I find the assumption here that there's a "linear" dimension to "human likeness" a bit problematic, don't you?

The implicit assumption is that robots in the uncanny valley are "less" than human, while there's "another" valley on the "more than human" side. It seems to be an attempt to prescribe a single direction for "posthumans" to evolve in, when the reality is more likely to be a diaspora of morphological diversity. It sounds like an attempt to tack arbitrary moral values onto morphologies, perhaps in an attempt to justify some kinds of "creepy" over others.

There's only one uncanny valley; things or people are either like what you're used to, or not. "transhumans" or "posthumans" would be progressing back to the the left, away from 100% "likeness".

I wanted to be clear on a distinction between things made/evolved to be like humans, and things made/evolved from humans. You're right, of course, that the function of the uncanny valley is the same either way. Further, I agree that the H+ era is likely to see a diversity of morphologies, both physical and cognitive.

There is an implicit progression in the traditional uncanny valley concept, however, since the disturbing aspects of simulacra get more profound as we are able to develop more sophisticated versions. Layering the various forms of H+ onto the existing map would run counter to that implicit progression. I would imagine that if we put the various proto-human hominid species onto the uncanny valley map, they would (likely) align more or less in evolutionary steps. Having enhanced/engineered new human variants follow the opposite developmental direction would be confusing.

By no means is it an attempt to justify or morally privilege some kinds of "creepy" over others. You should know me better than that, Nato.

I think of it as advice, jump don't inch away from human form, its less confusing for those of us working with only a few pounds of monkey brains.

I think Jim nails it there.

What if there are unknown peaks over the "healthy person" area and there are posthumans who are unbearably sexy and charismatic? Angelic, even.

*They just kinda show up while you're doing your taxes.... "Rise and come with me." "Yes Lord!"

Angelic, sexy, and charismatic, and as likely to mate with a current-day human as we would be willing to shtup a Bonobo.

Olaf Stapledon describes post-post-post- post-post-post-you get the idea post-humans living on a terraformed neptune 2 billion years in the future as looking like lions, tigers, and bears, which would certainly excite the furry contingent.

I do know you better than that, Jamais; the researchers in the linked (and mostly paywalled, apparently) article I know less about - to say nothing of those who would interpret the piece.

Is that your graph, or theirs?

It's my graph, based on the one in the Wikipedia entry for Uncanny Valley. The New Scientist article doesn't mention trans/posthumanism and UV at all.

Reminds me of how the concept of the monster is used socially to normalize disruption caused by the percieved difference of outsider groups.

There's an essay by Eileen Joy where she describes female Chechen suicide bombers-"Black Widows," as both intimate and alien, and provocative of a similar response to the one described above.

http://www.siue.edu/~ejoy/EmpireAndTheObscureObjectofTerrorism.htm

Wonder if the neurological phenomena you describe stems from an evolutionary response to cultural and ethnic difference?

To Jamais: I'm new to transhumanism and whatnot, so pardon any stupid questions. Is the Borg (Star Trek) trans/post human? Where does he/it/they (not a Trekkie, either) fall in this Bell curve with a twist?

Your graph looks very scientific, but what exactly are the x and y coordinate to represent? By what do you meter empathy? Or human resemblance? I think this is related to Nato's post.

Also, why are apes sometimes 'creepy' and sometimes our brothers (fall both high and low on your graph)?

Finally, I think I would caution people from comparing the distinctions that will arise (and have arisen) from trans/post-humanist advances to those based purely on ideology. I suppose that is to say, every xenophobia is distinct and will be resolved under its own conditions. The challenges e.g., cyborgs will face in society will be radically different from Jews in early 20th century Europe or from Africans in America.

I think Hegel would be of use here. Knowledge always comes right before the end of an era, always looking back. Perhaps we here, sitting on the dawn on the post-human era, look back upon yesterday (and even today, we are always looking back, even at ourselves) with the knowledge of the "Uncanny Valley." But this era will end when it absorbs its opposite--its fear of the non/near-human (whose roots are fed by the soil of Plato and the water of Christ)--and overcomes both that and the "Uncanny Vally" which represents the Truth of that fear.

To Reid: Examining the historical and geographic diversity of cultural and ethnic identities ("Whites" or "Caucasians" were until recently as variegated as European and American communities, from families to nations. Today, "blacks," as are recognized in the West, are, in many communities, acknowledged to be ethnically and culturally diverse. Whether an individual belongs to this culture or that is relative to the time and place of the judge, not the subject of the judgment.) and attitudes (Cross-cultural and ethnic relations range from physical violence on an isolated or institutional level, social inequities, and "double standards" to erotic mystery and promise--even indifference.) reveals that if Us/Them, the recognition of another as Other, as strange or foreign, as alien, has an evolved neurological basis, then this basis must/should be as heterogeneous as the phenomena it produces (sorry about that sentence). I highly doubt, then, that the "perception of difference in outsider groups" best describes evolution-based neurological (as opposed to other) phenomena. Instead, I would argue, this describes socio-historical phenomena. What do you believe could be gained by your proposed line of investigation?

To Bruce S.: Excellent point. I think the only think we can say about the future is that we know nothing about the future.

Sorry about the long post, I'll be back for responses--please respond!

I think "uncanny valley" is explicable as cognitive dissonance to category breaking. Almost-humans aren't a special case. People would also find an almost-cat or an almost-house uncanny. The motif of almost-X for some X is a staple of Sci-Fi art.

The hill after the valley is when differentiation is strong enough to create a new category. Therefore: when becoming transhuman, name what you have become.

Julian--
I think you're almost right. But we don't need to name or conceptualize the Pixar-lamp in order to anthropomorphize it. In fact, this "lamp" breaks both the categories of "lamp" and of "human." So why respond to it with empathy and not cognitive dissonance? The same is true of many anthropomorphic cartoon characters, which are neither human nor animal (see "Over the Hedge", "The Lion King", "Lady and the Tramp," etc.--all of which star creatures that are almost-human and almost-dog/raccoon/lion/whatever, both in physical appearance and in behavior).

How do you these cases in relation to your comment?

I agree that there must be a Second Valley of the Uncanny, or more specifically a more elaborate postulation of the valley. I don't see a need to make a new valley altogether, just to broaden the field on the first on. Who made this graph of The Second Uncanny Vally?

I think about the idea in this post often.