. (1995). Breaking a taboo: Frank Tipler’s the physics of immortality. Zygon, 30, 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Regis, E. (1990). Great Mambo chicken and the transhuman condition: science slightly over the edge. Reading, MA: Wokingham.Google Scholar
  32. Richard, B. (2000). Vergehen Konservieren Uploaden: Strategien für die Ewigkeit. Kunstforum International, 151, 51–84.Google Scholar
  33. Sampson, R. V. (1956). Progress in the age of reason: The 17th century to the present day. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Schroeter, J. (2002). Biomorph: Anmerkungen zu einer neoliberalen Gentechnik-Utopie. Kunstforum International, 158, 84–95.Google Scholar
  35. Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  36. Spadafora, D. (1990). The idea of progress in eighteenth-century Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tipler, F. J. (1995). The physics of immortality: Modern cosmology, God, and the resurrection of the dead. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  38. Transhumanist Declaration. (1998). Version 2.4. https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_Declaration#1998_version_.282.4.29. Accessed October 14, 2017.
  39. Virilio, P. (1994). Die Eroberung des Körpers: Vom Übermenschen zum überreizten Menschen (Ed. M. Krüger, Trans. B. Wilczek). München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  40. Virilio, P. (1996). Fluchtgeschwindigkeit: Essay (Ed. M. Krüger, Trans. B. Wilczek). München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  41. Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine (2nd ed.). New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Žižek, S. (2000). No sex, please! We’re post-human. http://www.lacan.com/nosex.htm. Accessed October 14, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations