Marketing Transhumanism
I received a solicitation by e-mail because of my "interest" in transhumanism from the "Terasem Movement Foundation" offering a Web site that will--for free:...preserve one's individual consciousness so that it remains viable for possible uploading with consciousness software into a cellular regenerated or bionanotechnological body by future medicine and technology.
Wow. Can they do that? Uh, no. From the Web Page:
Huh? Oh! It's based on the famous "Terasem Hypotheses" which state that:A chatbot can read the user's profile and respond to general-knowledge questions. "In the future, the chatbot will become increasingly knowledgeable about the user's profiles and mindfiles, and infer information from tagged multimedia files," according to Bruce Duncan, Managing Director of Terasem Movement Foundation. Lifenaut.com is also "designed to test the hypothesis that conscious analogs of people can be brought to life based on sufficiently detailed mindfile data," according to a statement on the Terasem Movement Foundation website.
1) a conscious analog of a person may be created by combining sufficiently detailed data about the person (a "mindfile") using future consciousness software ("mindware"),and (2) that such a conscious analog can be downloaded into a biological or nanotechnological body to provide life experiences comparable to those of a typically birthed human. We call this event Transferred Consciousness (TC). If even the first part of the two Terasem Hypotheses is shown to be true, the conscious analogs will be independent persons with rights and obligations dependent upon their capabilities.Okaa-ay, but I'm sure there's a buck expected to be made somewhere in all of this. It looks to me like it may be the sale of "longevity products" and of other items for which ads will be sent to people who subscribe to the newsletter. But for all you transhumanists out there yearning for immortality, here's your chance!
Ain't America great?
Labels: Marketing Transhumanism
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:39 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Theme of a thousand science fiction stories, some of them actually pretty good.
Holy cats, this isn't even promising as much as the ol' "Download your mind" club! They at least say that they'll figure out how to hook up your brian to a computer and download your mind to a CD or a computer hard drive. These guys can't even go that far - all they can do is make a program that simulates whatever information they put into it, based on how the program (and the programmer) *thinks* that info would be put together to make a unique individual!
In either case, though, it's not immortailty, 'cause the original copy of the program (your soul/mind/consciousness) remains on the original disk (your body) the same as any video game program I install on my computer. A copy can run around and do stuff but I'm still in my bod, thanks.
Immortality is over-rated if you can't even be around to enjoy it!
The quest for immortality has been marketed to people way before transhumanism, way before the colonization of America. Well before, even , the council of nicea.
It will probably continue until we do actually achieve clinical immortality.
FMJ -
Clinical immortality is way over-rated. Say eventually we figure it out, right? Well, just because you can upload your brain onto a computer and bounce around in there, doesn't mean that eventually the sun won't turn into a red giant and swallow up the earth. So we move to a new planet, right? Well... that's the tricky part. So far we haven't seen much in the way of planets that look like they'd take to earthly life. I think astronomers have found evidence that there *may* be earth-like planets around a star very, very far from here, but that's not a given. All the other extra-solar planets we've found are HUGE, bigger than scientists imagined they should be, and are pretty much giant balls of gas.
But let's say that eventually we do get around to finding and terraforming a planet. Why should we, you ask? Because if we achieve "immortality," it would either require some kind of mechanical divide installed in us, or some kind of mechanical device we download onto, right? In any respect, we can't just pop a pill and volia, we have eternally young bodies. Violates the laws of thermodynamics at the very least. *Something* has to be done to affect our bodies to keep them from aging or degenerating. So we need a stable place with the supplies to keep our bodies alive, or our minds, depending on how we handle it.
So after the earth gets blown up, we have to have already established a colony on another planet so we can go there and get the raw materials we need to keep ourselves alive. Brother, we can't even get our butts back up to the freaking moon! Tax payers don't even want to shell out for us to go to *Mars,* and that's intra-solar!
But saying that somehow people with enough foresight manage to wrangle destiny from the hands of the rest of the world, and somehow get a colony on another planet, again, it would only be temporary until that planet blew up.
Because, see, stars, they die. They take a long time, but they die. Everything dies.
So that planet would die, and so would the next, and so would the next, until there are no more planets. Beyond that, the *universe* will die. BIG CRUNCH!
Astronomers at the moment predict that the Universe will fizzle out, leaving nothing behind but a few black holes, and be totally devoid of everything else, with all the hydrogen spreading out to infinity and not being able to join back together. So whatever vehical we use to make ourselves "immortal" is temporary. Granted it'll take a long time, but no matter what we do, we have to die at some point.
I would rather live my alloted span and go happily to my reward than to suffer through a clinging grip on a feeble life that will eventually end whether I like it or not.
People are always going on about how, "We can extend life!" Big deal. The human lifespan caps about 150 years. That's the utmost range, with the body's metabolism going much slower than it does now, and thus we live longer. Fine by me - I'm all for that. Because that's a *natural* limit. After that, you're just being greedy.
If I make it three-score and ten years, I'll be content with my lot.
Hi T E Fine
I didn't say anything about a "magic pill". I will affirm you position that Clinical immortality would require a system wide intervention and restorative technologies that we cannot even conceive of today. It's not enough to just deactivate the hayfleck limit and put some type of reciprocal loop into the telomere. The emergent mechanical structures of the physical body that was produced during cell migration / cell death during gestation would have to eventually be reconstructed by means the body doesn't have a process for. Thus we will have to create our own order in our body by opening the system to new technogies. This happens now in a sense with prosthetic joints or artificial hearts. I don't think that that is about to stop immenently.
The sun is scheduled to supernova in 3 billion years. That's 3 billion years. The fact that you ignored that quantity of time is strange to me. Considering the technological acomplishment man has achieved in 100 years is pretty astonishing. What can we do in another 100 another 1000 ? how about 100,000 years? Are you suggesting there is a technological ceiling ? There are limitations to the way the univserse works,yes, but certainly the sun formed within those laws? Will we grasp those laws in even 1 million years? Maybe not , but anybody would be an lying to suggest technological development stops tomorow.
Perhaps we will never achieve a method to work around the limitation of the speed of light. However scientist are workign on it now.
Now i understand your point about eventual destruction of the universe though a compression or a strangulation of energy where nothing is left. That does indeed seem a horrible future. Before I , however, accept that there is not escape from this i would like the universe and M -theory explained better then to accept your argument of slow cold death and strangulation.
This discussion is becomig incredibly skeptical at this point as i've just suggessted it might be possible we can repair dying stars, travel faster then light, and eventually escape the deathly cold of a dying universe by somehow transmitting ourselves in some material context to a new universe. Afterall science is in our infancy adn we have a few billion years atleast till supernova, an undetermined time until asteroid collision, an undetermined time till being swallowed by a wandering black hole. Then there's that whole global warming thing. So i can do 2 things here. I can accept the doom you subscribe to and thank you for reminding me that we will reach a technological ceiling very soon, or i could assume that nobody knows the future capabilities of the human race adn rather then jump to a conclusion founded on inadequet argument, not only of understanding of the nature of the universe but also one that presumes to know the what technology will be available in 5000 years. I have to choose the later.
Now on the issue of clinical immortality, is not immortality. It is the state of sustaining the body theoretically forever. This isn't brain uploading i'm talking about. Even if clinical immortality is discovered there will still be accidents. So i realize true immortality is probably impossible but that doesn't mean i wouldn't like to live as long as possible in a youthfull state. To call that greedy creates a slippery slope that allows you to employ the same invective to anybody at any stage of life. Infact why not call a parent greedy for having a child. Why am i greedy if i want to live ? I'm not sure what you position is on euthanasia as it seems to be frowned on here. So i'm guessing those tat want to end their lives should be lauded?
I notice you use the word "natural" to imply living beyond some limit is unatural. That's assuming all natural things are good. That is called the naturalist fallacy. If a asteroid shattered earth tomorow would that be good ? Certianly small pox was natural, should that be released back into human population ?
You also mention an alloted span which suggests somehting appropriated life to you, defining a specific number of years. I personally take offense at such a system where i'm alloted life. Any despotic phenomina or system such as that should be defied with extreme prejudice. Some may wish to submit to the forces of nature or other things , as yet unexplained metaphysical phenomina or manifestations of the mind, that is fine. If you would like to live under a celestial dictatorship i think you should have every right to , just don't demand i live under a terrestrial one that you have created for me.
Thank you for the reply
Thank you for the wonderful conversation and for being a very nice person to talk to. I admire the way you repsond and that you show how you think.
'The sun is scheduled to supernova in 3 billion years. That's 3 billion years. The fact that you ignored that quantity of time is strange to me.'
Quantity of time was ignored in my response because quantity of time is frequently ignored in what I hear from transhumanism. The online magazine, "What Is Enlightenment," had an article about extending the human lifespan to what we would consider immortality - several million years - and how the greed for immortality would lead to greater discord the longer we could live. And the longer we can live, the longer we *want* to live, such that in three billion years when the sun blows up, to those people who achieve clinical immortality, it *would* be a big problem, as big as dying of cancer is to one of us now. It's not the length of life, it's how tightly we will desire to cling to life.
It sounds terribly awkward, I know, but it's not an easy concept for me to articulate, and I apologize.
'I notice you use the word "natural" to imply living beyond some limit is unatural. That's assuming all natural things are good. That is called the naturalist fallacy.'
That's also why I avoid 'natural' hair sprays. Arsnic is 'natural' and so is cyanide. I totally agree with you there. My point isn't that 'natural' is better than 'artificial,' but that everything that exists exists in a state of natural flux, a balance that keeps the flow of time and space working properly. Something begins to exist, exists, and ceases to exist, in a certain order. Cause comes before effect. That sort of thing. A 'natural' limit of 150 years means that the human body is built to last that long before we cease to exist. The fact that we *don't* live that long is due to many outside factors - food sources, medicine availablilty, etc. There are even some genes that make us die of old age, if I read correctly. But the lenght of time doesn't really make any difference in the long run because the natural flux - we're born, live, and die - is kept in motion. Whether you believe in fate or not, I think that we have a fate, a destiny, and that it requires that we follow a certain pattern. When you talk about clinical immortality, you talk about upsetting that flux and I don't like to monkey around with a system that works. It's been in place since God made the Universe, and I trust the system since it did lead to the creation of human beings and to our cognition. We start messing around with the lenght of time we live beyond the natural limit and there's going to be some kind of backlash. Nature doesn't fool around when she decides to put things back into order.
'You also mention an alloted span which suggests somehting appropriated life to you, defining a specific number of years. I personally take offense at such a system where i'm alloted life.'
Everybody dies. Everything falls apart. Entrophy exists. Metal rusts. Things are created and slowly wither. What becomes, unbecomes. Every star will eventually go out, and the universe itself will cease to be.
The problem is, no matter what kind of artificial means we come up with to make us 'immortal,' eventually it, too, will fall apart. And there's no stopping that fact.
And again, there's something orderly about the rise and fall of the universe that makes me think it's less of a 'dictatorship' and more like 'riding the waves,' like we're being carried to an ultimate destination. My thinking, naturally, not anybody else's.
But consider this - if we have consciousness, then how do you put a mind into a body if a mind is subjective and all matter is objective? You can't - makes me think that all matter must be subjective - panpsycheism. Everything down to light particals is conscious on some level. So if we follow the natural life/death cycle, but we're made of spirited matter, then there's something reasonable about us following the pattern, because it serves a purpose.
Anyway, just my metaphysical musings. Thank you for commenting.
I'll grant you that Transhumananism is way to optimistic about certain technologies and their rate of development. I would make no such claims about development time.
I don't recomend you commit the same opposite error transhumanists do. Do you think there is a technological ceiling that will be reached soon allowing no further development ? What type of technology will be available in 80,000 years? Could a Star ever be re-seeded ? Is it possible to trasmute ourselves to other , possibly younger, universes? These are questions i'de never even venture a guess. As i said in my original post , they may never be developed. The burden, however , of proving this technology will NEVER be developed would make my head explode.
I'm not a transhumanist in the sense that i'm faithfully awaiting a singularity that i assume will hit in 30 years. I've only recenlty become aware of transhumanism and really can't speak on them in a general sense otherwise. I havn't , however , found something i really disagree with them on yet other then their over-reachign optimism on the development times of certain technology.
Classifying wanting to live forever as greedy does not make sense to me. The compulsion to live is just inante survival mechanism built into humanity. It's not greedy at all its' simply natural and not easily countermanded until something as defiling as disease(mental) or deterioration ravages the body. The only problem i see with living forever in a youthfull state is the potential for overpopulation.
Natural or artifical , good and bad. I dont' think this is a fare comparison. These thigns we have to take on a case by case basis. A blanket general policy that natural is good as you state just isn't consitent with reality. I am not talking about monkeying with a system that works , rather fixing a system that disfigures, cripples, destroys life.
I'm really not talking about upsetting "the flux" but "your flux". Assuming clinical immortality was discovered tomorow, it should be a volitional treatment. Some people will try it, some will not. This will probably mirror elective cosmetic surgery, a very unatural process and not totally restorative ( complications can arrise). Also remember many diseases have grant "natural" spans of longevity, like congenital heart disorders. We defy these spans with medical intervention.
"The problem is, no matter what kind of artificial means we come up with to make us 'immortal,' eventually it, too, will fall apart. And there's no stopping that fact."
exaclty. I'll ask you how many
times can you replace a cars engine before its' not longer possible?
There is no evidence of a soul as yet. The consciouness of matter you refer to is particle entanglement yes? Particle entanglement may not be evidence of consiouness in each particle but may just be the resault of our observations. Rather then say matter is consciouness, i think we have to wait on that one. There are already some tentative
explainations for a phsiological explanations for human higher consciouness that involve communication between the Thalamus and the Cortical regions of the brain as well as many other structures. You have to remember we are trying ot reverse engineer the most complex structure known to man, until we do its' not wise to assume that consciouness arises from some sort of electrical parasite that clings to and manipulates our body like a puppet.
In closing i'de like to say that i HOPE some of what you say is true. i hope somehow my mind and memories exists after my corporeal body fails me. I hope there is an afterlife. These are just my hopes however.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home