Hughes: Smith "Burned Bridges" with "Reality Based Community"
The transhumanist guru, James Hughes, grouses about an essay apparently written by Rich Hayes of the Center for Genetics and Society. Hayes and the Center are definitely and firmly on the political and pro choice left. But since he and it oppose the new eugenics of transhumanism, Hughes accuses Hayes and the Center of opposing true procreative freedom, a typical paranoid rant of the transhumanist crowd. Hayes' essay (which I have not read) must have drawn blood because Hughes brings out the biggest supposed gun in his advocacy arsenal, accusing Hayes and the Center of being in league with the dreaded religious right. As if. Hey, J: The religious right opposes the genocide at Darfur. Does that mean good liberals should support it?
Hughes goes on to "compliment" me for having the courage to supposedly break with the "reality based community" due to my being part of the DI. I'm not part of the reality based community??? Hughes believes that humans will one day be made immortal and that we will all be able to upload our minds into computers where we will spend eternity enjoying group consciousnesses with our fellow post humans. Of the two of us, I hardly think I am the one who is reality challenged.
Labels: Transhumanism.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:29 PM
17 Comments
17 Comments:
"Hughes believes that humans will one day be made immortal and that we will all be able to upload our minds into computers where we will spend eternity enjoying group consciousnesses with our fellow post humans"
Given how insufferable some of these people are now, and how much worse they will probably be when they are proved right, I think I would be better off dead than uploaded ;)
Amen to that.
But maybe God is still the network administrator.
Transhumanism is religion. And it definitely isn't reality based.
I'm with Jason. Having my consciousness eternally uploaded into a computer sounds worse than death.
Reminds me of William Gibson's Neuromancer. In it, a team of computer hackers steal a cartridge containing the scanned mind of a famous old-school hacker, the Dixie Flatline, to assist them in an attack they're planning.
Dixie's only request is that they erase him when they're finished.
It seems to me there's a "Revenge of the Nerds" component to Transhumanists. You mock us! Why we will evolve BETTER than you! And then WE'll be laughing!
Eileen: Yea. Those who were on the bottom in high school, never forget and never forgive.
Colin: Leon Kass speaks of how death focuses us and helps make life meaningful. This is not to say, of course, that we should not strive to live longer and healthier. But it is wisdom to be aware that life is limited and make use of what we have with that in the forefronts of our minds.
Jason and Colin:
"I'm with Jason. Having my consciousness eternally uploaded into a computer sounds worse than death."
I've never had it sufficently proven to me that we'll be able to pull off that whole "upload my mind" thing, because I own several CD-Roms of "The Sims." When my hard disk suffered a virus and I had to reformat it, I simply reinstalled The Sims from my disks. See, just because I put the game on my computer doesn't mean that the original went away. Barring destruction of the disks themselves, the original data is still on those CDs.
So, pray tell, how does one actually *upload* one's consciousness to a computer?
We can copy it I suppose (provided that someone successfully figures out how to transform the data collected in our brains into bites that can be processed by a man-made computer, which I can't see happening since that means writing programs that are able to write themselves - chicken and the egg bit), but the original stays on the original disk, so to speak. So even if we could pull something like that off, *we* wouldn't know it - our consciousness would be right here in our own bodies, waiting for the body to die, while a "copy" of ourselves goes merrily bouncing around the internet.
I'm with you guys - if there's no life after death, then death is like a restful and dreamless sleep, and if there is life after death, then we have the pleasure of continuing in a much more pleasurable form than bouncing around on a computer.
Either case sounds WAY better than waiting to die so my copy can take over the world without me.
"So, pray tell, how does one actually *upload* one's consciousness to a computer?"
Personally I think the goal is a pipe dream. Sorry if that wasn't clear. From listening to various philosophy of mind people and talking with them, (See my podcast at http://thesciphishow.com and have a look through the archives for interviews with a bunch of different people on these topics) it seems if they are right about some ways that the mind works, which I question, but assuming they are right, then it seems like it would be possible to accomplish this upload in some sense.
Of course what is left of you, if it is you, and if the conscious experience between the two is the same is an open question. The interview I did with author Vernor Vinge on the topic was quite interesting in that regard IIRC.
Wesley, I hope the ad is ok.
Tabs: How would they upload themselves? They haven't figured that out yet, and they never will. Pure fantasy.
"How would they upload themselves? They haven't figured that out yet, and they never will"
Although I don't think they will succeed in the endeavour, i'm not sure it is impossible depending on what you consider "life after being uploaded" and what you would consider "immortality".
re: Uploading consciousness
That kind of sounds like the conventional view of heaven.
Well, it isn't the conventional view of heaven, because that involves a) another person, God, who runs the show and isn't controlled by man and b) the continued survival of the soul, not its being "uploaded."
But heck, I'm a dualist, not a functionalist, so I think all of this is balderdash. We _aren't_ software. Software can just mimic some of our functions. For the physical act of uploading software to result in consciousness would require a miracle from God, who could just as easily make a conscious mind _without_ physically-based software. It's not the kind of thing that would happen naturally. But I know that's a very old-fashioned view.
Who is reality challenged, one who believes in science or one who believes in Santa Claus?
I have never been able to see any fundamental difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus. In both cases, one is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Sure, I am not able to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. But the existence of Santa Claus would be so strongly against our scientific knowledge that I think the safest assumption is that Santa Claus does not exist. Same for God.
Mind uploading is a future technology that does not exist yet, and will not be developed next year. My best guess is that developing operational mind uploading technology will take 30 years. But even if mind uploading technology does not exist yet, it is perfectly compatible with our scientific knowledge. The history of science and technology demonstrates that is something can be done (in the sense of not being a violation of scientific laws), sooner or later it will be done.
So Wesley yes, I think you are the one who is reality challenged.
Is transhumanism a religion?
I do not think "religion" is a very appropriate definition of transhumanism. We do not share the self-righteousness, closed mindedness, bigotry and intolerance found in most religions. You say that the religious right opposes the genocide at Darfur, but History and CNN say that the religious right mentality (in many religions) has been and continues to be directly responsible of many genocides all over the planet. And of course, transhumanism is not a religion because it is not based on revelation without evidence. Transhumanists only believe in a heaven that we can build, if and when we develop the necessary capabilities.
But "religion" has also, in my opinion, positive connotations. It is about transcending our current limits and becoming more, much more, than what we are. It is about hope and happiness. In this sense I am willing to accept the label "religion" for the transhumanist worldview. A transhumanist religion, if such a thing existed, would be a kinder, tolerant, inclusive and forgiving religion based on science and humanism.
We do not share the self-righteousness, closed mindedness, bigotry and intolerance found in most religions.
Ahahahahahaha.
Oh wait, you're serious?
GP: I never bring up God in my work and indeed, advocate from completely secular concepts of human rights and human equality. Surely you are not saying that only religious people can hold those beliefs.
I am also decidedly pro science. Indeed, I argue against the politicization of science precisely because it corrupts science, turning it from a method into a belief system.
Transhumanism is belief. It is also a quasi-religion. It has prophets. It has an eschatology of eternal life. It has infidels--the dreaded bio-Luddites--and it has faith in things that cannot be proved or demonstrated. Or to put it another way, it is a species of scientism, which is a materialistic faith system.
Thanks for visiting Secondhand Smoke.
Wesley, you assert that "Transhumanism is belief. It is also a quasi-religion. It has prophets. It has an eschatology of eternal life. It has infidels--the dreaded bio-Luddites--and it has faith in things that cannot be proved or demonstrated. Or to put it another way, it is a species of scientism, which is a materialistic faith system."
Let's upack this. Transhumanism claims that future science and technology will enable us to live longer, healthier lives, to increase our abilities beyond what is currently possible, etc. This is a claim, not a belief, and it will either be proven or disproven. This in no way involves faith. So, contrary to what you say, the claims of transhumanism can--and almost certainly will--proved or demonstrated.
And what is scientism? It's a scare word invented by people who don't want to admit that they fear science, so instead call it scientism, because science is simply too presitous to attack directly. There is no such faith as scientism. But there is such fear.
Wesley, I hope you continue to follow developments in transhumanism and to write about them. Sooner or later, I think you'll get it!
Regards,
Mike
Hi, Michael: Thanks for stopping by. It is more than a claim. It is a yearning that has become a substitute for religion. I have cited some transhumanists who have said the same thing.
Warning against scientism is not to fear science. It is to warn that some are mutating it from a method into a philosophy or ideology that can tell us right from wrong, etc. By conflating ideological/philosophical belief with science actually harms science, properly understood.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home