Este artículo pretende contribuir a superar un debate improductivo de posturas dogmáticas en torno a las modernas antropotécnicas. Con este fin, sugiere una fundamentación de la naturaleza humana como referencia normativa. Lo hace respaldándose en las diversas aportaciones de antropología filosófica, especialmente las de Antonio Rosmini y Edith Stein. Inicialmente, aborda el significado general de naturaleza, vinculándolo con las nociones de especie y esencia. Seguidamente, delinea los rasgos principales de la naturaleza humana desde un enfoque observacional y sinóptico. Desde aquí, (...) deduce tres criterios regulativos para el humanismo: valor absoluto de la persona, identidad básica del sujeto humano y perfección inherente a cada individuo. La descripción resultante funcionaría como piedra de toque para el proyecto transhumanista. En la última parte del trabajo, se subrayan algunas contradicciones ontológicas y prácticas en el intento materialista de mejorar al ser humano sin respetar los criterios mencionados. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is the process of perfecting agents. There are two views that attempt to explain what perfecting an agent looks like, specifically in the context of temporal requirements. One view claims that it is part of Christian orthodoxy that those destined for heaven will be instantaneously changed upon death from imperfect agents to perfect ones. The other view says that it’s impossible to perform an instantaneous change if the agent wants to maintain their personal identity; an (...) instantaneous change from imperfection to perfection would be tantamount to creating a brand-new person, sufficiently causally disconnected from their previous imperfect self. Instead, this view claims that some form of temporal extension is necessary for the process to be successful. I end up in support of the view that says temporal extension is necessary. (shrink)

Abstract. Could a person or mind be uploaded—transmitted to a computer or network—and thereby survive bodily death? I argue ‘mind uploading’ is possible only if a mind is an abstract object rather than a concrete particular. Two implications are notable. One, if someone can be uploaded someone can be multiply-instantiated, such that there could be as many instances of a person as copies of a book. Second, mind uploading’s possibility is incompatible with the leading theories of personal identity, insofar as (...) these assume the mind is a concrete particular. Moreover, because David Chalmers (2010; 2012; 2014) defends mind uploading without construing minds as abstract, I show Chalmers’ argument to be unsound. (shrink)

Are acts of violence performed in virtual environments ever morally wrong, even when no other persons are affected? While some such acts surely reflect deficient moral character, I focus on the moral rightness or wrongness of acts. Typically it’s thought that, on Kant’s moral theory, an act of virtual violence is morally wrong (i.e., violate the Categorical Imperative) only if the act mistreats another person. But I argue that, on Kant’s moral theory, some acts of virtual violence can be morally (...) wrong, even when no other persons or their avatars are affected. First, I explain why many have thought that, in general on Kant’s moral theory, virtual acts affecting no other persons or their avatars can’t violate the Categorical Imperative. For there are real world acts that clearly do, but it seems that when we consider the same sorts of acts done alone in a virtual environment, they don’t violate the Categorical Imperative, because no others persons were involved. But then, how could any virtual acts like these, that affect no other persons or their avatars, violate the Categorical Imperative? I then argue that there indeed can be such cases of morally wrong virtual acts—some due to an actor’s having erroneous beliefs about morally relevant facts, and others due not to error, but to the actor’s intention leaving out morally relevant facts while immersed in a virtual environment. I conclude by considering some implications of my arguments for both our present technological context as well as the future. (shrink)

En este trabajo se analiza la cuestión de si el volcado de la mente en una máquina (mind uploading), en caso de ser alguna vez tecnológicamente posible, mantendría o destruiría la identidad personal de quien experimentara el volcado. Se verá cómo podría contestarse a la cuestión en función de los criterios para el mantenimiento de la identidad personal que se asuman. No hay una respuesta única, puesto que la identidad personal se mantendría o no en función de los supuestos aceptados. (...) No obstante, para la mayor parte de las concepciones filosóficas sobre la identidad personal, ésta no se mantendría en un proceso de volcado de la mente en una máquina. Si esto es así, habría que concluir que, desde diversos enfoques, dicho volcado sería equivalente a la desaparición del sujeto, es decir, a su muerte, y solo desde posiciones muy limitadas podría defenderse lo contrario. (shrink)