So, a great deal has already been said about your reasons for concluding that “transhumanism is a religion,” and I don’t think I have anything especially useful to add to that discussion.
I’m curious, though, as to why it matters.
That is… OK, suppose I accept your reasoning in its entirety. (I don’t, but never mind that for now.)
That is, suppose I accept that soi-disant transhumanists who endorse certain texts (#10) and believe in an upcoming singularity (#9) and wear identifying symbols (#8) and dismiss those who disagree with them (#7) and believe it may become possible for human minds to join with a superhuman AI (#6/#2) and believe it’s theoretically possible to extend human life and/or consciousness indefinitely (#4/#5) and to reconstruct human consciousness from brain cells (#3) and that they are better able to see the truth of these things than most people (#1)… suppose I accept that they are, by virtue of those things and those things alone, a religion.
To put this another way: suppose I accept extending the set “religion” to accept the intersection of those things.
What interesting consequences follow from my accepting that? Why should it matter?
First it should place such statements about other religions on the same level as Gnostics calling everyone else unenlightened for worshiping the Demiurge.
Second, it should call into question the statements that religion is irrational and that those that follow this are more rational than anyone else
Third, Everyone should be aware of this in order to realize that these beliefs are biasing their assessment of other peoples rationality and capabilities.
Fourth, Transhumanism should be treated by society in the same way as any other religion; That is it should not be taught in the public school system and should be recognized as religious in nature when discussed in college classrooms.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by your first point.
Regarding your second point, it seems that you are arguing by definition. If religion is so broad as to include some very vague cluster of transhumanist beliefs, then it also includes organized sports and a variety of other things. At that point, people will probably agree that religion isn’t necessarily irrational for the simple reason that religion includes so much.
Regarding your third point, that seems for related reasons to just not be helpful. Even if something is rational is a “religion” that would not stop some religions from being more rational than others. For instance, I suspect that you agree that ultra-Orthodox Jews who insist for religious reasons that mice can spontaneously generate are being more irrational than many other religions.
Regarding point four, as far as I’m aware transhumanism isn’t taught in public schools or treated in colleges pretty much at all. So I don’t see why you care about this. Indeed, if some form almagam of Singularitarianism and transhumanism gets recognized a religion, the only practical consequence as far as I can tell is that Eliezer Yudkowsky would be eligble for the parsonage allowance. So are you saying that the IRS should make things easier for the Singularity Institute?
IRS should make things easier for the Singularity Institute?
Yes, absolutely.
So I don’t see why you care about this.
I can think of two posts where teaching transhumanism in public schools is explicitly advocated. Hence, it is already being thought of.
that ultra-Orthodox Jews who insist for religious reasons that mice can spontaneously generate are being more irrational than many other religions.
Yes they are. On a tangent to that note, would it be kosher to grow non-kosher insects in apples as it would be thought they spontaneously generate and are therefore kosher?
Anyways, the point is that the assumption is made that religion is by default irrational when it might actually be rational. Some of the greatest philosophers have been highly religious. Also, mystical experiences are accepted as fact here as long as they are not religious mystical experiences (see benefits of madness) ( which thing most religions will tell you is very dangerous as there are beings that are wanting to deceive). So I don’t see the arguments of this site being especially more rational than the most rational of religious people as being valid. There are also instances of people claiming they are more rational than Noble laureates which doesn’t help the claim that they are rational at all.
the simple reason that religion includes so much.
The bounds of religion already contains things that have less of a structure of beliefs then Transhumanism (both as expressed on this site as well as described on the Wikipedia article).
I can think of two posts where teaching transhumanism in public schools is explicitly advocated. Hence, it is already being thought of.
Christianity says “murder is bad.” does that mean saying to kids in public schools “hey, murder is bad” becomes off limits? A similar remark would apply to religions which have correct beliefs about the shape of the world. Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom. That’s part of why in the US First Amendment issues are so complicated and difficult.
On a tangent to that note, would it be kosher to grow non-kosher insects in apples as it would be thought they spontaneously generate and are therefore kosher?
No. They believe that some animals can (lice and rodents in particular) can spontaneously generate, not that they in general necessarily do. However, there’s actually a serious issue connected to this in that figs often have wasps inside them but this wasn’t known in ancient times when figs were first ruled to be kosher (and in fact more than that are explicitly listed as one of the special foods of Israel in the Bible). No one in the Orthodox community has a good answer for this.
Anyways, the point is that the assumption is made that religion is by default irrational when it might actually be rational.
Well, again you are using a very broad notion of religion. The individuals asserting that religion is in general irrational are probably less likely to do so if one is using such a broad definition.
And if one uses a narrow definition of religion, then for most major religions, if any one of them is correct, then the others need to be not just irrational but deeply so. So even in that framework, thinking that most religions are irrational is the rational thing to do.
Some of the greatest philosophers have been highly religious.
So? That’s not a good argument for much of anything at all. Newton also believed in alchemy. Erdos had trouble with the Monty Hall problem. Or for that matter, some of the the greatest philosophers have been geocentrists. The fact that some people happened to make great advancements and were religious doesn’t say much at all aside from the fact that humans have strong cognitive biases. And many of those great philosophers were by no fault of there own living in ages where a lot of the basic understanding of the world we take for granted war completely missing. If I lived in 1200, I’d think that lightning came from an angry God and that disease had similar causes.
Also, mystical experiences are accepted as fact here as long as they are not religious mystical experiences (see benefits of madness) ( which thing most religions will tell you is very dangerous as there are beings that are wanting to deceive).
The claim is that mystical experiences can be useful not that they are necessarily factual. Speaking for myself, I’ve had practical math ideas from dreams. I check them when I wake up. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they don’t quite work and sometimes they are clearly nonsense. (No, subconscious, the fact that Martin van Buren was the 8th President of the United States does not tell me anything about zeros of L-functions.) But that’s not a reason think that any such dream is objectively real (Last night I had a dream where I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace. I wouldn’t mind if that’s real.)
It seems here that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments. Indeed, the post in question was made in part in response to a general attitude here that mystical experiences are a complete waste that are not at all helpful in any way.
Note that the difference between a mystical experience which leads to a math idea or leads to the structure of benzene is that the claim is something we can check. The religious mystical experiences very rarely fall into that category. But there’s another reason not to take the religious mystical experiences seriously: they all disagree. Every major religion has people who have had mystical experiences and claims that they’ve encountered their deity or its servants or something similar, and yet they all disagree about very basic parts of how the world works. Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences: one needs some explanation for why every other group has experiences which don’t agree.
There are also instances of people claiming they are more rational than Noble laureates which doesn’t help the claim that they are rational at all.
Smart is not at all the same thing as rational. I have no doubt that Rober Aumann is smarter than I am. I don’t know if which of us is more rational but there’s a decent argument that I am. I know I’m not as smart as Kary Mullis and I’m pretty sure that I’m more rational than he is, and for that matter, judging from these conversations, you probably are too. That people here are more rational than some Nobel Prize winners isn’t a positive statement about people here as much as it is an interesting statement about how irrational people can be and still do absolutely amazing, incredibly brilliant, highly innovative work.
Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom.
This is covered in different comments.
judging from these conversations, you probably are too.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments.
Probably, however given the tone of the mystical answers series I don’t see how you should expect me to do otherwise. I have attempted to be extremely restrained on the subject, especially when responding to comments.
I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyberborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace.
Sounds like a the start of a novel to me. Something similar to how Stephenie Meyer got started on Twilight. Maybe if you write it up you will end up making millions.
again you are using a very broad notion of religion.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
Could you point me to where it is? I don’t see it.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
I didn’t say that you were highly rational. I said you seemed to be more rational than Kary Mullis. That’s the point. There are some very irrational Nobel winners. Rationality is not the same thing as intelligence, or creativity or many other important traits.
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
Well, say hypothetically you were in the position of Screwtape or some other classical demon and you need to draft a policy for what sort of fake mystical forces your demons should do. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons. The second seems a lot more effective. So why don’t they do this? Let me suggest that there’s a simple reason: the existence of such forces is the perfect post-hoc explanation, that’s why so many different religions even when they vehemently disagree can agree on some form of this.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
I’m generally not inclined to see Confucianism as a religion, although it has strong religious elements. That’s why for example there can be self-identifying Chinese Christians who also practice aspects of Confucianism. In a very similar way, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t be a member of a major religion and still subscribe to what you have listed as transhumanist ideas. The danger of Strong AI could be plausible even in a religious framework (indeed, possibly even more so if one thinks that an intelligent artificial entity would be lacking the moral compass that comes from having a “soul”). Similarly, I’ve had serious discussions with Orthodox Jews over way in an Orthodox framework cryonics should actually be halachically mandatory. Almost every single step you list that is a belief related to a specific technology I could probably find at least one religion which is theologically sympathetic to that belief. So if anything, this looks similar to Confucianism in exactly the ways that Confucianism doesn’t look like a classic religion.
Moreover, the aspects of Confucianism that most resemble a religion are precisely the parts that the transhumanist cluster lacks. Confucianism has veneration of ancestors and sacrifices, and a belief in some forms that worshiped ancestors can intervene in the world. These are classical beliefs that we associate with religions. Nothing you gave resembles anything like that. So this argument if anything undermines your claim, there’s an argument over whether Confucianism is a religion, and the most religious-like aspects of Confucianism are precisely the sorts of things which have no analog in the transhumanist cluster you’ve list.
So this argument if anything undermines your claim
You missed my point entirely. I conceded that I might be using too broad of a category with the title of religion and pointed to an example where there is debate over whether it counts as a religion or not to determine membership in the category. (incidentally part of the argument is over whether ancestor worship is part of Confucianism or is from traditional Chinese “heaven” worship). Since you do not consider Confucianism a religion then Transhumanism is not a religion, as I conceded.
. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons.
Actually I think mystical experiences with things the believer expects to be true works fine once the religion of the believer has already been modified away from strict truth. This creates groups that believe in very different things and have reinforcing experiences such that if the truth were attempted to be restored it would face social momentum against it rather then be a constant among confusion. As far as I can tell though both tactics have been used depending on what can be made to work.
Could you point me to where it is?
I consider this to have been covered in theOtherDave line of discussions.
Transhumanism in general? Or just transhumanism of the sort we’re discussing?
E.g., suppose Sam is a transhumanist in this sense—that is, Sam affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
But suppose further that Sam isn’t a transhumanist in the sense you’re discussing—for example, suppose Sam doesn’t endorse any particular text (#10), and doesn’t particularly believe that such a fundamental transformation of the human condition needs to involve anything like the coming of a messiah (#9), and doesn’t wear any special symbols (#8), and engages respectfully with people who disagree (#7), and doesn’t consider other people significantly less able to see the truth (#1).
Does it still follow, in your opinion, that Sam’s beliefs about the possibility and desirability of technologically enhancing human capacity should not be taught about in public schools, necessarily introduce biases into Sam’s judgment of others, etc. etc.?
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so voluntarily and with out profit to himself then what he is practicing is indeed pure religion. “Pure religion is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27) However, this is not what is generally thought of as religion and is not regulated as such.
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so for profit then what he is doing is a business and not a religion, at least by itself.
If Sam does not have specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition then we may be getting into a belief structure that needs to be looked at in considering if it is a religion. If he has any of the structure to his beliefs mentioned in the Wiki article then it would indeed count as a religion. If he does not have the structured beliefs then it does not count as a religion.
If Sam has phrases or words that lets him identify those in the “in” group then that of necessity introduces some amount of bias when dealing with those that are not in that group. However, this is not just a characteristic of religion as it is seen with RPG players, technical fields, among friends, and in other situations.
Teaching that it might be possible to enhance human capacity should, by itself, be non-controversial (e.g. glasses, prosthetics, eye surgery, heart surgery, and tool use in general). In fact, enhancing our own capacity above its natural limits is what defines humans in the first place.
It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to becoming religion.
So teaching that regenerating organs might soon be common place is not a religious statement. Teaching that humans will be able to rewrite ourselves in order to make Chimeras is. Teaching that computers will most likely continue to increase in processing power and that Strong AI might be possible is not a religious statement. Teaching that not only is Strong AI possible but that humans will be uploaded is. Hopefully you can see the distinction.
It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to becoming religion.
So I understand what you mean, but I don’t understand why you mean it. That is, this seems to be an extremely abnormal, somewhat vague, notion of religion and creates serious issues of where the lines are that are at best very blurry. I don’t think that most people would use religion to include any people trying to make long-term predictions about technology. In one of the World Book encyclopedia year books from the 1960s (I don’t remember the exact year unfortunately, I can go look it up when I return next to my parents’ house), there’s an essay by Issac Asimov about the future of space travel. He describes a large set of milestones that he expects over the next 300 years and when they should occur. Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view? Wold it matter if he had a bunch of people who took those predictions very seriously? And if they thought that people should be educated about them? And if they said things like “we should do this because this is the last frontier” and “So there’s the choice in life. One either grows or one decays; Grow or die. I think we should grow.” Is that too religious?
This is especially relevant in the context of a legal setting since you care in part about whether any of these ideas get taught or mentioned in schools. If you tried on this sort of basis to argue that discussing uploading and strong AI in public schools was unconstitutional, you’d probably be laughed out of court.
Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view?
No, that is a fact that can be confirmed.
it matter if he had a bunch of people who took those predictions very seriously?
How are they taking it seriously? Are they sitting around designing rockets without having studied how to do so and without the ability to implement those designs? Are they fervently believing the predictions but not attempting to do things that are likely to help them come true? How much of their world view is affected by these predictions?
Not having specifics I am inclined to say most likely no.
if they thought that people should be educated about them?
I am a biased judge on this point. I am in favor of space travel. I know Asimov was as well. I think that Asimov was in a position to know something about space travel so therefore I am in favor of educating people about whatever he said (unless he said something completely crazy).
Is that too religious?
It would depend on the context.
If you tried on this sort of basis to argue that discussing uploading and strong AI in public schools was unconstitutional, you’d probably be laughed out of court.
Strong AI would get me laughed out of court by itself (probably). Uploading however could be made into a decent case.
Even stronger then someone that did not believe in the specifics of transhumanism would be someone that did believe in transhumanism attempting to gain the status of a religion. That would in my opinion get through the courts without any difficulties.
Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view?
No, that is a fact that can be confirmed.
Ok. So why isn’t the fact that serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
I think that Asimov was in a position to know something about space travel so therefore I am in favor of educating people about whatever he said (unless he said something completely crazy).
The standard of what constitutes a religion for purposes of First Amendment issues is complicated and subject to dispute, but no legal scholar thinks that “I think he was correct” is a reason to include a religious statement in school. The correctness of a religion cannot be correct. (Incidentally, according to the Asimov essay we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.)
Strong AI would get me laughed out of court by itself (probably). Uploading however could be made into a decent case.
Really? I’m curious as to how you would present such a case.
Even stronger then someone that did not believe in the specifics of transhumanism would be someone that did believe in transhumanism attempting to gain the status of a religion. That would in my opinion get through the courts without any difficulties.
we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.
That was the plan, Apollo was supposed to be a sustained and expanding program with nuclear rockets following shortly after. Instead we got the space shuttle and billions spent on programs that go nowhere with any cheap or good technology getting discarded or sold as implementing it would cause unemployment in certain key congressional districts.
serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
Assuming you have a public school that teaches anything on philosophy then I don’t think this is a problem.
Can you expand?
The definition for a religion is fairly broad, pretty much if you claim to be a religion and believe the claims that you make then you are considered a religion. So if say SIAI wished to incorporate as a religion I am pretty sure it could and if challenged could point to the meet-up groups, these boards, and the training that it does and probably not even have to go to an appellate court on the issue.
So, a great deal has already been said about your reasons for concluding that “transhumanism is a religion,” and I don’t think I have anything especially useful to add to that discussion.
I’m curious, though, as to why it matters.
That is… OK, suppose I accept your reasoning in its entirety. (I don’t, but never mind that for now.)
That is, suppose I accept that soi-disant transhumanists who endorse certain texts (#10) and believe in an upcoming singularity (#9) and wear identifying symbols (#8) and dismiss those who disagree with them (#7) and believe it may become possible for human minds to join with a superhuman AI (#6/#2) and believe it’s theoretically possible to extend human life and/or consciousness indefinitely (#4/#5) and to reconstruct human consciousness from brain cells (#3) and that they are better able to see the truth of these things than most people (#1)… suppose I accept that they are, by virtue of those things and those things alone, a religion.
To put this another way: suppose I accept extending the set “religion” to accept the intersection of those things.
What interesting consequences follow from my accepting that? Why should it matter?
First it should place such statements about other religions on the same level as Gnostics calling everyone else unenlightened for worshiping the Demiurge.
Second, it should call into question the statements that religion is irrational and that those that follow this are more rational than anyone else
Third, Everyone should be aware of this in order to realize that these beliefs are biasing their assessment of other peoples rationality and capabilities.
Fourth, Transhumanism should be treated by society in the same way as any other religion; That is it should not be taught in the public school system and should be recognized as religious in nature when discussed in college classrooms.
That is why it matters in my opinion.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by your first point.
Regarding your second point, it seems that you are arguing by definition. If religion is so broad as to include some very vague cluster of transhumanist beliefs, then it also includes organized sports and a variety of other things. At that point, people will probably agree that religion isn’t necessarily irrational for the simple reason that religion includes so much.
Regarding your third point, that seems for related reasons to just not be helpful. Even if something is rational is a “religion” that would not stop some religions from being more rational than others. For instance, I suspect that you agree that ultra-Orthodox Jews who insist for religious reasons that mice can spontaneously generate are being more irrational than many other religions.
Regarding point four, as far as I’m aware transhumanism isn’t taught in public schools or treated in colleges pretty much at all. So I don’t see why you care about this. Indeed, if some form almagam of Singularitarianism and transhumanism gets recognized a religion, the only practical consequence as far as I can tell is that Eliezer Yudkowsky would be eligble for the parsonage allowance. So are you saying that the IRS should make things easier for the Singularity Institute?
Yes, absolutely.
I can think of two posts where teaching transhumanism in public schools is explicitly advocated. Hence, it is already being thought of.
Yes they are. On a tangent to that note, would it be kosher to grow non-kosher insects in apples as it would be thought they spontaneously generate and are therefore kosher?
Anyways, the point is that the assumption is made that religion is by default irrational when it might actually be rational. Some of the greatest philosophers have been highly religious. Also, mystical experiences are accepted as fact here as long as they are not religious mystical experiences (see benefits of madness) ( which thing most religions will tell you is very dangerous as there are beings that are wanting to deceive). So I don’t see the arguments of this site being especially more rational than the most rational of religious people as being valid. There are also instances of people claiming they are more rational than Noble laureates which doesn’t help the claim that they are rational at all.
The bounds of religion already contains things that have less of a structure of beliefs then Transhumanism (both as expressed on this site as well as described on the Wikipedia article).
Christianity says “murder is bad.” does that mean saying to kids in public schools “hey, murder is bad” becomes off limits? A similar remark would apply to religions which have correct beliefs about the shape of the world. Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that’s not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom. That’s part of why in the US First Amendment issues are so complicated and difficult.
No. They believe that some animals can (lice and rodents in particular) can spontaneously generate, not that they in general necessarily do. However, there’s actually a serious issue connected to this in that figs often have wasps inside them but this wasn’t known in ancient times when figs were first ruled to be kosher (and in fact more than that are explicitly listed as one of the special foods of Israel in the Bible). No one in the Orthodox community has a good answer for this.
Well, again you are using a very broad notion of religion. The individuals asserting that religion is in general irrational are probably less likely to do so if one is using such a broad definition.
And if one uses a narrow definition of religion, then for most major religions, if any one of them is correct, then the others need to be not just irrational but deeply so. So even in that framework, thinking that most religions are irrational is the rational thing to do.
So? That’s not a good argument for much of anything at all. Newton also believed in alchemy. Erdos had trouble with the Monty Hall problem. Or for that matter, some of the the greatest philosophers have been geocentrists. The fact that some people happened to make great advancements and were religious doesn’t say much at all aside from the fact that humans have strong cognitive biases. And many of those great philosophers were by no fault of there own living in ages where a lot of the basic understanding of the world we take for granted war completely missing. If I lived in 1200, I’d think that lightning came from an angry God and that disease had similar causes.
The claim is that mystical experiences can be useful not that they are necessarily factual. Speaking for myself, I’ve had practical math ideas from dreams. I check them when I wake up. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they don’t quite work and sometimes they are clearly nonsense. (No, subconscious, the fact that Martin van Buren was the 8th President of the United States does not tell me anything about zeros of L-functions.) But that’s not a reason think that any such dream is objectively real (Last night I had a dream where I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace. I wouldn’t mind if that’s real.)
It seems here that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments. Indeed, the post in question was made in part in response to a general attitude here that mystical experiences are a complete waste that are not at all helpful in any way.
Note that the difference between a mystical experience which leads to a math idea or leads to the structure of benzene is that the claim is something we can check. The religious mystical experiences very rarely fall into that category. But there’s another reason not to take the religious mystical experiences seriously: they all disagree. Every major religion has people who have had mystical experiences and claims that they’ve encountered their deity or its servants or something similar, and yet they all disagree about very basic parts of how the world works. Indeed, that’s probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences: one needs some explanation for why every other group has experiences which don’t agree.
Smart is not at all the same thing as rational. I have no doubt that Rober Aumann is smarter than I am. I don’t know if which of us is more rational but there’s a decent argument that I am. I know I’m not as smart as Kary Mullis and I’m pretty sure that I’m more rational than he is, and for that matter, judging from these conversations, you probably are too. That people here are more rational than some Nobel Prize winners isn’t a positive statement about people here as much as it is an interesting statement about how irrational people can be and still do absolutely amazing, incredibly brilliant, highly innovative work.
This is covered in different comments.
Well, considering I am highly religious and find my religion to be highly rational as well as thinking that there are many more ways to find knowledge then just repeated applications of bayes theorem I have to question your assertion of my rationality as such things are considered on this site.
Unless there really are evil forces out there.
Probably, however given the tone of the mystical answers series I don’t see how you should expect me to do otherwise. I have attempted to be extremely restrained on the subject, especially when responding to comments.
Sounds like a the start of a novel to me. Something similar to how Stephenie Meyer got started on Twilight. Maybe if you write it up you will end up making millions.
Is Confucianism a religion? If it is then Transhumanism is as well, if it is not then Transhumanism in general is not currently a religion (although for some people it may be, but some people take the most random things for their religion so that doesn’t say much).
Could you point me to where it is? I don’t see it.
I didn’t say that you were highly rational. I said you seemed to be more rational than Kary Mullis. That’s the point. There are some very irrational Nobel winners. Rationality is not the same thing as intelligence, or creativity or many other important traits.
Well, say hypothetically you were in the position of Screwtape or some other classical demon and you need to draft a policy for what sort of fake mystical forces your demons should do. Which do you think would work better, answering every apparent attempt to get a mystical experience with something that the believer expects to be true, or answering every one of them with a revelation about a specific religion made up by the demons. The second seems a lot more effective. So why don’t they do this? Let me suggest that there’s a simple reason: the existence of such forces is the perfect post-hoc explanation, that’s why so many different religions even when they vehemently disagree can agree on some form of this.
I’m generally not inclined to see Confucianism as a religion, although it has strong religious elements. That’s why for example there can be self-identifying Chinese Christians who also practice aspects of Confucianism. In a very similar way, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t be a member of a major religion and still subscribe to what you have listed as transhumanist ideas. The danger of Strong AI could be plausible even in a religious framework (indeed, possibly even more so if one thinks that an intelligent artificial entity would be lacking the moral compass that comes from having a “soul”). Similarly, I’ve had serious discussions with Orthodox Jews over way in an Orthodox framework cryonics should actually be halachically mandatory. Almost every single step you list that is a belief related to a specific technology I could probably find at least one religion which is theologically sympathetic to that belief. So if anything, this looks similar to Confucianism in exactly the ways that Confucianism doesn’t look like a classic religion.
Moreover, the aspects of Confucianism that most resemble a religion are precisely the parts that the transhumanist cluster lacks. Confucianism has veneration of ancestors and sacrifices, and a belief in some forms that worshiped ancestors can intervene in the world. These are classical beliefs that we associate with religions. Nothing you gave resembles anything like that. So this argument if anything undermines your claim, there’s an argument over whether Confucianism is a religion, and the most religious-like aspects of Confucianism are precisely the sorts of things which have no analog in the transhumanist cluster you’ve list.
You missed my point entirely. I conceded that I might be using too broad of a category with the title of religion and pointed to an example where there is debate over whether it counts as a religion or not to determine membership in the category. (incidentally part of the argument is over whether ancestor worship is part of Confucianism or is from traditional Chinese “heaven” worship). Since you do not consider Confucianism a religion then Transhumanism is not a religion, as I conceded.
Actually I think mystical experiences with things the believer expects to be true works fine once the religion of the believer has already been modified away from strict truth. This creates groups that believe in very different things and have reinforcing experiences such that if the truth were attempted to be restored it would face social momentum against it rather then be a constant among confusion. As far as I can tell though both tactics have been used depending on what can be made to work.
I consider this to have been covered in theOtherDave line of discussions.
Transhumanism in general? Or just transhumanism of the sort we’re discussing?
E.g., suppose Sam is a transhumanist in this sense—that is, Sam affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
But suppose further that Sam isn’t a transhumanist in the sense you’re discussing—for example, suppose Sam doesn’t endorse any particular text (#10), and doesn’t particularly believe that such a fundamental transformation of the human condition needs to involve anything like the coming of a messiah (#9), and doesn’t wear any special symbols (#8), and engages respectfully with people who disagree (#7), and doesn’t consider other people significantly less able to see the truth (#1).
Does it still follow, in your opinion, that Sam’s beliefs about the possibility and desirability of technologically enhancing human capacity should not be taught about in public schools, necessarily introduce biases into Sam’s judgment of others, etc. etc.?
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so voluntarily and with out profit to himself then what he is practicing is indeed pure religion. “Pure religion is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27) However, this is not what is generally thought of as religion and is not regulated as such.
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so for profit then what he is doing is a business and not a religion, at least by itself.
If Sam does not have specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition then we may be getting into a belief structure that needs to be looked at in considering if it is a religion. If he has any of the structure to his beliefs mentioned in the Wiki article then it would indeed count as a religion. If he does not have the structured beliefs then it does not count as a religion.
If Sam has phrases or words that lets him identify those in the “in” group then that of necessity introduces some amount of bias when dealing with those that are not in that group. However, this is not just a characteristic of religion as it is seen with RPG players, technical fields, among friends, and in other situations.
Teaching that it might be possible to enhance human capacity should, by itself, be non-controversial (e.g. glasses, prosthetics, eye surgery, heart surgery, and tool use in general). In fact, enhancing our own capacity above its natural limits is what defines humans in the first place.
It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to becoming religion.
So teaching that regenerating organs might soon be common place is not a religious statement. Teaching that humans will be able to rewrite ourselves in order to make Chimeras is. Teaching that computers will most likely continue to increase in processing power and that Strong AI might be possible is not a religious statement. Teaching that not only is Strong AI possible but that humans will be uploaded is. Hopefully you can see the distinction.
So I understand what you mean, but I don’t understand why you mean it. That is, this seems to be an extremely abnormal, somewhat vague, notion of religion and creates serious issues of where the lines are that are at best very blurry. I don’t think that most people would use religion to include any people trying to make long-term predictions about technology. In one of the World Book encyclopedia year books from the 1960s (I don’t remember the exact year unfortunately, I can go look it up when I return next to my parents’ house), there’s an essay by Issac Asimov about the future of space travel. He describes a large set of milestones that he expects over the next 300 years and when they should occur. Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view? Wold it matter if he had a bunch of people who took those predictions very seriously? And if they thought that people should be educated about them? And if they said things like “we should do this because this is the last frontier” and “So there’s the choice in life. One either grows or one decays; Grow or die. I think we should grow.” Is that too religious?
This is especially relevant in the context of a legal setting since you care in part about whether any of these ideas get taught or mentioned in schools. If you tried on this sort of basis to argue that discussing uploading and strong AI in public schools was unconstitutional, you’d probably be laughed out of court.
No, that is a fact that can be confirmed.
How are they taking it seriously? Are they sitting around designing rockets without having studied how to do so and without the ability to implement those designs? Are they fervently believing the predictions but not attempting to do things that are likely to help them come true? How much of their world view is affected by these predictions?
Not having specifics I am inclined to say most likely no.
I am a biased judge on this point. I am in favor of space travel. I know Asimov was as well. I think that Asimov was in a position to know something about space travel so therefore I am in favor of educating people about whatever he said (unless he said something completely crazy).
It would depend on the context.
Strong AI would get me laughed out of court by itself (probably). Uploading however could be made into a decent case.
Even stronger then someone that did not believe in the specifics of transhumanism would be someone that did believe in transhumanism attempting to gain the status of a religion. That would in my opinion get through the courts without any difficulties.
Ok. So why isn’t the fact that serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
The standard of what constitutes a religion for purposes of First Amendment issues is complicated and subject to dispute, but no legal scholar thinks that “I think he was correct” is a reason to include a religious statement in school. The correctness of a religion cannot be correct. (Incidentally, according to the Asimov essay we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.)
Really? I’m curious as to how you would present such a case.
I’m not sure what you mean. Can you expand?
That was the plan, Apollo was supposed to be a sustained and expanding program with nuclear rockets following shortly after. Instead we got the space shuttle and billions spent on programs that go nowhere with any cheap or good technology getting discarded or sold as implementing it would cause unemployment in certain key congressional districts.
Assuming you have a public school that teaches anything on philosophy then I don’t think this is a problem.
The definition for a religion is fairly broad, pretty much if you claim to be a religion and believe the claims that you make then you are considered a religion. So if say SIAI wished to incorporate as a religion I am pretty sure it could and if challenged could point to the meet-up groups, these boards, and the training that it does and probably not even have to go to an appellate court on the issue.
I think I understand the distinction you’re making, yes. Thanks for clarifying.