I was sloppy in my moral/ethical formulation. I agree with your response about the need for actualization up to a point. Although "state of mind" and mental capacity are generally recognized as an aggrevating or mitigating factors.
From a karmic perspective, the state of mind is inseparable from the action. Maybe the end of your last paragraph comes at that from a different angle, but is still similar?
At any rate, a more precise, but maybe not clearer formulation: The moral/ethical dimension resides in what ontological status we attribute to our cyborg selves. I'm thinking of for instance - are we still merely human or do we thin of ourselves as some H+, Transhuman, post singularity consciousness, global or universal perspective?
Mass social construction is a biologically determined capacity. How can it not be? What is new is the degree and perhaps, therefore, the kind.
Growth grows and consciousness is information. At what point does information become consiousness, I don't know. As you point out, war was a significant condition for past IT growth. Now IT growth is not the result of war needs, but defines them.
The moral/ethical dimension of the question resides in how we think about our cyborged selves. What is enhanced? Only the quantity of information we can process, or our being, our global/universal view?
"Shared identity" seems to me more a product of primate evolution than that of the "imperial nation state". What's a difference of at least degree and maybe kind is our cyborgization leading to the NYTE image at the end.
A similar, but more developed image shows all the class C networks of the internet in 2003.
If this principle of thought is to be realized enough to end history, then maybe we are inadequate to the task. The internet images look quite organic. It is becoming more reasonable to ask who is driving information tech growth, evolution - us or the machines. Soon maybe we will be their neurotransmitters, their arms and legs while they are the locus of impossibly abstract thought of the Hegelian real.
Then we will be left once again with our mere human consciousness, asking ourselves was it ever anything else.
@ CK MacLeod:
I was sloppy in my moral/ethical formulation. I agree with your response about the need for actualization up to a point. Although "state of mind" and mental capacity are generally recognized as an aggrevating or mitigating factors.
From a karmic perspective, the state of mind is inseparable from the action. Maybe the end of your last paragraph comes at that from a different angle, but is still similar?
At any rate, a more precise, but maybe not clearer formulation: The moral/ethical dimension resides in what ontological status we attribute to our cyborg selves. I'm thinking of for instance - are we still merely human or do we thin of ourselves as some H+, Transhuman, post singularity consciousness, global or universal perspective?
@ CK MacLeod:
Mass social construction is a biologically determined capacity. How can it not be? What is new is the degree and perhaps, therefore, the kind.
Growth grows and consciousness is information. At what point does information become consiousness, I don't know. As you point out, war was a significant condition for past IT growth. Now IT growth is not the result of war needs, but defines them.
The moral/ethical dimension of the question resides in how we think about our cyborged selves. What is enhanced? Only the quantity of information we can process, or our being, our global/universal view?
"Shared identity" seems to me more a product of primate evolution than that of the "imperial nation state". What's a difference of at least degree and maybe kind is our cyborgization leading to the NYTE image at the end.
A similar, but more developed image shows all the class C networks of the internet in 2003.
If this principle of thought is to be realized enough to end history, then maybe we are inadequate to the task. The internet images look quite organic. It is becoming more reasonable to ask who is driving information tech growth, evolution - us or the machines. Soon maybe we will be their neurotransmitters, their arms and legs while they are the locus of impossibly abstract thought of the Hegelian real.
Then we will be left once again with our mere human consciousness, asking ourselves was it ever anything else.