The Body and Buggy Software

Last updated on: September 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm by Leah Libresco

The Body and Buggy Software 2012-09-24T17:50:04-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Christian of The Thinking Grounds has posted a new installment in his series on defining the body. His focus this go-round is on debunking the idea that the body can be simply defined as that which is obedient to our will. He goes through a couple of examples of bodies that are subject to limited control but are still accepted as ours, including bodies stricken by paralysis, conjoined twins and two-headed snakes, or involuntary physical motions.

I’m still deciding whether I actually disagree with Christian about whether any of this is a blow against thinking about the body as serving our will. Plenty of tools I use don’t always serve me properly, and it’s usually because of a fault on my end. My body, like my computer, operates on the principle of garbage in, garbage out. I can’t complain about my tendency to get out of breath when I go up the stairs to my room, given that I almost never exercise any more than I can blame SAS for malfunctioning when I omit a semicolon.

When I use technology or my body I can always be limited by my own mastery of my tools or by the physical insufficiency of any of those tools. I think of ownership of any of these implements as defined by some kind of mixture of my legal ownership, the availabilty of the tool for my use, and my own efforts at mastery (that last in a bit of a Lockean sense). And I have a burgeoning sympathy for the Maker’s Motto of “If you can’t open it, you don’t own it.”

Because I’m well aware of the limits of my tools, I don’t have any particular respect for my body-as-is or as some ideal form. Transhumanism and self-hacking is a way to transcend the limits of our control and our tools. The efforts of the folks at Less Wrong to understand and overcome the biases of human reason and the detritus of evolution stand in stark contrast to David Brooks’s desire to understand and accept.

My idea of body ownership is active, and still isn’t limited to the organic components, just because they’re currently best integrated.

Uncategorized

transhumanism

Previous Post

March 13, 2011

David Brooks and the Social Automaton

Next Post

March 14, 2011 Happy Pi Day!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group is known for wearing black hats and beards?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Orthodox Jews Amish Mennonites Quakers