Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Mixed News from Space

Woman who lost limbs to flesh-eating bacteria gets bionic hands

Present Shock- explained in 15 minutes

Here’s the Real Reason Why Virtual Reality Doesn’t Work Yet

Making Friends With Artificial Intelligence

Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?

Hidden Beauty: Diseases become art under a microscope

US scientists clone human stem cells

Shame, Stigma and Angelina Jolie’s Breasts

Open Source Democracy


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

Henry Bowers on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 18, 2013)

Chrontius on 'Push-Button (3D Printing) Gunsmithing and the Long Arm of the Law' (May 18, 2013)

Intomorrow on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 18, 2013)

CygnusX1 on 'Push-Button (3D Printing) Gunsmithing and the Long Arm of the Law' (May 18, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 18, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Life in the 2040s: nanofactories, flying cars, household robots, more
by Dick Pelletier
Apr 30, 2013
(6317) Hits
(1) Comments

Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem
by Jon Perry
May 1, 2013
(5256) Hits
(2) Comments

Noam Chomsky on Libertarians
Andy80o
Apr 27, 2013
(3071) Hits
(15) Comments

Organ, tissue replacement could end aging by mid-2020s
by Dick Pelletier
May 14, 2013
(2876) Hits
(0) Comments

Radical life extension: living a 1,000 year lifespan
by Dick Pelletier
May 7, 2013
(2559) Hits
(0) Comments

Statement on the Recent TED/Psi/Consciousness Controversy
by Ben Goertzel
Apr 20, 2013
(2506) Hits
(5) Comments



IEET > Security > SciTech > Rights > Personhood > Life > Enablement > Innovation > Vision > Futurism > Virtuality > Fellows > Ben Goertzel

Print Email permalink (18) Comments (3365) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Some Cosmist Principles


Ben Goertzel
Ben Goertzel
Cosmist Manifesto

Posted: Jan 26, 2010

If Cosmism could be fully summarized in a list of bullet points, I wouldn’t write a whole manifesto about it, I’d just write a few bullet points.

But, even so, it seems worthwhile to start with a few bullet points, just to whet your appetite for the more thorough and useful exposition to come.

Some of these bullets are rather abstract and may come across as gobbledygook. That is the risk of compressing things into bullet-point form. Read the full text of the Manifesto and you will see that all these things have simple, practical, everyday meanings.

And so, without further ado, some Cosmist principles:

• Panpsychism: There is a meaningful sense in which everything that exists has a form of “awareness”

• The Universal Mind: As a result, there is quite likely some meaningful sense in which the “universe as a whole” (an unclear concept in itself) has a form of awareness, though we humans likely cannot appreciate the nature of this awareness very thoroughly, any more than a bacterium can fully appreciate the nature of human awareness even as it resides in the human body

image• Patternism: One often-useful way to model the universe is as a collection of patterns, wherein each entity that exists is recognized by some agent as a pattern in some other entity (or set of entities)

• Polyphonic reality: The notion of an “objective reality” is sometimes useful, but very often a more useful model of the universe is as a collection of overlapping, interpenetrating and intercreating subjective realities

• Tendency to Take Habits: The universe appears to possess the property that, when patterns exist, they tend to continue ... much more than would be expected in a hypothetical random universe

• Compassion is a critical principle of the universe, and is fundamentally an aspect of the Tendency to Take Habits. Caring for other sentient beings (and if panpsychism is accepted, everything has a little bit of sentience!) is a critical aspect of evolving to the next levels beyond current human awareness and reality

• Feeling and displaying compassion is important to the inner health and balance of a mind, as well as to the health and balance of the portion of the universe that mind is embedded in

• Causation is not a fundamental aspect of the universe, but rather a tool used by minds to model portions of the universe

• Deliberative, reflective consciousness is the specific form of “universal awareness” that arises in certain complex systems capable of advanced cognition

• Goals are generally best understood, not as things that systems “have”, but as tools for modeling what systems do. So, what goals a mind explicitly adopts is one question, but what goals the person is actually implicitly pursuing is often a more interesting question.

• “Free will” is not “free” in the sense that people often consider it to be, yet there is a meaningful sense of agency attached to entities in the universe, going beyond scientific distinctions of randomness versus determinism

• Science is a powerful but limited tool: it is based on finite sets of finite-precision observations, and hence cannot be expected to explain the whole universe, at least not with out the help of auxiliary non-scientific assumptions.

• Mathematics is a powerful but limited tool: it helps explicate your assumptions but doesn’t tell you what these assumptions should be

• Language is a powerful but limited tool: by its nature, consisting of finite combinations of tokens drawn from a finite alphabet, it may not be powerful enough to convey everything that exists in the mind of the communicator

• The human “self” is a cognitive construct lacking the sort of fundamental reality that it habitually ascribes to itself

• Society and culture provide us with most of what makes up our selves and our knowledge and our creativity—but they also constrain us, often forcing a stultifying conformity. Ongoingly struggling with this dialectic is a critical aspect of the modern variant of the “self” construct.

image• There is no ideal human society given the constraints and habits of human brains. But as technology develops further, along with it will come the means to avoid many of the “discontents” that have arisen with civilization

• Humans are more generally intelligent and more diversely and richly experience-capable than the animals from which they evolved; but it seems likely that we will create other sorts of minds whose intelligence and experience goes vastly beyond ours

• It seems likely that any real-world general intelligence is going to have some form of emotions. But the human emotions are particularly primitive and difficult to control, compared to the emotions that future minds are likely to have. Gaining greater control over emotions is an important step in moving toward transhuman stages of evolution.

• It is not necessary to abandon family, sex, money, work, chocolate and all the other rewarding aspects of human life in order to move effectively toward transhumanity. However, it is desirable to engage in these things reflectively, carefully making a conscious as well as unconscious balance between one’s need to be human and one’s need to transcend humanity

• Various tools like meditation and psychedelic drugs may be helpful in transcending habitual thought patterns, bringing novel insights, and palliating problems connected with the limitations of constructs like self, will and reflective awareness. But they do not fully liberate the human mind from the restrictions imposed by human brain architecture. Future technologies may have the power to do so.

• Whether the “laws” and nature of the universe can ever be comprehensively understood is unknown. But it seems wildly improbably that we humans are now anywhere remotely near a complete understanding

• Whether or not transhuman minds now exist in the universe, or have ever existed in the universe in the past, current evidence suggests it will be possible to create them—in effect to build “gods”

• As well as building gods, it may be possible to become “gods.” But this raises deep questions regarding how much, or how fast, a human mind can evolve without losing its fundamental sense of humanity or its individual identity

• As we set about transforming ourselves and our world using advanced technology, many basic values are worth keeping in mind. Three of the more critical ones are Joy, Growth and Choice ... interpreted not only as personal goals, but also as goals for other sentient beings and for the cosmos.

• When confronted with difficult situations in which the right path is unclear, a powerful approach is to obsolete the dilemma: use a change in technology or perspective to redefine the reality within which the dilemma exists. This may lead to new and different dilemmas, which is a natural aspect of the universe’s growth process.


Ben Goertzel Ph.D. is a fellow of the IEET, and founder and CEO of two computer science firms Novamente and Biomind, and of the non-profit Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute (agiri.org).
Print Email permalink (18) Comments (3366) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


Brilliant, Ben. Your Cosmist vision completely resonates with my own feelings and intuitions about reality.





I take issue with the validity of many of the bullet points you’ve presented, but regardless of that, I would like to know exactly who is your target audience with such an esoteric creed?  Transhumanism suffers from a lack of popular appeal, being constantly mischaracterized as a techno-fetishizing cult, and really needs to at least attempt to connect with the 99.99% of the non-nerd, non-high-IQ human population that doesn’t have our scifi geek sensibilities.





@haig
Isn’t that feeling of need that you express based on those scifi geek sensibilities? Can one make any rational argument for why we should become immortal, more intelligent, avoid existential risk, explore space, abolish disease, develop morphological freedom, build AIs or anything whatsoever independently from our subjective sensibilities, including why we should at all bother with keeping ourselves alive? Transhumanism isn’t science, it is an existentialist vision of reality that uses science as one of its tools. Present human reality isn’t science either although an increasingly bigger portion of humans seems to be trying to turn it into one. This is having many negative consequences, with detachment from reality, meaninglessness, hopelessness, helplessness and general nihilistic attitudes being the worst of them.





If I may ask, Ben, how should Cosmists deal with Terrans?





@haig: the Cosmist worldview, to which you refer as an esoteric creed, is an interpretation of transhumanism shared by many members of the IEET community, for example Alexxarian and myself.

It is not shared by many other members of the IEET community, who may prefer other interpretations and formulations of transhumanism, or not care too much about transhumanism. I welcome this diversity: the IEET is a community where persons with different philosophical sensibilities can collaborate toward shared technoprogressive goals. These different points of view are not mutually exclusive and, in some cases, can be mutually re-inforcing.

I am certainly interested to listening to any constructive suggestions that you might have on how to connect with the 99.99% of the non-nerd, non-high-IQ human population that doesn’t have our scifi geek sensibilities. This is very important, and not incompatible with Cosmism.





@veronica - how should Cosmists deal with Terrans?: Hugo de Garis describes many scenarios:
http://www.terminatorfiles.com/media/articles/ai_003.htm

My favorite is: the Cosmists move to space and leave Earth to the Terrans. There could be non-interference treaties like in Egan’s Diaspora.





From @GuiolioPrisco’s reply, cosmism appeals to a small subset of the IEET community, which is itself an extremely small subset of people, thus cosmism is by definition esoteric.  If the small group that is enthusiastic about cosmism is happy developing it, more power to them, but I just feel like it is yet another form of escapism that thoughtful and imaginative people are very susceptible to, and that it is counterproductive with regard to making transhumanism gain a broader following.  I’m only criticizing it as a pragmatic belief system; I’m not saying we should never engage in this type of far future philosophizing at all, only that it should remain in the proper venues of philosophy journals, science fiction, blogs, etc. 

What I would much rather see transhumanists devote more time to is eloquent and compassionate expounding of how science is the best epistemic process for coming to know the world, how technology can really and truly improve the human condition, and a moral philosophy grounded in those two previous facts.  I’m not totally opposed to creating some myth-like meta-narrative, stories are an integral part of how we understand and connect with things, but they also can spiral out of hand and delve ever deeper into abstract metaphysics which eventually become fodder for dogma as all religions provide ample evidence for.





@Alexxarian

>“Can one make any rational argument for why we should become immortal, more intelligent, avoid existential risk, explore space, abolish disease, develop morphological freedom, build AIs or anything whatsoever independently from our subjective sensibilities, including why we should at all bother with keeping ourselves alive?”

Yes, one can easily make a rational argument for all those things, one of which is as follows: All humans prefer to avoid death and suffering.  Science offers us the most reliable way to understand the forces responsible for why we suffer (and why we prosper).  Technology allows us to continually increase our control over those forces and hence improve the human condition.  All those other things you describe, among others, may follow as a consequence.

Now we may not be able to ground rationality itself as some metaphysical true way independent from subjective preference, but once you choose to be rational transhumanism seems to be the best worldview for achieving a eudaimonic existence. 

So the tricky part is championing enlightenment era rationality, not convincing people to build and become gods or that every bit of matter has some degree of consciousness.





@haig

“Yes, one can easily make a rational argument for all those things, one of which is as follows: All humans prefer to avoid death and suffering. “

How can you be so sure? This isn’t clear to me at all when observing how we humans behave nowadays. If we really wanted this then all our actions would be focused on abolishing ageing and all other existential risks. Furthermore, the premise ‘All humans prefer to avoid death and suffering’ isn’t based on reason but on subjective values, which means that your conclusion isn’t based solely on reason.





@Alexxarian

I think you are confusing a rational argument with rational behavior.  I said it is quite easy to formulate the argument, I didn’t say anything about behavior.

> “Furthermore, the premise ‘All humans prefer to avoid death and suffering’ isn’t based on reason but on subjective values, which means that your conclusion isn’t based solely on reason.”

I think you are also confused about what reason is.  A definition from the wikipedia entry for reason is: “Reason is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises.”  You are objecting to my premise ‘humans prefer to avoid death and suffering’, which is your prerogative, but that doesn’t make my argument less reasonable .  Defending said premise, I implore you to give me an instance where it fails, ie a human who does not prefer to avoid suffering.  (To preempt some possible faulty choices you might be considering, suicides, masochists, nihilists, and psychopaths don’t count, and I can elaborate why if you need the explanation).





@haig - If the small group that is enthusiastic about cosmism is happy developing it, more power to them, but I just feel like it is yet another form of escapism that thoughtful and imaginative people are very susceptible to, and that it is counterproductive with regard to making transhumanism gain a broader following.

You consider it counterproductive. This is your opinion, to which you are entitled. I have often similar feelings. For example, I consider Russel’s “militant atheism”, which we are discussing in another thread, counterproductive.

We would like to see others choosing the same goals, objectives and strategies that we have chosen. But this is not how things work. Instead, we have different personalities and sensibilities,  and choose to focus on a wide range of different things. This is true in the IEET microcosm and, of course, in our society at large.

And this is, I think, good. If we were ants marching in a line on the same path, life would be boring like hell, and we would all miss the benefits resulting from exploring other paths. My advice is, do what you want to do, and let others do what they want to do. Something good will emerge.





Perhaps you should replace “militant” with “ardent”...

abbreviated “AA”... (or has that acronym already been taken?)

Good debate however, I am enjoying this tussle of ideals.

;0]

...





@Giulio
> “My advice is, do what you want to do, and let others do what they want to do. Something good will emerge.”

That is a very naive position to hold which lacks any evidence at all to support it.  My response is to offer Burke’s famous quote, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  In this instance, doing anything is probably as bad as doing nothing.

I’ll reiterate that I’m not stopping you from indulging in speculations that are stimulating and intellectually rewarding.  I’m taking issue with packaging such speculations into a set of principles as part of some ideology such as ‘cosmism’ and expecting that to be anything more than a fantasy played by a tiny minority with any influence on society or its progress.





@Mike: if you really dislike the term “militant atheism”, of course I will not apply it to you anymore.

But I was under the impression that you like the term and apply it to yourself: Mike Treder Says: As part of the militant atheist minority at the IEET, I’m not enthralled with the concept of “reaching out” to Christians….

(comment 4 in http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/09/are-james-and-max-down-with-pope-ratz/)





@haig

I’ll reiterate that I’m not stopping you from indulging in speculations that are stimulating and intellectually rewarding.

Thank you very much! wink

I’m taking issue with packaging such speculations into a set of principles as part of some ideology such as ‘cosmism’ and expecting that to be anything more than a fantasy played by a tiny minority with any influence on society or its progress.

Fair enough, I certainly don’t expect you to be a cosmist. Let’s just agree to disagree.

By the way, the size of the cosmist group does not really bother me. All philosophies started as a very small minority, often a minority of one. Not many people call themselves cosmists at this moment, but I am hardly the first.





@Mike: I remembered I had seen you defining yourself as a militant atheist, and googled it. Now that I know you don’t like the term, I will try not to use it.

We are, indeed, irrational at times. Is it always a bad thing?

Of course, it is when it can damage others. The engineer who designs a bridge must be entirely rational, otherwise people will suffer. But I am not against irrationality when it does not harm others. As William James pointed out, the will to believe, or right to believe, in private truths, can be a positive factor in a person’s life without harming others.

One of the most beautiful fictional characters is Don Quixote, who dreams the impossible dream, wants to reach for the unreachable star, and thinks Dulcinea is a lady when she is, actually, a whore. But who is to condemn him? Why should he destroy his happiness by forcing himself to see Dulcinea as a whore? Perhaps he will marry Dulcinea, and she will stop being a whore and become a lady.  Dreams are beautiful and sweet, and sometimes they even come true.





Whoa, this cosmism & cosmic engineering really is some far out stuff… Thanks for blowing my puny Terran mind. I wonder what would happen if some billionaire “went cosmist” and started pouring serious money, as in Bs, into such things? Anything?





Well… this is a gentle attempt to create a modern myth. But I do not see why we would need to appeal to so many dogmas (many scientifically controversial) as those present in this quasi manifesto. The more there are dogmas, the lower the chances of consensus and greater are the likelihood of splits.
In establishing these principles of a bit dogmatic nature, I think Ben maybe is making use of negative elements of religion. I prefer this other principle: “there are no sacred truths” (Carl Sagan)—neither this one, I would say.
We can want and strive to live indefinitely, explore and set up in outer space, increase our understanding of the universe without resorting to new dogmas, but the simple fact that… this is part of our nature, our constitution and we feel that this is positive, it seems the profusion of life.
Our condition of live animals makes us want to live longer, if possible defeat death. Our condition of mammals makes us innate explorers. Anyway, just be a living mammal disentangled from religious beliefs to want to explore the cosmos. Forever.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Is extinction in your future?

Previous entry: Dear News Media

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376