Does anyone understand why this guy hates Transhumanists?
http://mthollywood.blogspot.com/
Posted 04 April 2006 - 04:38 AM
Posted 04 April 2006 - 05:57 AM
Posted 04 April 2006 - 06:00 AM
Posted 04 April 2006 - 06:15 AM
It's obvious that he hates transhumanists because of cryonics.
Posted 04 April 2006 - 05:16 PM
This is a very exciting hypothesis, which I'd love to see tested some day.cryonicists' response to mortality salience makes him feel anxious and hostile about us
Posted 04 April 2006 - 10:05 PM
Hello, I am also a transhumanist. The Smalley argument is not so much about whether nanotechnology can cure death but whether it will offer pick-and-place control over individual molecules in general. Of course, if it could, death could be cured. To paraphrase Feynman, "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom. It is not an attempt to violate any laws; it is something, in principle, that can be done; but in practice, it has not been done because we are too big."
Kurzweil's popular book, followed by Reynolds' recent ascent to the WSJ, merely shows how mainstream transhumanism is becoming in today's world. These are just the tip of the iceberg - progress in happening in every branch of transhumanism with *gasp* exponential speed.
The way you repeat a variation of the word "cult" six times in this short email shows that you're full of propaganda. Transhumanism is a space of technological and philosophical consensus, not a cult. How can transhumanists be a cult when we are not even physically concentrated and communicate mainly over the Internet? Most transhumanists only hold transhumanism as a casual interest and only think about it a few hours per week. This is hardly "cult-like", and is in fact quite freewheeling by any standard.
Yes, it's possible that someone could do a controlled deanimation whereby their neural connection map is largely preserved, but their brain has stopped operating. Our neural connections hold all the data about our memories, dreams, and personality. If technology continues to progress and we don't blow ourselves up, then we will one day have the technology to restart suspended brains. The brain is just a sophisticated mechanism, after all. :-)
Posted 04 April 2006 - 10:20 PM
"Membership in the World Transhumanism Association is less than 3500; fewer than 100 people have been cryonically preserved. I would characterize these beliefs, as a result, as fringe as well as cult-like."
Posted 07 April 2006 - 08:06 PM
Resorting to ad hominam attacks of your opponents and ridiculing their ideas without giving logical evidence to backup your claims just shows how scarred you are of us and change. The only constant fact in history is change. The last time in history without changes constantly happening was called the Dark Ages, is that what you are advocating. Do you think that 300 years ago people would have believed you if you said they could move at over 100 miles an hour, have virtually infinite light sources, or have organs replaced. Of course they would not, it all sounds like magic. Now, like always, people are faced with questions about technology just this time they are worded a bit differently. Can you live indefinitely (not immortal), can machine intelligence approach that of humans, can we control things at the nanoscale. The answers to all of these questions are yes. They have all been proven. There are trees that are 1000’s of years old, we evolved intelligence just modeling the brain in enough detail would provide machine intelligence, and proteins control matter at the nanoscale everyday.
The only thing stopping these technologies from becoming reality are people blocking them on so called “ethical” grounds. Tell me would you let your mother die (presuming that she is not my apologies if she is no one should have to die) if you could stop it? Would you let anyone die? Everyday 100,000 people die from aging and aging related causes. If you can foresee a day when aging will be cured and you impend the process or curing it, you are directly responsible for the deaths of every person that dies in that time you put the cure off. Aging will be cured at some point in time. The biggest hurtle is public option which you are swinging against curing aging. If you want a good ad hominam attack to toss around here it does, “You are committing mass MURDER.”
Also note how I don’t even mention tranhumanism. It is just a set of thinking, a philosophy. It is atheistic how can it be a cult. We don’t go to church, we don’t do anything you would traditionally associate with an origination at all. We are a collection of thinkers hoping for a better future where ludites don’t use fear and ignorance to control the people.
Here are some link for you are your readers to educate yourselves with:
http://www.imminst.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org/
http://www.crnano.org/
If you read nothing else please read this fable.
http://www.nickbostr...ble/dragon.html
Posted 07 April 2006 - 09:27 PM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 09:29 PM
This is a very exciting hypothesis, which I'd love to see tested some day.
Would you give us a brief explanation of terror management and mortality salience? How do they relate to each other?
According to terror management theory, people "manage" the potential terror associated with death through a dual-component anxiety-buffer consisting of a cultural worldview (beliefs about the nature of reality that provide a sense that the universe is meaningful, orderly, and stable and that provisions for immortality) and self-esteem (the perception that one is living up to the standards of value associated with the social role inhabited by individuals in the context of their culture, and hence rendering them eligible for safety and security in this life and immortality thereafter).
Thus, while cultures vary considerably, they share the same defensive psychological function in common: to provide meaning and value and in so doing bestow psychological equanimity in the face of death. All cultural worldviews are ultimately shared fictions, in the sense that none of them are likely to be literally true, and their existence is generally sustained by social consensus. When everyone around us believes the same thing, we can be quite confident of the veracity of our beliefs.
But, and here's the rub, when we do encounter people with different beliefs, this poses a challenge to our death-denying belief systems, which is why people are generally quite uncomfortable around, and hostile towards, those who are different. Additionally, because no symbolic cultural construction can actually overcome the physical reality of death, residual anxiety is unconsciously projected onto other groups of individuals as scapegoats, who are designated all-encompassing repositories of evil, the eradication of which would make earth as it is in heaven. We then typically respond to people with different beliefs or scapegoats by berating them, trying to convert them to our system of beliefs, and/or just killing them and in so doing assert that "my God is stronger than your God and we'll kick your ass to prove it."
Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:04 PM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:10 PM
But hey, how many other eloquent anti-transhumanists are there? Not many. This guy writes about transhumanism more frequently than those on this forum, even if he's railing against it. And we need critics like this. He's superficially articulate as hell, but logically frail. Easy to debunk. Good. Need the "other side of the story", yknow?
Posted 10 April 2006 - 05:21 PM
Edited by liveforever22, 10 April 2006 - 07:34 PM.
Posted 10 April 2006 - 06:49 PM
Indeed.He's superficially articulate as hell, but logically frail.
Posted 10 April 2006 - 07:10 PM
Posted 10 April 2006 - 08:24 PM
Posted 10 April 2006 - 08:49 PM
Posted 10 April 2006 - 08:58 PM
Wouldn't that be something if he wrote philosophic/scientific, peer-reviewed articles that plausibly critique, say, Nick Bostrom.Oh, and by the way JB - trying to claim that transhumanism is pseudo science rather than science demonstrates your ignorance. Transhumanism is a philosophy, p-h-i-l-o-s-o-p-h-y.
Posted 10 April 2006 - 09:08 PM
Posted 10 April 2006 - 10:36 PM
Wouldn't that be something if he wrote philosophic/scientific, peer-reviewed articles that plausibly critique, say, Nick Bostrom.Oh, and by the way JB - trying to claim that transhumanism is pseudo science rather than science demonstrates your ignorance. Transhumanism is a philosophy, p-h-i-l-o-s-o-p-h-y.
Posted 10 April 2006 - 10:54 PM
Posted 10 April 2006 - 11:07 PM
Edited by enoosphere, 10 April 2006 - 11:50 PM.
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:10 AM
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:14 AM
The casual visitor sees only that we attack people and not their ideas
Posted 11 April 2006 - 03:32 AM
[...]I want to be clear that the only reason I’m doing it is because Glenn Reynolds has become a major public figure, he’s advocating these very wacky views, and everyone is giving him a bye. This shouldn’t be happening.
Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:40 PM
Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:03 PM
1) I don't necessarily believe this "source", it sounds like very flaky "proof" to me
2) Isn't it possible to have a contract with Alcor that does not disclose your specific name to employees of Alcor?
Posted 12 April 2006 - 02:18 AM
That should be helpful. It might be nice to see Transhumanists (perhaps plus some Singularitarians) and non-Transhumanists (perhaps minus some Singularitarians) together clarify the following issues in order to share some foundation before shifting concepts around above different foundations and, relative to the purpose, getting nowhere:Transhumanism would likely benefit from the criticism, should the scholarly exchange not become bogged down, this still emerging philosophy could be further developed and better articulated.
Posted 12 April 2006 - 06:07 AM
Posted 12 April 2006 - 02:01 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users