Board elections.

The RationalMedia Foundation board elections are a'happenin'.

  • Nominations will commence on 26 June 2016 and run through 10 July 2016.
  • The voting dates are TBA.

To register to vote: RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration

Useful links:

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 18:49, 26 June 2016

Transhumanism as religion

Jump to: navigation, search

Incidentally, I'm currently reading/participating in a Facebook based discussion on atheism leading to nihilism and whether we can find some "meaning" in life... and someone's position is "What about a quest for immortality? Otherwise it's like being an amnesiac that has a 20 second memory". Surprise surprise, she's listed as an out-of-the-closet transhumanist.

Seriously, it seems like simulation, transhumanism, and the singularity is just religion for smart people (religion being religion for stupid people).

Scarlet A.pngpathetic20:24, 4 March 2012

Took you that long to figure it out? :P Just cross out "god" and substitute "technology" or "computers" in any of their tracts. Jebus The Singularity is coming, look busy!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:30, 4 March 2012

Also, I should add the hard-line transhumanists scare me just as much as the Bible thumpers. Is it any surprise that the founding father of their fore-runner cult got mixed up with fascist movement?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:34, 4 March 2012

Just trying to get my brain around the argument. Is it -

1."Atheism leads to nihilism therefore atheism is wrong"

2."Transhumanism does not lead to nihilism therefore it is superior to atheism."

If this is the argument, then it is one worthy of PJR.

BobSpring is sprung!20:43, 4 March 2012

Sort of, but I think it's more along the lines of "What now?" rather than what is "superior." Transhumanism is already atheistic.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:58, 4 March 2012

So far it's going like:

"But atheism doesn't give life any meaning." "So what?"

Scarlet A.pngmoral21:03, 4 March 2012

That's why you should join my secular religion. Philosophical suicide hurts. Don't do it.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:05, 4 March 2012

The grand irony being that I imagine most of these people subscribe to a Yudkowskian idea of rationality where beliefs must act as constraints for expectation of experience. Except where you're discussing cool sci-fi concepts where computers rule the world.

Scarlet A.pngbomination21:09, 4 March 2012

Most of them come from physics, computer science and engineering backgrounds. Those disciplines tend to produce a lot of crypto-Platonists that are totally in love with ideal, universal laws. This tends to lead to them applying the same style of thinking to everything and oversimplifying "real world" problems. I see this all the time with AI-types (and they're a dime a dozen in the transhumanist movement), they basically just take all the computational models in cognitive psychology and reify them. They basically have invented a new soul, which they call "information." If you take computational models literally, the mind is simply information, thus, if you want to upload it, you just "extract" the information. Of course, this is classic Cartesian dualism, but they usually get around it with some half-assed quantum argument or, viz. Yudkowsky, "It doesn't matter what paper it's written on!" This is also why LW drinks the capital-EP Evo Psych (in the Buller-ian sense) kool-aid: The hypothesis of massive modularity makes the brain into nicely mechanistic computer (or one big computer running a bunch of smaller computers, if you want to be precise). Of course, most of them don't know jack about neuroscience, otherwise they'd realize how nutty actually claiming the brain literally is a computer is. So they've created a new type of soul, end times, teleological/determinist view of history, salvation, etc. At the end of the day, they've just dressed up dat ol' time religion in blinkenlights. Which is why I love when they rail against the irrationality of religion.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:37, 4 March 2012

I don't see how it's the same as dualism. Sure, a literal interpretation of the brain being a computer is problematic, but the principle is that if you simulate the material that makes up the brain perfectly, then that should function as a brain. In fact, it's denying that this is a possibility is what dualism posits - though whether it's a realistic possibility is different entirely, of course.

Scarlet A.pngtheist22:05, 4 March 2012

Except you left out the main reason why they want to simulate a brain: Immortality. I don't think it's out of the question that we could simulate a brain, the sticking point is whether your "uploaded" mind would be "you." And then we're off into the land of swamp men and p-zombies, let's not even go there.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:12, 4 March 2012

The Swampman thing was handled so much better in Caprica and at the end of The Prestige anyway.

Scarlet A.pngtheist22:16, 4 March 2012

Though I do contend that, just as "is there a meaning to life?" is loaded to whether you want a God or not, the "is it really you?" question is loaded to your fuzzy feelings over souls and whatnot.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem00:11, 5 March 2012

And both of them are meaningless questions.


Which is why I changed my concentration ;)

ТyNo04:22, 5 March 2012

I'm also reminded of a line from the Atlas Shrugged fisking: "Listening to her impatience at other ideologies reminds me of a five year-old considering the world’s problems. Can’t get the Chilean miners out? “Why not just build a robot?” she’d say, handing over a sketch; herself pictured overseeing the operation from a unicorn. When kids do it, it’s cute (theoretically), but seeing a brusque Russian author do it — not so much." It might be about Objectivism, but, same idea.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:53, 4 March 2012

Might be no.2, individual involved are all atheists that I can tell. Transhumanism wasn't mentioned explicitly, but is on said person's FB profile in "about". But I can see it edging in that direction.

Scarlet A.pngtheist21:01, 4 March 2012

But even if we accept both 1 and 2 as being "true"- itself potentially dubious -, the first is an argument from adverse consequences and the second one is a non-sequitur.

BobSpring is sprung!21:56, 4 March 2012

Bob, you're using logic against religion. Stop that, you damn atheist fundamentalist.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:59, 4 March 2012

Speaking of which, do you think transhumanism could get protected status as a religion? Is it a violation of the separation of church and state to teach transhumanism in public schools? Srs legal questions here.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:14, 4 March 2012

Hey, I'm an atheist, transhumanist, and nihilist. :(

GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!)23:54, 4 March 2012

I think you're just chronically confused.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:11, 5 March 2012

But none of those things are Technical Death Metal.

Scarlet A.pngpostate17:20, 5 March 2012
Personal tools