Comments:

“They are necessary in the resurrection process because of a consequence of the Halting Problem, namely that it is in general impossible to jump to the output of a program, in this case a reconstructed personality, without executing the intermediate stages – the life of that person.

This in turn implies that if the above is true it is overwhelmingly likely that we are in just such a simulation.”

That makes me think of the line of thought that, if some people claim past lives, (it seems we should bet very low on the potential reality of past lives at this time, but it could be true) and if we are reconstructions of past dead selves brought back by people like friends and family, then it seems they would have done all they could to try to help those resurrections tap into their old selves. Maybe past life regressions are inklings of it working. I doubt it, but its important that people like you bring this stuff up so more people think about stuff like this, no matter how unlikely it may seem to a person at the time. In fact it seems that people should ponder a healthy amount of the most far reaching things they can think of or have heard of. Thinking is the universal ring of skeleton keys to life, and as we understand, there are a ton of doors left to unlock that we know little to less than nothing about.

The praxis seems to take on think tanking and bonding and future resurrection, which is an important part of the puzzle. MILE works on seeing if we cant achieve world awareness of indefinite life extension soon so that the world awareness and thereby increase in support will expedite us toward the goal of indefinite life extension and give us the best shot of seeing it happen in our lifetimes that we can get.

“1. It must provide a doctrine (in this case, The Praxis)

2. It must have canonical texts that expound upon that doctrine
 (the obvious documents are the various Transhumanist declarations and books such as those by Kurzweil)”

The MILE guide fits those criteria. Those are the kinds of things it’s designed out of.

“3. It must offer an ethical framework
 (very generally, be the kind of person that others would like to bring back into the world, unaltered)”

This is part of what it was designed with in mind too. It is ethical and supports 11 key organizations at this time, some of them being the ethics organizations for the cause.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, it does all of these things. That is what this was designed for, but with a slightly different angle, a different “volume of the canon”. It has mission in the first lines. Its woven with hope. It empowers people throughout and particularly in the third section of the MILE Guide, the purpose of which is exactly that. Its beyond the mundane. Its about community. It positions itself and leaves the door purposefully open for potential worldwide union. Its ultimate goal is transcendence of people from meat time bombs with 80 year fuses, to cosmic revolutionaries. Its all about transcending so that we can have a shot at understanding as much of the big picture of existence as we want. 

“The importance of ceremonies and rituals for group binding and transmitting a pure message cannot be over-emphasized.”

I agree. Common symbolism binds. There are people that will scoff that and try to equate it with witches around cauldrons and things like that, but then put on the only necklace that they will wear, put their American flag out in its bracket and then go watch the fall leaves turning colors so they can reminisce, via that symbolism, about the winds of change. This is what words and logos are too it seems. Without them, the endeavors can tend to be much harder. Take a mute person for example. Without the symbolism of words it makes it much harder, obviously, to communicate.

By Eric Schulke on Feb 04, 2013 at 11:58am

Transhumanism or the Singularity are not in any way religious or religions. The idea that there is anything remotely religious about advanced technology is a logical fallacy. I have covered this issues many times before therefore I am incredibly weary of this kind of debate so I won’t do into great detail. I think religious people feel threatened by technology, it threatens their beliefs because technology will make all religions obsolete therefore there is a tendency to try to to hijack technology, to transform it into a religion, which is similar to the Intelligent Design take on evolution. A fallacy regarding logic is a type of legerdemain either intentionally or unintentionally, it is the assumption that similarity is identicalness, for example people can sneeze when they have influenza therefore I person could assume every time someone sneezes they have the flu but an person could have hay-fever or maybe they inhaled pepper or dust. Flu, pepper, and dust are three very different things despite sharing the commonality of being able to induce sneezing. Likewise medical technology creating immortality compared to religious immortality are two very different things despite sharing a commonality. If advanced medical technology is religious then pepper is influenza, do you see my point? Probably not. Maybe you can now see the logical fallacy regarding this statement: “The search for life extension technologies as a modern incarnation not only of the alchemical search for immortality but as the final attempt to eat from the Tree of Life as described in Genesis.”

By Singularity Utopia on Feb 04, 2013 at 12:40pm

Its a fallacy to assert that you know its a fallacy before youve even tried to discuss it a bit further. Im not even sure what you think is fallacious about it. Is it not a metaphor? I dont like religion either, but I think the parallels are something that a person can make if they want to. We understand the metaphors. Just because religion used things like symbolism and sermons (lectures) doesnt mean we cant use them too. If anything it seems we lend religion more power by reserving certain things for them when they need not be. Lets take all of those human tendencies back from the religious. They MIGHT have served some purpose 500+ years ago but they are just going to waste now.

It seems that the people who wrote Genesis probably understood what knowledge and that kind of thing would mean to a doctrine designed to keep people in line. Dirks line there that you quote says to me, “yes, people that wrote Genesis and those like you, we understand what you were trying to do, but times have changed and this metaphorical tree of life is going to be the transition we work to use to see if we cant evolve to the next level.”

By Eric Schulke on Feb 04, 2013 at 5:49pm

Excellent parody!  But surely you have something more important to do with your time.

By Kenneth Moffett on Feb 04, 2013 at 7:56pm

It is not a good metaphor Eric Schulke to write an essay with the title “...Transhumanism as Religion…” or maybe you think “Science as Witchcraft” is a good metaphor? Maybe we should redefine or describe “scientific papers” as “talismans” or “voodoo dolls?” Maybe the Internet is a “miracle” by God because it allows super-human near-instantaneous communication around the world?

I have discussed these issues at length elsewhere. I personally see a greater similarity with atheism instead of religion regarding Tranhumanism.

Giulio Prisco, the Mormon Transhumanist association, and others clearly have a religious agenda, they are trying to proselytise, it is not a mere metaphor, they are trying to limit diversity in the typical manner of religious people, they are trying to force religion onto the world. They recognise the threat of technology to their religions thus in my opinion they are trying to hijack technology via redefining it as religious, it is basically a modern form of Intelligent Design and we should condemn it if we value rationality.

By Singularity Utopia on Feb 05, 2013 at 3:00am

Kenneth, parts of your point make for good discussion and further deliberation on these topics, but a passive-aggressive, ad hominem response, is not an argument. Grow up.

SU, it seems like it’s a metaphor, and you take it in context of the whole essay. About 85% of the world is religious right now. We could use a good way to transition more of them to support this cause without tying it to supernaturalism, like the Mormon Transhumanists, as an example, do. The essay of this topic also seems like a great way to work to see if we can’t wean more people off of supernatural religion. If you are afraid it might trend into supernaturalism then monitor it and help work to prevent it from happening by helping people become more enlightened through constructive dialogue. “Constructive” is a key word there.

By Eric Schulke on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:56pm

the problem with creating a tranhumanistic religion based on the TECHNOLOGIES that we as human beings expect to see in our future is that you have a religion based on expected technologies which themselves are unpredictable and even if realized can come and go , or simply yield unexpected philospho-social results totally in opposition to any expectations a religion may have for it.

for example, alien worshipers finally are visited by aliens only to be totally surprised by the unexpected contact dashing the worshipers world view.

instead a relgion should be based in the highest form of technology currently in existance, that technology is mankind. science is the process which has given us , and will continue to give us, better understanding of our past and present selves. science has zero to say about the future, simply because that is the work of people who study the most complicated technology out there, the people who study people. the preists of the religion.

a religion that worships science, is worshiping a process revealing things about the past and present, in order to make predictions about the result going forward, though experimental and theoretical constructs that establish laws of physics and such.

worshiping the technology of the future is simply regressive and something man has done MANY times in the past 2 centuries since industrialization began. AND, there is evidence the romans and greeks had cult gods worshipped for the ‘future’ and for ‘tools/technologies’. A religion conceived on future technological worship is not actually a futurist oriented religion, it is one stuck in the same human patterns of the past. if we are too learn from out mistakes, it is through using sociological and anthropological examination of the how the social order itself has helped form and bud out religions of all sorts.

transhumanism, in its platonic ideal, should strive to go beyond humanism. If anything David Pearce and his approach to life and to examining our current pharmaco-industrial complex should be more a part devloping a new religion than say, immortalists, who as you acknowledged, are just recreating the age old myths that transect the myths and narratives of many different religions.

your treatment of transhumanism as religion is self acknowledgingly copying past patterns of man made creation of mythology of religions, which happens time and again, and is happening with many new religions all the time in a world of millions of gurus and billion human beings.

if you are to bring the futurist approach of transhumanism toi a religion, you start by thinking about what sociological , psychological , and economic functions have most if not all succesful mature religions provided, and equal treatment to the question of what are the most prevalent reasons upstart religions fail to get established( history of failed cults or pholosophisms)

only then can you ask about what is the future of religions in our evolving humanity space.

everythign above is so simplistic and borders on officially declaring the religion of transhumanism as a technological form of Catholicism mixed with eastern religion mixed with—-whatever. Why will this kind of cult succeed in the long term when there are so many non-technological religions just like it, offering the same thing as transhumanist cult/religion but without explicitly worshiping technology? It’s not like Jews and Christians already eschew technology. some of the great american technology/futurist creators identify with conventional religions.

you are setting up for failure if you ask me. but hey, what do i know. good luck and I’m happy to have read your thoughts above. thank you for them.

By zeev on Feb 05, 2013 at 7:19pm

Dear Eric Schulke,

On the issue of Gay marriage. This is why religions are bad, it is the reason why religion has no place within an intellectual movement such as Transhumanism where the focus is intelligence: “There’s definitely help for people out there who do have homosexual feelings. If they repent their sins, God will still love them. There’s ways of dealing with it.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21335610

It doesn’t matter what percentage of people globally are religious, if something is not religious then it is not.

We should not deceptively try to con people into supporting something via false styling, a corruption of meaning, purely to appeal to their irrational world view. Or maybe you think we should start saying Transhumanism is anti-Semitic so that we can appeal to Nazis? Dishonesty and corruption of meanings should have no place whatsoever in an intellectual movement if the movement is truly about intelligence.

People are starting to realise religions are nonsense; we need to help not hinder this trend:

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162591220/study-finds-americans-less-religious-than-ever

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169342349/more-young-people-are-moving-away-from-religion-but-why

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/are-you-less-religious-than-your-parents/

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-17/us/report.millennials.faith_1_millennials-young-adults-baby-boomers?_s=PM:US

By Singularity Utopia on Feb 06, 2013 at 12:30am

“religions are nonsense”

That is the stupidest thing ive heard in a while. P.s. Im a secular person.

By zeev on Feb 06, 2013 at 7:24am

So how do religions make sense dear zeev?

The only possible way to say religions make sense is via discovering a method in the madness. Yes there is a warped logic, which makes sense, behind all forms of madness, but this does not mean madness (religion) is sensible, thus religions are nonsense despite the inner logic. Religion only make sense for people who cannot find rational solutions to world problems, so it’s an irrational sense, for example regarding people who cannot solve the problem of death, people fear the concept of death, thus some people invent a fantasy, they invent heaven then base their lives on the fantasy. It is nonsense, if you are rational, to base your life on a fantasy. Irrationality is the province of weak minds, minds which quail when attempting to think about unsolvable problems. For example if a loved one is killed. A rational mind can accept there is no meaning for the death, it is merely bad luck or lack of technology, but weak minds unskilled in rational thought tend to think the death is part of God’s plan, you see irrational minds feel it is too painful to accept the truth thus they escape in a fantasy, the idea of being totally free (not watched over by God) in a dangerous world is is too awesome for primitive minds to cope with, there is too much responsibility, thus some minds, less sensible minds, need to believe in God.

So why is it “the stupidest thing” to say religions are nonsense?

By Singularity Utopia on Feb 07, 2013 at 1:34am

Dismissive lazy egotistical thinkers like you are so prevalent in the TM movement that its obvious the more manipulative thinkers are the reason a TM movement comprised of 80% of people like you exists. It is also why i dont consider myself a TM.

Youre a fool if you think im going to waste my time efucating you. Go read some history books. Look at the world of differing religions.  Visit churches. Visit gurus in movements. There is no such thing as ‘religion’ only human behavior. Start learning about human behavior and psychology and then come back to me foolish one.

By zeev on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:02am

Books

Invent Utopia Now
Invent Utopia Now
More Books
Videos
Oxford Debate: A Cure for Ageing? - Aubrey de Grey versus Richard Faragher
Oxford Debate: A Cure for Ageing? - Aubrey de Grey versus Richard Faragher
More Videos