Comment on this entry
Transcendent Engineering
In “Engineering Transcendence” I argued that science may someday develop the capability to resurrect the dead and build (and/or become) God(s), and proposed to base a “transhumanist religion” on this idea.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/28 at 04:08 PM
Giulio I note that you emphasise “resurrection” (via mind uploading or backup) rather than reversal of the ageing process as means of life extension. Is there a particular reason for this? Personally I find the latter more attractive.i would also be interested in your views on the extent to which the “religion” you are advocating is catching on, or likely to catch on in the future. What are the main obstacles in your view? Are there any promising trends? What would be most likely to increase interest in this religion?
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/28 at 06:55 PM
Excellent stuff, it’s a shame the whole article could not be mirrored here?
Bishop Berkeley indeed yes! Apologist and rationalist? And yet, and as you know, I would once again propose that it is Hinduism that is the most conducive philosophy aligned with panpsychism, and specifically advaita? Yet it still amazes me that western “scientific” traditional values still reject this centuries old Eastern philosophy in favour of clinging to Christian tenets of immortality and raising the dead?
So I reiterate once again, what if? This “mind of God” is emergent, yet is impartial, and perpetual, encompasses all attributes and possibilities, and is, beyond description and objective definition? “That” which is eternal “potential”, quantum Consciousness, with the president to transform energy and matter?
There is no heat death for “that” which transmigrates time and space? Is not Feynmans QED not evidence for this?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 12:33 AM
@Peter - I emphasise mind uploading rather than reversal of the ageing process as means of life extension because I think biology has built-in expiration mechanisms. I am sure methods for slowing down, and reversing, the ageing process, will be developed relatively soon (a few decades), but I don’t think they will ever permit living more than a few centuries (I know that Aubrey disagrees, and I hope he will prove me wrong).
In principle, post-biological life extension via mind uploading does not seem to have intrinsic limits, so I consider it as a more robust solution. Also, I believe we are meant to spread to the universe, and I think post-biological humans will be much better equipped for that.
The “religion” I am advocating is not catching on at this moment, because nobody is working hard to promote it (these things do not happen spontaneously). I think it may well catch on in the future. The main obstacle is that, though it contains some very radical propositions (we are talking of resurrecting the dead of the past via science and tech after all), it is too rational and soft to compete with irrational religions. I have often used the terms “weak thought” and “strong thought ” (ref. the work of Gianni Vattimo) and, in this sense, this religion seems too weak.
Re “What would be most likely to increase interest in this religion? “: please tell me!
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 12/29 at 01:22 AM
@ Giulio Prisco
“post-biological life extension via mind uploading does not seem to have intrinsic limits”
I suggest you read this article from The Journal of Evolution and Technology. It takes about the “vulnerabilities” and limits post-biological humans actually have (http://jetpress.org/v22/coeckelbergh.htm).
“Also, I believe we are meant to spread to the universe, and I think post-biological humans will be much better equipped for that.”
The problem that is in order to colonize anything you need to reproduce to increase your numbers (even if our population goes over nine billion that is hardly enough to colonize the vastness of our galaxy, let alone the universe) and I cannot conceive how post biological humans would be able to reproduce. I also don’t think artificial intelligences would be properly considered our progeny (though some who make them may personally view them as such).
One more thing, before we have any kind of high-tech future we need to get past the issues that threaten society as we know it. Some of the most pressing are shortage of usable water and a failing economy as well as oil peaks and terrorism. I personally think that most of the problems and solution brought up on the site are over simplified. Even if you have the tech with a specific intention for it you still have to deal with complicated system that utilizes it just like airplanes in communal airports (I’m sure we know how big of a headache those places are).
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 01:34 AM
@CygnusX1 - I am very interested in Eastern thought and religions. At the same time, I have the impression that most Eastern religions promote a spirit of detachment from world affairs that is not very compatible with what I am advocating here.
This “religion” is a (mega) engineering project! We are supposed to go out there and build it. This seems hardly compatible with Eastern detachment, but I look forward to hearing the thoughts of more accomplished students of religions.
Posted by Lincoln Cannon on 12/29 at 01:46 AM
A reasonable argument can be made that 14 million Mormons are already religious Transhumanists. A core doctrine of Mormonism is the idea that humanity can and should become God, and that God is a posthuman material being of sublime compassion and creativity. Not all Mormons will agree that technology is essential to our evolution from humanity to Godhood, but many if not most will agree that technology is among the means.
Posted by Lincoln Cannon on 12/29 at 02:10 AM
Giulio, I particularly enjoyed your comparison of the ideas of Berkeley and Moravec. There’s a lot of value to glean there.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/29 at 03:03 AM
@CygnusX1 I have a similar reservation to Giulio with regard to Eastern religion and philosophy. I’ve been reading Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, and as a refresher course in mindfulness it’s excellent, but if you really go the whole way and shed completely your identification with a mind existing in time and space, then why bother to live at all? The fact is that, unless you actually want to commit suicide (perhaps following the example of Irish potato famine victims who simply lay in bed and waited until they starved to death) the you ARE identifying with a mind existing in time and space, at least some of the time, even if you deny that’s what you’re doing. Better then to be honest about it…in which case engineering projects focused on mind uploading strike me as fully legitimate.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/29 at 03:17 AM
@Giulio I would be inclined to side with De Grey on the principle. I have no idea how quickly, if ever, we will actually succeed in reversing the ageing process, but while I think it’s clear that sexual species have a kind of built-in obsolescence, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason in principle why that can’t be engineered away.
With regard to why the religion doesn’t catch on, I don’t think I quite buy your rational vs irrational explanation. I certainly agree that there tends to be a trade-off between telling a compelling story and being literally correct (Randy Olsen’s Don’t Be Such a Scientist is excellent reading on that) but it is IMO over-pessimistic to think that rationality is in itself a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, in getting people to believe in something.
What may be happening is something similar but distinct. It’s not that the “religion” is itself too rational, but rather that it is rational because it has been developed by people who tend to favour rational analyses over compelling storytelling and charisma, and it is THIS that is limiting it’s ability to catch on.
But your analysis leads to an intriguing thought, namely that one or more such viral religions may indeed emerge, and they will indeed be less rational (by which I guess we basically mean less realistic) than the one you promote. In other words, some people with the requisite combinations of charisma and story-telling capabilities will spread the word, but in doing so they will take short-cuts and the word they will be spreading will be different from the word you seek to spread. That’s a risk worth considering IMO, although you might consider that a price worth paying to make your dreams more likely to come true.
In conclusion: for this religion to catch on it may indeed need to become less rational, but I do not believe that its rationality per se is what is holding it back.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/29 at 07:37 AM
“This “religion” is a (mega) engineering project! We are supposed to go out there and build it. This seems hardly compatible with Eastern detachment, but I look forward to hearing the thoughts of more accomplished students of religions.”
Giulio..
I understand this is proposed as an engineering project! Albeit even more far reaching than any rational scientific philosophy would contemplate. Yet once again you miss my point totally, (obviously I am not explaining myself adequately). In your article you ponder over the success and evolution of your “new religion”, and my point is, that it is Eastern religious philosophies, and particularly Hinduism, (a true Buddhist would not aspire to any of your goals and ideals), that would be more understanding towards the nature of these aspirations, specifically because Hinduism philosophy embraces “potential” as omnipresent, and complexity as ever reducible, (such as with Panpsychism)?
The misconception of prejudiced western Abrahamic thought aligns itself with spirit/soul and detachment of Self, whereas Hinduism embraces the notion of non-detachment - you have it reversed. The Self, (although frequently explained as Universal within Hinduism), is non-exclusive but interconnected through Consciousness as phenomenon. Yet in Advaita this phenomenon is impartial, and is the construct, (to use a matrix analogy), for the interaction of all energy-matter, (maya)?
This philosophy covers all ground pertaining to your notions of a grand architect, or even aspiring towards Godliness and a grand architect, (turtles all the way down), because there are no boundaries to the manifestation of energy-matter, that is reliant upon Consciousness phenomenon as omnipresent and impartial, and which exists regardless of the existence of the Universe and thus is not limited by space-time. (Again, an analogy is with QED and dark energy, and may be yet further supported by evidence and observations of energy-matter interactions in colliders)?
Particle physics professes that each entity in the “particle zoo” has attribute and thus by extension possesses “will to action” by some “inherent nature”, which would imply that this “inherent nature” cannot be changed or transformed? An “up” Quark cannot be a “charm” or a “strange”? And yet particle physics uncovers ever more distinct particles in its catalogue - I find that strange? Kinda like, whatever man seeks to find, he finds through the grace of “potential” and the interaction of Consciousness phenomenon, (analogy here is with “dual slit experiment”).
I propose that to embrace Consciousness as natural phenomenon and president for all energy-matter interactions is in no way superstitious, yet it is meta-physical, (beyond known scientific proofs), and most likely always will be, because, as Hinduism professes, Consciousness requires itself to be self-reflexive? To be aware of Consciousness you require Consciousness? Therefore it is always out of reach to quantify or objectify as that “thing within itself” as Joern previously alluded to Kant in another article?
Where Consciousness is impartial and deemed as “natural phenomenon”, subjective views pertaining to God, are thus exactly that, merely subjective. And not only this, more importantly, Consciousness is not a hard problem to overcome because it is natural phenomenon and omnipresent?
Reconstituting patterns in space-time from the past to resurrect the dead is a tough one, that stretches even my limited imagination? It would appear that from an “engineering perspective”, resources to de-mulitplex and number crunch individual patterns at past intervals of space-time from the entire Universe would outstrip any resources of a super-computer existing within such a Universe?
However, it is obvious that your “new religion” relies heavily on persuading an increased Christian denomination to embrace your ideals, and appeasing specifically a Mormon collective to embrace these possibilities? So resurrection of the dead and persistence of souls/Self may appeal more readily to these philosophies, even though, as I stated earlier, Hinduism is far more “open minded” towards possibilities?
Which kinda goes against the openness and Universalism of Trans-humanism itself? Trans-humanism is no more a new age Christian religious ideology than it has “made in America” stamped on its bottom? Or is it?
It would be good to hear from any Hindu’s or Buddhists regarding these aspirations?
Posted by Lincoln Cannon on 12/29 at 10:23 AM
I agree with CygnusX1 that there’s much potential in a syncretization of Hinduism and Transhumanism.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 10:51 AM
@Peter re “It’s not that the “religion” is itself too rational, but rather it has been developed by people who tend to favour rational analyses over compelling storytelling and charisma, and it is THIS that is limiting it’s ability to catch on.”
YES. You are right. This is what I wanted to say, and you have said it much better.
“Some people with the requisite combinations of charisma and story-telling capabilities will spread the word, but in doing so they will take short-cuts and the word they will be spreading will be different from the word you seek to spread.”
I agree. The Raelians provide a good example. Their message would stand on its own without the UFO-cult layer, but they seem to have decided that packaging their ideas with the extra UFO layer is better marketing. I have met some surprisingly literate and reasonable Raelians, and of course they don’t believe in the UFO thing. They just think that it sells, and the facts seem to agree with them.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 11:09 AM
@CygnusX1 - “In Hinduism there would be more understanding towards the nature of these aspirations, specifically because Hinduism philosophy embraces “potential” as omnipresent, and complexity as ever reducible, (such as with Panpsychism)?”
I don’t know enough about Hinduism to have an opinion, but I find your considerations intriguing, especially “Hinduism embraces the notion of non-detachment - you have it reversed.” Please say more.
However, I believe that this re-interpretation of religion can be made basically compatible with many different religious substrates (Christians, Islamic, Judaic, Mormon, and why not Hindu).
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/29 at 11:48 AM
It is interesting to be discussing a “new religion” here after recent discussions about religion, specifically Christianity, on other threads. Regarding the Raelians, if they are indeed preaching things they don’t themselves believe then, sorry, but they are dishonest hypocrites. So we’d better steer clear of them. It must be possible to increas public interest in these issues without resorting to that.
With regard to Eastern philosophy and religion, first of all I think we need to be a bit careful about this East/West divide. There is plenty of mysticism in the Western “abrahamic” traditions, and plenty of dualism in the Eastern ones. So West/East dualism is itself illusory. On the other hand it does seem to me that Eastern thought has tended, on the whole, to favour acceptance and detachment over engagement and the motivation to change things, compared to Western thought. The synthesis of all this that I personally find most convincing (and helpful for my own life) is the mindfulness tradition within contemporary Western (positive) psychology.
That said, Ultimately I’m inclined to share CygnusX1’s reticence regarding the idea of a new religion emphasising resurrection and the persistence of souls (or whatever word we like to use). As an attempt to tap into our urge to transcend it indeed seems too limited and not to take enough account of the insights of Eastern traditions and modern physics. Those of us who like the idea of mind uploading would do better, IMO, to describe scenarios they would like to see happen and plot a course to get us there, without making a religion out of it.
Posted by Pendula on 12/29 at 12:08 PM
@Giulio - I think part of what you may be missing here is the rite and ritual aspects that draw even some of the most rational into religion. Rite and ritual spark things in the subconscious that allow bonds to be formed and reinforce meaning over time. In order for it to really catch on it needs an induction of some sort. A moment of claiming the belief and belonging to it and a bond that allows for a trust to be their despite a lack of evidence, so to speak. This really is the ultimate driving force behind why so many religions are able to take hold. Even the most stoic and rational religious persons I know, still engage in rites that reinforce for them a sense of belonging and trust in an intangible concept or force (Please note I did NOT say imaginary).
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 12:48 PM
@Peter re “Reticence regarding the idea of a new religion emphasizing resurrection… Those of us who like the idea of mind uploading would do better, IMO, to describe scenarios they would like to see happen and plot a course to get us there, without making a religion out of it.”
Some of us do! And without making a religion out of it.
But when you tell people that they could actually live forever, many will answer “yes, but I don’t want to live forever without [spouse, children, parents, friends…]”
Contemplating technological resurrection, as a vaguely defined possibility that may be achieved by future science, can give these persons hope and happiness. And this, I believe, is what really matters.
We can, at the same time, make and not make a religion out of this. Kind of like wearing a white coat in the lab, and something else in the church. These two modes of being don’t necessarily interfere, and, when they do, the interference is not necessarily negative.
Posted by Lincoln Cannon on 12/29 at 12:49 PM
Pendula, I agree that ritual is essential to religion—and meaning!
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/29 at 12:52 PM
@Pendula re “Even the most stoic and rational religious persons I know, still engage in rites that reinforce for them a sense of belonging and trust in an intangible concept or force.”
I am not missing the importance of ritual aspects, and I wonder what rites could be most suitable for this interpretation of religion. Too bad you are not on the Turing Church Facebook group, there is a similar discussion there.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/29 at 04:46 PM
To be honest, I think the main reason why most people think they don’t want to live forever is that they don’t believe it’s possible. The fear of death is one of the most deeply ingrained human instincts there is. Because death is widely believed to be inevitable - because it has BEEN inevitable up to now - we have found various ways of making a virtue out of it. The ideas that immortality would be unbearable without X or Y, or would be boring, or would lead to various kinds of dystopias, or would be interfering sinfully in nature, etc, etc, are all - to some extent - ways of making a virtue out of necessity. I say “to some extent”, because this doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in some of these positions, but my hunch is that, at the moment, it’s this neurotic denial of our basic fear of death that is providing the biggest obstacle to getting more popular adherence to ideas such as technological resurrection.
Building on Pendula’s point about rites and rituals, I think the aesthetic aspect is essential in the context of adherence, whether to a “religion” or merely to a cause. In this context there’s something I dislike about this technological resurrection idea, which may well be indeed a result of my own neurotic denial of my fear of death. It must also be relevant that this fear of death, and our wish to cover it up with some kind of balm, is one of the factors that leads so many to religion - whether Western or Eastern. However, I think another reason why I find this version of transcendence (aesthetically) limiting is precisely that it relies on human technology. For someone brought up under the influence of an abrahamic religion (in my case Christianity), and I think it should be the same for Buddists, Taoists or Hindus (but perhaps not Confucians), true transcendence has to involve some kind of being or presence that is greater than “mere” human invention.
From this perspective (and I realise I’m going off at quite a tangent here), Technology itself might serve as that greater presence. As argued by Kevin Kelly in What Technology Wants, there does seem to be a drive and direction to technology that is to some extent independent of human volition. This is related to what iPan has called “evolution as the Telos” and he always seemed to me to have a quasi-religious devotion to it, rather as some have developed (as pointed out by Pastor Alex on other threads) in relation to the “market”.
My position here is probably somewhat paradoxical, in that on the one hand I tend to emphasise the need to celebrate human volition (e.g. by developing positive visions) while on the other hand I find a “religion” based on human technology insufficiently transcendent. Or perhaps I’m just confused.
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 12/30 at 12:59 AM
@ Peter Wicks
If people fear death as much as you say there wouldn’t as many suicides as there are (over a million per year). In fact it seems that people fear life more than they fear death (fear of failure, punishment, unknowns, going through trials and tribulations, the list goes on). Personally I don’t want to live for ever in this world because this isn’t a world I want to spend an eternity in. At times I have a fatalist view of the world due to all the problems we are simultaneously facing right now (do I need to list them?) and feel that some kind of collapse is inevitable before any better future (and it is not because I’m a Christian). If such things do occur do how many people do you think would want to live through that? This also reminds me of a quote stated by Aeschylus: “Only through suffering do we learn.” Do you think there is any truth to that? (I seem to be going on a tangent as well)
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/30 at 04:23 AM
Christian, I agree that some kind of collapse may be inevitable, although I still dare to hope that it isn’t. I also agree that people often seem to fear life - in the sense you describe - more than death. Suicide is indeed an extreme example of that. So perhaps you’re right: perhaps resistance to the idea of engineered transcendence also stems from a distaste with life, and pessimism regarding future prospects. But the fact remains that - suicides and unhealthy living apart - people will generally go to great lengths to keep themselves, and those they love, alive. Just look at the level of resources that go into prolonging, marginally and often very painfully, the already morbid lives of the elderly and terminally ill.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/30 at 05:47 AM
@ Giulio..
I don’t know enough about Hinduism to have an opinion, but I find your considerations intriguing, especially “Hinduism embraces the notion of non-detachment - you have it reversed.” Please say more.
More..
The Self, (although frequently explained as Universal within Hinduism), is non-exclusive but interconnected through Consciousness as phenomenon. Yet in Advaita this phenomenon is impartial, and is the construct, (to use a matrix analogy), for the interaction of all energy-matter, (maya)?
The inference of my use of non-detachment, was to highlight the difference between separation, (Western individualism), and non-separation, (Eastern unification), of philosophical viewpoints, relating to souls/Self’s and subjectivity.
However, you’re right to highlight my incorrect use of the term, as detachment in Buddhism/Hinduism is really applied as..
Detachment from.. Ego, body, materialism, desires and sensations, personal responsibility, (Consciousness as witness), life and death cycle.. using meditation or technique.. to achieve final freedom, (moksha - synonymous - Nirvana), from subjective reality?
So apologies, you do not have this reversed, It is I who reversed your meaning.
In retrospect, this does not appear sympathetic with the goals of physical longevity, mind uploading or resurrection, although my point was rather to highlight Hindu views towards interconnectedness, the understanding of subjective reality and Self, and by extension the acceptance of the Universe as an interconnected “whole”, (which includes the reduction of patterns and acceptance of mind uploading to different substrates).
I still think that Hindu and Buddhist philosophies have a great role to play for a future of new age secular humanism, which in no way devalues the Hinduism belief or other belief systems in God or a higher purpose. Yet Buddhism alone does not aspire to goals and aspirations, nor contemplate the drive for humanity and for progress.
Arguably there is no ceremonial worship of Brahman, (or God), in Advaita, (Although Sri Sankara often venerated Brahman as such?), merely the goal to overcome subjectivity and seek the “authentic” Self, interconnected through Consciousness, (as phenomenon), using meditation, philosophical insight and rationalisation? And I think it takes little to contemplate and reconcile these notions of Brahman with Consciousness as “natural phenomenon”, and this view even supports deism and Panpsychism?
Ultimately we must first resolve the ontological and fundamental question “who am I?”, before we may progress to “what do I want?” Do I want, longevity, freedom from biological form, immortality, resurrection for my friends, family, pets etc. ?
What good is immortality to an individual with the philosophical view that freedom, love, peace and security is only through atonement and redemption through death?
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/30 at 06:06 AM
@ Peter
“My position here is probably somewhat paradoxical, in that on the one hand I tend to emphasise the need to celebrate human volition (e.g. by developing positive visions) while on the other hand I find a “religion” based on human technology insufficiently transcendent. Or perhaps I’m just confused.”
This seems difficult for all of us to contemplate, that technology could somehow supplant religious theism and ontological meaning. Yet should we pursue Trans-humanism and promote it as religion or merely as philosophy?
Do we need more than just an inclusive philosophy for all, termed “Trans-humanism”, to make real progress?
Will divergent Transhumans and Posthumans aspire to different forms, substrates, goals and ideals and by extension different belief systems in deities and Gods?
Transhumanism as Religion
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/3262
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/30 at 11:55 AM
@CygnusX1 “Do we need more than just an inclusive philosophy for all, termed “Trans-humanism”, to make real progress?”
I guess that depends what we regard as “real progress”. I certainly think that we are in a race against time if we are to save civilisation from various existential threats, technology shock arguably being one of them, and conversely make the most of the opportunities that technology provides. Some might question whether civilisation in its current form, with all its inequalities and suffering, is worth saving anyway, but I am not one of them. I want to save it, AND make it better: more equitable, and more conducive to the overall welfare of sentient beings.
Actually I don’t think we necessarily need *as much* as an inclusive philosophy for all, called transhumanism. What we do need, urgently, is to increase the extent to which we are thinking clearly about ethical issues in relation to emerging technology, which is what I basically regard transhumanism - once one has understood what the implications of emerging technology actually are - as being about. But an “inclusive philosophy for all” is probably unnecessarily ambitious.
Of course clear thinking isn’t enough by itself, so it’s indeed important to consider the extent to which we should be aiming to tap in to the considerable motivational power of religion.
With regard to the question, “Who am I?” as with so much in philosophy I tend to regard this also as a matter of choice. In its most limited sense, the answer could be “the mental process that is giving rise to this question”. Or perhaps simply the question itself. Usually, however, we regard ourselves as physical (as well as mental and, perhaps, spiritual) beings evolving through time. Once we have truly understood the implications of quantum theory (at least if we take, against Penrose, the most favoured many worlds view), we realise that the notion of a physical being evolving through time is to some extent naive. In the space of all possible universes there are many versions of Peter Wicks, and people more or less similar. There is (or at least there seems to be) only one pathway leading from my conception in 1966 to the present moment, whereas there are many future pathways. I am curious to know whether any of them involve radical life extension, mind uploading, cryogenic storage and so on,
We can also think of “I”, i.e. ourselves, in the sense of our *present* physical and mental selves (let’s leave “spiritual”) aside for the moment. When asking questions such as “What do I want?” this may be more natural, since we know that what we want may change over time. Or we can simply clarify: “what do I want now?”. So in the context of radical life extension, mind uploading, cryogenic storage and so on, we might ask ourselves, “do we want these things or not?”, and if the answer is yes, “how can we make this more likely to happen?” In view of what I wrote earlier in this comment, we might also ask whether such things are likely to be conducive to increased equity and maximising the welfare of sentient beings,, or are rather likely to be counterproductive. And if the latter, which is more important to us: to live a very long time ourselves, or for people in general to be happier? If I consider seriously this last question, I might conclude that some of what I wrote earlier is not quite what I believe. Perhaps after all I am more selfish than that.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/31 at 09:16 AM
This article on Quantum consciousness attracted my attention..
“A Materialistic Theory of Consciousness”
“But “what” is consciousness? What substance is it made of? ..
Many attempts have been made at explaining consciousness by reducing it to something else. To no avail. There is no way that our sensations can be explained in terms of particles. So, how does consciousness arise in matter? Maybe it doesn’t arise, it is always there.”
“From a logical standpoint, the only way out of this dead-end is to accept that consciousness must be a physical property.”
“The main problem is the lack of an empirical test for consciousness. We cannot know whether a being is conscious or not. We cannot “measure” its consciousness. We cannot rule out that every object in the universe, including each elementary particle, has consciousness: we just cannot detect it. Even when I accept that other human beings are conscious a) I base my assumption on similarity of behavior, not on an actual “observation” of their consciousness; and b) I somehow sense that some people (poets and philosophers, for example) may be more conscious than other people (lawyers and doctors, for example).
The trouble is that our mind is capable only of observing conscious phenomena at its own level and within itself. Our mind is capable of observing only one conscious phenomenon: itself.”
Quantum consciousness
http://www.scaruffi.com/science/qc.html
Studies on Consciousness, Cognition and Life
http://www.scaruffi.com/cogn.html
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/31 at 12:54 PM
Personally I don’t believe that poets and philosophers are more conscious than lawyers and doctors, in fact I find the idea somewhat absurd. Even somewhat insulting with regard to lawyers and doctors. (What will Giulio then say about bureaucrats and bankers  ) But for the rest I agree, and it’s related to the following two disparities that I’ve noticed between my own experience and the scientific worldview that I generally use as my model of reality.
1. From the perspective of the scientific worldview, there is indeed no reason to believe that I am any more conscious than anyone else. Even my very uniqueness is something I share with everyone else (even identical twins as soon as environmental factors come into play). And yet I only experience myself as subject, as the “I” that observes the world around me. So I experience a fundamental asymmetry between myself (as subject) and everyone else (whom I can perceive only via my senses and imagination), which doesn’t seem to explicable within the scientific worldview.
2. There is a similarly asymmetry between the present moment and all other moments. This is the case whether one takes a classical world view (with a one-dimensional set of past and future moments) or a many worlds view (including multiple alternative futures and parallel universes that are neither in our past or our future). These other moments seem to share a similar ontological status within those worldview (one is just more limited in scope than the other), whereas we only ever directly experience the present.
The first of these disparities used to really bother me (but then I was an anxious kid generally). Now I just kind of accept them. Of course there are also the well-known discrepancies within the scientific worldview, in particular quantum theory vs general relativity, but the above discrepancies between our subjective experience and what we generally take to be objective reality seem to be more fundamental, and indeed more troubling.
In fact, these days I find such thoughts quite calming. There is an aspect to the detachment (from ego, body, possessions, desires etc) that is really healthy. But I also think it can be taken too far, and can also be confused for the intensely positive (joyful and/or peaceful) experiences that we sometimes associate with meditation. It’s as if we think (following the Buddha) that if we detach, detach, detach, we will experience only those peak states. And then we remind ourselves that this is itself a desire, and attachment. But if it’s not to enjoy peak states, then what IS it good for? To which I answer, following the positive psychologists: it’s good to the extent that it helps us to live in accordance with our values. It’s not an end in itself. The Buddha (or more probably his followers) went too far (but I still prefer him to Jesus).
Coming back, at least a little bit, to the topic, there are important strands in all major religions that address these issues, and although they are not to everyone’s taste, they do seem to constitute a significant part of their selling point. I have the feeling that even those who don’t like discussing such issues nevertheless appreciate the contact with the ineffable that religion provides. If so, this might lead us to conclude that a “transhumanism religion” - should we wish to create one (and I’m still not really sure that we should) - would need to address these aspects as well, and perhaps more adequately than traditional religions. And it will of course take account of the implications of technological development that were only very vaguely - principally via apocalyptic visions - perceived by the latter.
I also think it should be an entirely new religion: we shouldn’t try to do it from within existing traditions. It can of course be instructive to debate with those who prefer to do so, but in my experience (including in the debates here) such people tend to be too defensive of “their” religion to have much to say that is really instructive. But on that last point (as on all points, come to think of it) I’m willing to be convinced otherwise! It may be a bit harsh.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/31 at 03:12 PM
“I have the feeling that even those who don’t like discussing such issues nevertheless appreciate the contact with the ineffable that religion provides. If so, this might lead us to conclude that a “transhumanism religion” - should we wish to create one (and I’m still not really sure that we should) - would need to address these aspects as well, and perhaps more adequately than traditional religions.”
All of these things will come to pass. Have faith my son, have faith!
And to break topic, ever so slightly - to pursue the cause..
It seems that the greatest existential risk to humanity is humanity it-self? Planetary “Resources” and the efficient use of these is essential for survival of increasing world population. The depletion and overuse of natural resources to the point of exhaustion may be the key defining factor for the extinction of human civilization?
Something to think about?
Happy new year to one and all
(please recycle those empty bottles and paper hats tomorrow!)
_/|\_
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/01 at 06:46 AM
Happy new year to all from me as well! Indeed, respecting planetary boundaries (and indeed figuring out what they actually are) is an essential and currently dangerously underrated priority. Let’s hope 2012 is the year that starts to change, and we start treating this issue with the urgency it requires.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/02 at 09:53 AM
@Peter re “What will Giulio then say about bureaucrats and bankers”
Of course bureaucrats and bankers, lawyers and doctors, and poets and philosophers, are equally conscious.
All humans are conscious, some humans are assholes, ergo some conscious beings are assholes, good old Aristotle would say.
Re “it should be an entirely new religion: we shouldn’t try to do it from within existing traditions”
Or both: bootstrap a new religion within one or more existing traditions, then spin it off. I believe many religions started like that.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/02 at 10:41 AM
Christianity certainly started out as a Jewish sect. By contrast Islam, while obviously drawing on Jewish and Christian traditions, was very much a one man vision geared around creating a religion more suited to the needs and aspirations of the Arabs.
Going back to (one of) your original point(s) about rationality, notwithstanding the success of wacky cults like Scientology and various fundamentalisms I think blatant irrationalities (e.g. involving UFOs) are deadly for a religion’s ability to go beyond a niche market (of weirdos) in the modern era. People are just too sophisticated. Mohammed could get away with “this is the vision of God transmitted directly to my brain”, the first Christians could get away with “he really did rise from the dead, look, the tomb is empty!” but these days it’s only very well-established religions, which have already become deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness that can get away with this kind of nonsense.
So my advice would be: don’t go looking for irrationality in order to gain more followers. Try instead to grapple with these deep issues of identity, existence (and especially existential angst), apocalypse-style opportunies and threats, technological evolution as a partly autonomous force, finding the correct place for (post)human volition and ambition in all this, the search for the ineffable, and our attitude towards life and death. I think there’s plenty of material there to build something truly compelling.
Or better still: forget about creating a religion, and just seek to understand (even) better, and communicate (even more) authentically, your own attraction to the prospect of technological resurrection?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/03 at 01:55 AM
@Peter re “Or better still: forget about creating a religion, and just seek to understand (even) better, and communicate (even more) authentically, your own attraction to the prospect of technological resurrection?”
That is what I do. I am not very interested in labels. I want to communicate ideas that make me feel better, to others who can use them to feel better. Call it religion, practical philosophy, worldview, or whatever. I tend to call it religion because it is a common term for this kind of things.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/03 at 07:59 AM
Still, despite my ambivalence I think the idea of creating a new religion is an interesting one. Also, don’t you think labels are actually important? For me the three words “religion”, “practical philosophy” and “worldview” have quite distinct, albeit overlapping, connotations, not least with regard to the “rites and rituals” that Pendula mentioned. To me, a worldview is a primarily cerebral affair. Practical philosophy obviously has to involve some kind of action in order to merit the adjective, but retains a highly cerebral focus.
In fact, what I think you may perhaps be missing - and it’s something I’ve noticed a lot amongst (fellow) intellectuals - is a clearer distinction between the labels “irrational” and “non-cerebral”. By “irrational” I tend to understand something like “logically inconsistent” or “based on false reasoning”. But much of what we do is neither rational nor irrational, in that sense. In fact, most of what we do we do because we have an instinctual urge to do it, which we may or may not be aware of. That’s not rational, but it’s not irrational either. And it’s into precisely those instinctual urges that a movement needs to tap in order to achieve mass popularity, through such devices as rites and rituals, aesthetic appeal, humour, and - perhaps especially - sexual charisma. I don’t think we need to resort to lies and (self-)deception.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/03 at 10:32 AM
Re “[we need] a clearer distinction between the labels “irrational” and “non-cerebral”... most of what we do we do because we have an instinctual urge to do it, which we may or may not be aware of. That’s not rational, but it’s not irrational either. And it’s into precisely those instinctual urges that a movement needs to tap in order to achieve mass popularity”
Yes. Very acute observation, thanks.
“ through such devices as rites and rituals, aesthetic appeal, humour, and - perhaps especially - sexual charisma.”
This is a job vacancy! please feel free to apply if you have what it takes. I have some sense of humour, but no aesthetic appeal and - especially - no sexual charisma:-)
Note: This “religion” is an equal opportunity but NO affirmative action employer:-) You just need to have what it takes, and we just don’t care what your race, colour, gender, lifestyle, sexual preferences etc.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/03 at 02:14 PM
Ha! Maybe I can be a Trojan horse and sneak in some affirmative action by the back door!
I fear I would to work on those non-cerebral qualities myself, however…
Posted by CygnusX1 on 01/03 at 03:55 PM
Adding further to my continued subjective commentary here - indeed subjectivity is an affliction that affects all minds persisting within this illusion of separation. And so long as humans cling to this individualism for “want or fear”, then minds will always be afflicted by the sufferings and cravings that this self imposed separation and dualism can never hope to reconcile?
And because humans are fundamentally social animals, this social need to find and maintain connection and attempt to overcome this self imposed illusion of separation and inner yearning for “true connection of spirit mind/soul” will persist.
Enter human expression of spirituality and yen for connection and salvation– please paste your favoured theology/philosophy here!
Basically we yearn to hold onto our cake, (individualism), and crave to eat it, (overcome subjectivity and our biological separation/limitations)?
Now, I know what you are thinking? Individualism is everything, to lose it would mean the end of meaning for each of us? Mind uploading, resurrection, space colonisation, transhuman expression, freedom, liberty, “my expression of love” for my family, for God, whatever? – all of this is lost without individualism and “subjectivity” – yes, yes, yes! And yet please remember the goal is not to be Self-less? (shucks, I’m not a Vedantin after all? Go figure?)
My opinion, and perhaps also that of some others here or “out there” somewhere’s?, is that existential angst arises wholly from subjectivity and this “identity crises”, for want of the answer to the “fundamental question” and ontological meaning? And that, identity crises is the root of all of our subjective social problems and woes, conflicting ideals and viewpoints, politics and diverse philosophies? Why are people not at peace within themselves? Ans. “identity crises”?
How easily manipulated and fickle minded these humans are? They are manipulated by govern-mental politics and propaganda, convinced that war and conflict with (?) is justified, that austerity solves economic boom and bust and rectifies basic human selfishness and greed? That Nike Jordon’s are worth fighting about at the most holy Sabbath holiday for Christianity?
We are what we eat, purchase, wear - influenced easily by what we hear, see, touch, taste? Consumerism is not only the key to socioeconomic stability, the success of the free market ideal, and a way for humans to exist in peace and harmony together – it is a masterful tool used to “stop people thinking!” to keep peoples divided, about progressive ethics, and the pursuit of equality and freedoms, and keeps the masses from contemplating unity and a common ideal, and all to maintain inequality and the status quo?
Where is this comment heading?
Call me a heretic? I just don’t care, but I favour philosophy over religion, (and all religion does contain philosophy). As Lincoln has previously pointed out, there is nothing wrong with interpreting ancient wisdom and philosophy with mind towards a contextual and progressive understanding? Not all of this ancient wisdom is bunkum, and if we contemplate how little the human brain has really evolved over the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, (or more), then we may see that our notions of justice, freedom and morality has not really changed all that much, only been tweaked and adjusted by sociocultural evolution and political histories?
What kind of existential catastrophe looms over us ready to cause pandemonium and chaos, and reverse all of the enlightenment progress towards science and humanism, and send humanity back into the dark ages? How much pressure does it really take for humans to begin to murder and eat other? What will save us from disaster if it happens, our 21st century evolved brains?
So how do we eat our cake, and hold onto it? We take a progressive nibble?
This “new transhumanist religion” or “new spiritual communion/community” must be non-exclusive and fully participatory to be successful? What hope is there for success if transhumanism is elitist and selective? (And I have said all of this before).
Philosophy or religion?
The reason I posted the link to Mike’s article was to highlight that this has been discussed here before, and although I still favour an “open philosophy” that is open for all humans to contemplate and choose to align to their existing belief system, this may not yet be enough to stimulate growth and inspire real progress towards “engineering goals and ideals “?
Existentialism is an open philosophy, and many of us have been subconsciously influenced by great existential thinkers and critique of “idealism”, yet has it inspired movement and mass momentum towards progressive ethics and humanism, value and understanding of ontological meaning? Is it too open, too big, too vague? Do we need more than just a charismatic guru, but a new age “Unifying constitution” (without the hierarchy involved in membership)?
Analogy - UNIX/Linux is open source and available for all, but we still all bicker and debate over proprietary Microsoft and Apple products? And moreover, project this as yet another excuse to define “who we think we are?” and “who we should be?”
Transhumanism is similar to existentialism? Does it need to be more?
And finally, as I always attempt to suggest and offer some suggestion towards the cause, here is a sample of the basic and fundamental Unifying constitution that I am hinting at, (yet again!) That which is readily open and available to peoples of all faiths to contemplate and align and compare and incorporate into their present belief systems – and courtesy of IEET
To contemplate this Unifying philosophical viewpoint and promote it as the foundation stone for a new spiritual age and philosophy, I feel is more than merely adequate, as long as we keep it in mind, (mindfulness), and keep repeating it’s message?
We are all connected
“We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically”
>> http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/3470
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/04 at 10:16 AM
@Peter re “Maybe I can be a Trojan horse and sneak in some affirmative action by the back door!”
Of course you can promote affirmative action if that is what you want, but you cannot promote equal opportunity at the same time, because AA AND EO is a logical impossibility, like saying that a number is odd AND even.
Affirmative action say that some persons must have more opportunities than others, so if you are for affirmative action than you are against equal opportunity. I am for equal opportunity, and therefore I am against affirmative action.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/04 at 04:02 PM
@Giulio Well, you know my views on this. Equal opportunity is a fine concept in principle, the question is how to make it work in practice.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/05 at 07:10 AM
@CygnusX1 re “Transhumanism is similar to existentialism? Does it need to be more?”
Expanding a related comment that I posted to Joern Pallensen’s Did the Universe evolve the “Blue Brain Project” to become aware of itself?:
I never called myself an existentialist, but those philosophical tests say that I am one. If there is such a thing as “positive and solar” existentialism without angst, I will sign up.
Perhaps transhumanism can be seen as a “positive and solar” existentialism without angst?
I don’t think “meaning” or thuth” exist objectively, but I make my own meaning and truth.
Angst comes when you realize that there is no god, no objective truth, no pre-existing meaning, no cosmic love, and basically the universe does not give a fuck. But we transhumanists want to remake our specie and then the whole universe, as a place where meaning and love exist. In this sense, perhaps, transhumanism can be seen as a “can-do” interpretation of existentialism.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/05 at 11:18 AM
Although humanism originated within the Christian rather than the strictly secular tradition I would say the *humanism*, rather than transhumanism, is, or perhaps has been, the “can-do” version of existentialism. (And not only “can-do” but also “want-to-do” and “believe-we-should-do”. Or rather, to split hairs still further, it is *a* can-do version of existentialism, but I single it out (in particular instead of transhumanism) because it has been the dominant one in Western culture, a kind of common thread that has underpinned most political ideologies, including liberalism, the various forms of socialism and communism, even fascism? The idea that it is up to us to determine our destiny, that this is a realisable and worthy project, and there is no need to bring God into it (though in some versions this may be encouraged, while in others it’s outright banned).
Of course there have been various backlashes against this, religious fundamentalism being the most obvious, and various nihilisms (John Gray’s Straw Dogs springs to mind here). The religious fundamentalisms are mainly an anachronistic throwback (albeit with huge destructive potential), while the nihilisms (which also show up in popular culture/music, think death metal and gangsta rap) present a more modern backlash.
Transhumanism takes all this (humanism that is, not the backlashes!) one step further by taking account of accelerating technology, so we might expect new backlashes to occur: anachronistic versions of humanism (which seek to deny the reality of species-changing technology) and more modern backlashes (bioconservatism?) that seek to prevent it. We already see manifestations of these, of course, to some extent merged with the already-existing opponents of humanism (e.g. bioconservative evangelicals).
As a kind of synthesis, I would say that the political left needs to become thoroughly transhumanist, leaving the right to play its traditional, and essential, role as…well, *conservative*. We need the ones who say, “Hang on, you’re going to fast, you’re heading towards a cliff,” whether you’re thinking of abolishing slavery or tinkering with people’s DNA. Both because we could very easily head off a cliff, and because it addresses the natural fears of those who might otherwise fall into the arms of one of the backlash neuroses.
Now which of the Republican candidates can play that role? (sigh) Come to think of it, they don’t have to. Obama is already conservative. At least he’s sane. (And relatively honest, for a politician.)
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/05 at 02:26 PM
@Peter re “I would say that the political left needs to become thoroughly transhumanist”
Which Left Peter? There are more than one.
There is the Left that believes in both personal freedom and social fairness, open to innovation and experimentation in a live-and-let-live spirit, but at the same time firmly supportive of the weakest members of society. This is my Left, and this is the Left that could embrace transhumanism.
Then there is the left (lower case intended) of the useless and corrupted administrators who have found that they can steal more money in a “left” party. Then there is the left of the control freaks, the nanny-state zealots who think they have the right to tell others which hand to use to wipe their own ass. With these two lefts I want nothing to do, and I think they are opposed to all that transhumanism stands for.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 01/05 at 04:19 PM
Yes indeed, there are lots of “lefts”. There are lots of rights as well, and lots of anomalies (for example I gather the Communist party of Cyprus is a kind of Thatcherite free market party. Que?)
But I’m thinking: of we’re going to keep talking about the political left and right at all (which makes sense for countries with two-party systems), then the split that seems most generic and universal, but also useful, is between conservation and progress.
Of course in practice there will always be things you want to conserve, and things you want to change. But I can’t immediately think of any other dichotomy that is as fundamental, and where at the same time it is clear that we need both. So logically, in this admittedly idealised system, you would place yourself on the left if you tend to be someone who emphasises the need for change, on the right if you tend to be someone who emphasises the need to conserve. Which, interestingly, would tend to put environmentalists on the left?
I remember a nice example of problems with the left/right classification in the dying days of the Soviet Union, when the hard liners in the party were suddenly called “right-wing”. Haven’t heard that epithet thrown at hard line Maoists in the CCP yet, but perhaps a matter of time?
Of course, at any one time, in any one place, there will be things the left want to conserve (for example the closed shop in some American states, as I found out to my amazement the other day - and these people pride themselves on NOT being socialists!), and there will be things the right want to change. (In many respects Thatcher, by this definition, was rather left wing, even if one might dislike some aspects of her idea of progress.) But still this conservation-progress dichotomy seems to be the best bet for deciding where other things being equal, one wants to be on a one-dimensional political spectrum, and transhumanism would, at least in its current “vanguard” capacity, sit most comfortably on the left.
By the way talking of weird churches, have you come across this?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/file-sharing-religion-church-of-kopimism_n_1183727.html
You kind of want to tell these people to get a life.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 01/05 at 04:28 PM
@ Giulio
“Angst comes when you realize that there is no god, no objective truth, no pre-existing meaning, no cosmic love, and basically the universe does not give a fuck.”
Yes indeed, and then we start to question ourselves, our very identity “who am I?” “Why am I here?” “What is the point of this?” “Is this all there really is?” (V’Ger)
And yet, (don’t you just love how these articles and discussions merge?), I personally have no problems with this idea that the Universe is impartial, that this “Consciousness” I possess, (emergent or not), is totally impartial. Hence advaita not dvaita!
It is very refreshing and not the least bit subtractive to contemplate that this Self is merely illusion and yet moreover interconnected to all things and creation, that I am still yet more than the sum total of my parts. I do not wish to sit in a cave and meditate my life away – this, is not enough!
“..But we transhumanists want to remake our specie and then the whole universe, as a place where meaning and love exist. In this sense, perhaps, transhumanism can be seen as a “can-do” interpretation of existentialism.”
Yes! Although I personally believe also that love is an abstraction from the resultant need for connection, communication and understanding, (Unity, Unification and Oneness), and is emergent such like intelligence, within this impartial Universe. Yet it still implies that our forward notions of space-time is not wasted in pursuing love. Love is useful? It is more than useful?
I understand Martine prescribes “Love as essential” in the mission statement for the Terasem project, if I quoted that correctly?
And if you further subscribe, that this “evolution” of the Universe towards greater complexity and intelligence and love is useful and directional, then we can indeed aspire to become the Gods that we have yet not substantiated, but yet still have notion and contemplate inside our very minds? Spooky? Space, time and mind may indeed be a closed system after all?
Truly, (and once again), the only valid position to take at this point in “space-time” is agnosticism, (I know not if God exists, but I keep an open mind), and in the meantime move forward.. >
@ Peter
Max More highlighted this with the subtle differentiation between terms Transhuman-ism, that may be misconstrued as exclusive and perhaps elitist, and by which cannot find firm footing with wider audiences, (yet is still a valid prescription for purists?), and Trans-humanism which is progressive humanism that accepts and embraces technological evolution and advancement, and even the need for haste?
As with all points of view we of course need balance, and that goes without saying?
Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis (whole impartial Universe/multiverses)
“Informed democracy” is better and more efficient than “mob rule democracy”, and so have faith that the wisdom of informed minds and this “aggregate” of viewpoints will win the day!
Keep up the discussion!
@ Giulio
” There is the Left that believes in both personal freedom and social fairness, open to innovation and experimentation in a live-and-let-live spirit, but at the same time firmly supportive of the weakest members of society. This is my Left, and this is the Left that could embrace transhumanism.”
Indeed!
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog