This is a human, post

Get it?

I guess it's really a post-human post. More word play, when I first learned the term three weeks ago, I couldn't help but think of a corpse, like posthumous. Dead. Again, my misunderstanding held sophmoric truth. I'm not saying that modern cybernetic technology, or even an era of post-humanity that is distantly foreseeable, could be signs of the death of the human. I don't even think there is any good evidence that "Homo-Sapians have out-grown their use." But I do see a certain death, more of a death like the one that disco suffered (cliche, perhaps, but a more accurate analogy than dinosaurs, as Hayles debunks it in the introduction).

We are undergoing a rapid change. A change that will affect power in society, more so than the printing press. Like the printing press, much of this may be beneficial, may open expand the possibilities of the masses to be exposed to the wild variety of life's possibilities, and immortalized thereafter.

Searle's "Chinese Room" parable, really struck a chord with me. It so well articulates the sentiments of those who've responded skeptically to the idea of post-humanism being a death. Post-human, seems to be an inclusion, rather than a death. An inclusion of more useful tools to enhance the human experience, rather than replace it. My view may be influenced by my lack of acceptance of virtuality, including second-life. I just don't get sucked in. It's just a complex chat-room to me, I'm not accepting the illusion. I'm like a kid who's too old (read: grounded in my RL) for Santa. When I go on, I don't view my avatar as an extension of myself. I couldn't care less what it looked like or how it was perceived. All I care about is if I am an entertaining chat partner, which I would analogize to the desire to be a good conversationalist or writer. Some people might have different experiences. Although I was born to late anyway... I never really dug disco either.

In the "Semiotics of Virtuality" Hayles uses science fiction to help explain post-humanism. To me this is perfect (it might be better if I read the books, but hey...). A lot of the stuff we have read and discussed thus far, conjures things prophesized, or what I could imagine being prophisized, in science-fiction. Using four novels, Hayles explains the four "sides" to "The Semiotics of Virtuality." The ideas of being: duplicated like a photo-copy, having infinite resources (read my next post on this one), the idea that cyborgs will carry the weight of human feelings or that we already are essentially machines (and therefore post-human), are similtaneously great fiction, and telling of our uncertain future in a world of ubiquitous computing, and virtuality.

Hayles comes back to the question that is really on everyone's mind, it's answer determining your view of the post-human era, and perhaps (by extension) SL. Let's say we live our lives on second life as "Homo-Silicon", perhaps as a result of gradual selection, perhaps out of necessity. Will life as we know it be over? Yes, but certainly worth living. The most joyful journeys of anyone's lifetime are those of the mind, not the body, and if our minds are functioning on a higher plane of consciousness, why not get rid of the obsolete bags we keep them in. Is this an evolution? A dystopia? I don't think so. In my lifetime, I wont not giving up my trips to go take a sauna to make sure that my avatar is making lots of friends, but if I had to, I'd sew a lot of virtual oats along the way, blissfully unaware of the antiquated pleasures of the flesh.