LONGECITY

Does anyone understand why this guy hates Transhumanists?

http://mthollywood.blogspot.com/

He seems to have a bone to pick. Perhaps an old girlfriend that dumped him was a transhumanist...or maybe a transhumanist beat up his dog or something. Those would be the only reasons I could think of to go after transhumanism so rabidly.

Looking back at some of his past columns, he really hates cryonics, life extension, any type of technological progress, etc. What a disagreeable fellow.

It's obvious that he hates transhumanists because of cryonics. He just keeps coming back to it again, again and again. He's one of those fascinating people driven so nuts by cryonics that he just can't stop writing about it. If the usual pattern holds (e.g. Polidoro, Jaffeson), a book will soon be forthcoming. I used to think cryonicists were a interesting subculture, but the emerging subculture of cryonics haters takes obsession with cryonics to a whole new level. Go figure.

---BrianW

It's obvious that he hates transhumanists because of cryonics. 

Yeah, cryonicists' response to mortality salience makes him feel anxious and hostile about us.

cryonicists' response to mortality salience makes him feel anxious and hostile about us

This is a very exciting hypothesis, which I'd love to see tested some day.

Cryonics is an especially repulsive aspect of transhumanist culture to outsiders because it infringes upon well-established tribal death rituals. Here is my response to yesterday's post:

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.  :-)

Favorite quotes from blog:

"With the Singularity just 30 or 40 years away, time’s a-wastin’!"

"And since, as people like Raymond Kurzweil claim, echoed by wannabe Glenn Reynolds, the future capabilities of artificial intelligence after the Singularity will be so great that we meat-based humans simply can’t comprehend them"

"So where does someone like Raymond Kurzweil stop being a “futurist” and become an alpha cultist?"

"And to think he could have had the cryonic chamber next to Ted Williams."

"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."

I guess I can not comprehend why someone would be so vehement against what anyone believes as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I can think of a lot of things people want after they die that seems "weird" to me, but I don't devote several posts a month on a blog to demeaning those beliefs. This particular guy just seems like he has a bone to pick for some reason that I guess unless I was in his head I wouldn't understand.

If (when) technology progresses to the point of some of the things he is so against in his lifetime, I wonder if he will choose not to use said technologies just to prove a point. My guess is he will not.

"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."

Wow, that is great logic. sarcasm So anything with a seemingly small number of people is a "cult". Less than 1% of the population has a Ph.D., therefore they must be a cult. There have only been a couple hundred or so astronauts, therefore they must be a cult. At some point in human history only a small number of people thought the world was round or thought disease was caused by viruses/bacteria or thought the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, so they must have all been a cult.

Here is my response to his post:

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

He quoted MichaelAnissimov in his most recent post on cryonics. His ability to ignore the facts astounds me.

This is a very exciting hypothesis, which I'd love to see tested some day.

From the interview about Terror Management Theory:

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."

Cryonicists come along and say, "Screw 'symbolic cultural constructions'! We have a death emergency here and we need to solve it through engineering." In other words, cryonics implicitly trashes every terror-management fantasy in the world through an unexpected reality check.

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?

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?

Haha, I guess you are right. In having a very weak opponent (as this guy is showing that he is with his non-logical arguments, and misrepresentation of facts) it allows for a successful argument against, and a dismantling of the arguments made by said person. This, in turn, allows for broader appeal to the "masses" (people who have never heard of transhumansim, cryonics, etc) by showing an example of someone who argues against what you stand for, but is easily defeated in a logical argument.

He linked to this thread in his latest post (April 10), "A Little Perspective On This Transhumanism Stuff"

Must be running short on material...
Edited by liveforever22, 10 April 2006 - 07:34 PM.

I wonder what he means by "growing up." From his April 10 post, he tells us that we should grow up, presumably because he knows what it means to be grown up and he himself is grown up. A lot of self-assuredness, this person. Which is great! But perhaps during his explorations at the final frontiers of going nowhere, he should note that those who he believes should grow up rather explicitly indicate that growing up is a primary imperative, with philosophy/math/science and its technological/sociological cultivation, until there are better methods of being whatever it is that we are (hmm, perhaps he already knows what these better methods are… self-decomposing meditation maybe?).

He's superficially articulate as hell, but logically frail.

Indeed.

On the other hand, he might have a point about Reynolds. I haven't looked into it.

haha, his hobby is playing with toy trains, how lame.



John Bruce; the man, the legend.


Hey, since he's linking to us I might as well bust his balls a bit )

And also, I would give counter arguments, but Mr. Bruce didn't presented me with any arguments to go after. I searched his whole stupid blog and couldn't find one argument against transhumanism.

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. [wis]

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.

Wouldn't that be something if he wrote philosophic/scientific, peer-reviewed articles that plausibly critique, say, Nick Bostrom.

Hey JB, here's the link. Try taking on one of our best and brightest. [thumb]

www.nickbostrom.com/

JB, upon looking at Bostom's site -- "hu, huhuh, like, what's a heuristic." [8)]

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.

Wouldn't that be something if he wrote philosophic/scientific, peer-reviewed articles that plausibly critique, say, Nick Bostrom.

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.

Some time ago in response to an email from Don, Daniel Dennett indicated that he was already in the process of researching the philosophy (or something to that effect if I recall correctly). I wonder what came of that.

His current project, a book on religion, is taking up most of his time. I've read a number of remarks by him which lead me to believe he does have an opinion, the most defining aspect of which is extreme skepticism regarding timeframes for technological progress. Actually, perhaps an even more defining underlying reason for his divergent opinion stems from his different value set. His primary goal is Truth, not Being.

A lot of the comments here sounds like we are making fun of John Bruce. Which of course we are. But, I'm not sure that this is very constructive. The casual visitor sees only that we attack people and not their ideas.

This is an opportunity to politely respond to his comments, or not, and to come across as the reasonable, logical, passionate people we claim to be. Critics are quite effective because all they need to do is point. Scientists are arrogant...point at one. Transhumanists need to grow up...point at a name caller. Unfortunately, we cannot point back. Their pointing brings a perceived elitist group back down to Earth for their audience. Our pointing reinforces the negative elitist label.
Edited by enoosphere, 10 April 2006 - 11:50 PM.

I see things quite differently from my perspective. Poking light fun at a (light) opponent is showing a sense of humor, imo. Being completely analytical and serious [glasses] in the face of shallow ridicule usually rubs peope the wrong way.

As far as the elite charge is concerned... I'm not the one who is an ivy league Dartmouth alum. )

---------------------------------

Richard, theatrics draw attention, which eventually lands on substantive arguments.

The casual visitor sees only that we attack people and not their ideas

What ideas?

Well, we can certainly attack the apparent lack of development of Mr. Bruce's ideas. He states in "A Little Perspective On This Transhumanism Stuff"

[...]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.

I am not exactly sure why this shouldn't be happening, but a possible clue lies in the indication that he believes transhumanism and cryonics are quackery or pseudoscience. If the New York Times accepted Richard Hoagland as a columnist I would myself be incredibly concerned. It is difficult enough for the public to separate pseudoscience from science. How do you explain that the "Face on Mars" is very different from "transhumanism", "physical immortality", "cryonics", etc.?

Yet that is exactly what we must do. This forum can be a great tool for addressing these nuances.

It is not up to me, however, and instead of defending my view, I should probably just take my own advice and see how it works out. Everyone here is free to participate in whatever way they feel appropriate.

In his April 11 post "The Plot Thickens", he states that Kurzweil seems to indicate that he has cryonics wishes, but may not have a contract in place with Alcor. His proof for this is a "source" that posted a message saying:
"I talked with some of my friends at Alcor a few months back, and one of them, who works there, indicated that Kurzweil has no such arrangements with that organization. In fact he expressed concern that Kurzweil will wind up buried or cremated instead of cryopreserved."

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?

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?

It's not proof, it's hearsay.

It is the policy of Alcor to not discuss who is or is not a member. That is confidential information.

I'm afraid it is not possible to have a contract that does not disclose your name. We need to know who you are so we know who to rescue. That said, only the admin and accounting staff has regular access to names, and even then only on a need to know basis. Anyone this person is likely to have spoken with may have speculated on Kurzweil's membership status, but would not have known for sure. Even this is unacceptable, since it gives the appearance of revealing confidential information. The staff has been cautioned to avoid such speculation.

Steve Van Sickle
Executive Director
Alcor Foundation

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.

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:

(1) The nature of nature.
(2) The nature of The Possible.
(3) The nature of The Conceivable.
(4) The relation between (2) and (3).
(5) The nature of Goals.
(6) The relation between (4) and (5).

In my view, if the scholarly participants don't settle and start roughly from here, then probably little from that point will inform the game and the game will continue in its absence (perhaps unfortunately).

I'm not sure I understand. We cannot continue until those six issues are cleared up? As I believe Kip Werking suggested in his essay "The Posthuman Condition" perhaps some of these will be faced - and, I would add, answered best - by posthumans. Then again, I guess there is no problem with taking a stab at it, though agreement might be difficult to come by within the larger community.

If your thesis is plausibly critiqued and you adjust to the criticism, then your thesis is better. If you're sufficiently challenged and you meet up to the challenge, then you are better.

If non-Transhumanists want to make Transhumanists better than what they make themselves and if Transhumanists expect to be better by facing up to thinking non-Transhumanists, then nothing will come of it unless, roughly, they clarify these six issues first as a team.