34 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

TRANSVISION 2003 USA

"The Adaptable Human Body: Transhumanism and Bioethics in the 21st Century"
June 27-29, 2003

Yale University, New Haven, CT USA

Link


If you're in the area, please contact me... we're forming a group from ImmInst to attent this event.

[Bruce Klein]

ImmInst will have two members, Michael Anissimov and Kenneth Sills, presenting at the upcoming Transhumanist Conference:

TRANSVISION 2003 USA
"The Adaptable Human Body:
Transhumanism and Bioethics in the 21st Century"

June 27-29, 2003


Yale University, New Haven, CT USA


http://www.transhuma...org/tv/2003usa/

What will the body be like in 50 years? How will changes to our bodies change our lived experience? How will we adapt the body to our needs and to the environments in which we live? Will we have conquered sickness, aging and death for all or only for the lucky few? Will people migrate to silicon, build superbodies, or both, or neither? This conference, the first Transvision conference to be sponsored by the World Transhumanist Association in North America, will explore the future of the body from the transhumanist perspective. TV03USA is co-sponsored by the Yale Interdisciplinary Bioethics Program's Working Group on Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology and Transhumanism.

Transhumanism advocates the individual's right to use technology to enhance the body. This conference will begin the discussion between the transhumanist movement and the communities with which transhumanists have rarely been in dialogue: professional bioethicists, anti-technology activists, disability and transgender activists, and critical social theorists of science and technology.

-------------------------
________
SCHEDULE
_______________________
Thursday, June 26, 2003

Intensive Seminar on Transhumanism

_____________________
Friday, June 27, 2003

8pm Debate: "Should Humans Accept or Reject
the Genetic Path to the Post-Human?"

Accept: Gregory Stock Ph.D.,
Director of the UCLA Program on Medicine,
Technology and Society,
author of Metaman and Redesigning Humans

Reject: George Annas J.D.,
Director of Health Law, Boston University,
author of 12 books including The Rights of Patients

______________________________________________
Saturday, June 28, 2003

9am Opening Keynote: "Why Not Re-Invent Humans? Is This The Best We Can Do?" Greg Pence PhD, author of Whose Afraid of Human Cloning?

9am-5pm Dozens of Panels, Papers, Performances and Videos

See some of the speakers at: http://www.transhuma...sa/speakers.htm

7pm First Annual JBS Haldane Award Banquet

_____________________
Sunday, June 29, 2003

9am-1pm Dozens of Panels, Papers, Performances and Videos

12:30pm Closing Keynote: "Who's Afraid of PostHumanity?:
The Politics and Ethics of Genetically Engineering People"
Ron Bailey, Science Writer, Reason Magazine

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

REGISTER ONLINE at:

http://www.transhuma...egistration.htm

or REGISTER BY SNAILMAIL: Checks to "WTA," 9508 Fourth Ave, Suite 319, Brooklyn, NY, 11209, USA

Conference Registration
Before April 1, 2003

Regular $135 WTA Full Members $125

Student/Retired $115 Student or Retired
WTA Full members $105

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

Full Membership in the World Transhumanist Association
(For more info: http://www.transhumanism.org/join.htm)

Employed and in a developed country $25
Unemployed, students, retired or
in a less developed country $10

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

Buffet tickets
Friday night buffet: $30
Saturday night buffet: $35
(Saturday night's buffet will fete the winner
of the 2003 JBS Haldane Award)

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

HOUSING

There are two housing options, on-campus suites in the Swing building, and local hotels. For more information:
http://www.transhuma...ion.htm#housing

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

Some of the speakers and papers you can hear at TV 2003:

Michael Anissimov, Co-Director, Immortality Institute for Infinite Lifespans "Accelerating Progress and the Potential Consequences of Smarter than Human Intelligence"

Anatoly Nichvoloda, Associate, Internatura Think Tank "System Completion Theory: from Local to Global Consciousness-Humans, AI and beyond"

Linda MacDonald Glenn LLM, Institute for Ethics, American Medical Association "The Future Boundaries of Personhood: Evolving Technological, Legal, and Ethical Definitions"

Mark Walker Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, Trinity College, Univ. of Toronto "Offensive Transhumanist Ethics"

Tyler "Anand" Emerson, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence "Friendly AI and the Singularity"

Nick Bostrom Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, Harris Manchester College, Oxford University "Our Human and Posthuman Dignity"

Mike Treder, President, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology "Meeting the Challenge: Safe Utilization of Advanced Nanotechnology"

Benjamin Hyink, Chicago Transhumanist Association, College of DuPage, Illinois "Organizing Campus Transhumanist Groups and an International Facilitation Network"

Austin Dacey Ph.D., Philo, Center for Inquiry "Is there 'human nature' after 'nature-nurture'? A developmental systems approach"

John Smart, President, Institute for Accelerating Change "Development after De Chardin: The Accelerating Transhumanist Frontier"

Gregory Stock Ph.D., Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, UCLA "Should Humans Accept or Reject the Genetic Path to the Post-Human?"

Natasha Vita-More, President, Extropy Institute "Primo (3M+) Posthuman"

Jason Scott Robert Ph.D., "Confusion about crossing species boundaries: chimaera making in stem cell biology" Dept. of Philosophy Dalhousie University

Simon Smith, Founder, Editor-in-Chief, Betterhumans "Mainstreaming Offensive: Making Transhumanism the Next Big Thing"

William Edmundson Ph.D., Depts of Law and Philosophy, Georgia State University "Posterity and Embodiment"

Alice Dreger Ph.D., Center for Ethics & Hums in the Life Scis, Michigan State University "The Once and Future Freak: What the History of the Medical and Social Treatment of People with Unusual Anatomies Might Tell Us about the Future of Transhumanism"

George Dvorsky, Toronto Transhumanist Association "Reproductive Rights, Designer Babies, and the Consent of the Unborn"

Andrew Ward Ph.D., M.P.H., Philosophy, Science and Technology Program, Georgia Tech "Strategies for Workplace Disability Integration: a New Model of Universal Access"

Barbara Gibson MS, PT, Dept. of Phys. Therapy, U. of Toronto "Identity Experiments: The Connectivity of Disability"

Craig DeLancey Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, SUNY Oswego "Systematic Biocentric Axiology: Environmental Ethics as a Foundation for Transhuman Ethics"

David Calverley J.D., "Imagining an Artificial Intelligence as a Legal Entity"

David Donnelly Ph.D., School of Communications, Quinnipiac University "The Ethics of Forecasting: A Look at Current Visions of the Future Human Race"

David Wasserman Ph.D., Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, University of Maryland "Human Variation and Fairness in Sports and Games (Panel)"

Dorothy Wertz Ph.D., American Society for Law, Medicine & Ethics "Controversial Choices after Prenatal Diagnosis: Has Autonomy Gone Too Far?" "Twenty-one Arguments Against Human Cloning, and Their Responses"

Evelyne Shuster Ph.D., Philosophy in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania "To Live Forever: A Blessing or a Curse?"

George Annas J.D., Health Law Program, Boston University "Should Humans Accept or Reject the Genetic Path to the Post-Human?"

Iain McKenna, Dept. of Philosophy, Concordia Univ. "Transhuman Identity: Distentio Animi"

John Davis J.D., Ph.D., Medical Humanities, Brody School of Medicine "Methuselah's Children: Life-Extension and Fears of Collective Harm"

John Alan Cohan J.D., Law Offices of John Alan Cohan "The Question of Self-Identity and Brain Transplants"

José Manuel Ferreira, Maná Visual Audio S.L. "The Missing Word"

Kenneth Sills, Co-Director, Immortality Institute "Why Immortality?"

Lanfranco Aceti, Central Saint Martins, College of Art and Design "Prosthesis' Digital Aesthetic: The Integrated Technology of Human Extensions"

Mark Gubrud Ph.D., Research Associate, Center for Superconductivity Research "A Humanist Response to Transhumanism"

Patrick Hopkins Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, Millsaps College "Barbie Bodies, Bacon Bodies, Plato Bodies, Nietzsche Bodies: Differing Visions of How Biotechnology Should Be Used to Transform Human Bodies"

Stuart Hameroff M.D., Center for Consciousness Studies University of Arizona "Artificial quantum consciousness: Is it possible, what would it look like?"

Susantha Goonatilake Ph.D., Center for Studies of Social Change, New School for Social Research "Body, self and environment as constructed and reconstructed: Insights from Buddhist philosophy for the ethics of the future transhuman and posthuman"

Twyla Gibson, McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, University of Toronto "Philosophical Foundations and Methodological Framework for a Transhumanist Bioethics"

Wendell Wallach, WW Associates "Robot Morals: Creating an Artificial Moral Agent (AMA)"

William Grey Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, University of Queensland "Design constraints for the Posthuman Future"

Wrye Sententia, Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics "Neurocops: Policing the Borders of Human Cognition"

Greg Pence Ph.D., "Why Not Re-Invent Humans? Is This The Best We Can Do?" Philosophy & School of Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham

Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence "Posthumanity: A Nice Place To Live?"

Hatuna Pokrovskaia, NYU Colleges Against Cancer, New York Transhumanist Association "Ecce Trans-Homo: The Progression of Ethics in the Technological Revolution"

James Hughes Ph.D., Public Policy Studies, Trinity College "Transhumanist Bioethics: An Overview"

Jose Cordeiro, President, Sociedad Mundial del Futuro Venezuela "The Global Geopolitics towards Transhumanism and Beyond"

Rafal Smigrodski M.D., Ph.D., Department of Neurology, University of Virginia "Emerging Life Extension Therapies"

Ron Bailey, "Who's Afraid of PostHumanity? Politics and ethics of genetically engineering people" Science Editor Reason Magazine

Ramez Naam, President and CEO, Apex Nanotechnologies "The Wired Brain"

Munawar Anees Ph.D., Editor-in Chief, Periodica Islamica, Knowledge Management Systems "Transhumans and humans: Conflict or Convivencia?"

Aubrey de Grey Ph.D., Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge "Foreseeable, radical life extension: the biology to inform the philosophy"

Andrew Zolli, President, Z + Partners "Visions of the Future"

Miller Brown Ph.D., Dean of the Faculty, Trinity College "Sports and Transhumanism"

Anita Silvers Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, San Francisco State University "Human Variation and Fairness in Sports and Games"

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

For more information please contact:

James J. Hughes Ph.D.
Secretary, World Transhumanist Association http://www.transhumanism.org jhughes@changesurfer.com P.O. Box 128, Willington, CT 06279 USA

Public Policy Studies
Trinity College
71 Vernon St., Hartford CT 06106
860-297-2376, james.hughes@trincoll.edu

[yose]

Be there or be square:-)

[Lazarus Long]

BTW the way I have been asked to moderate the discussion With Dr. Rafal Smigrodski "Emerging Life Extension Therapies" and Dr. Aubrey de Grey "Foreseeable, radical life extension: the biology to inform the philosophy" on Saturday from 3:15 - 4:45 p.m.

I forgot to mention it.

[Bruce Klein]

Ahh, sounds like fun.

[yose]

I will be in Yale too. Anyone else going?

[John Doe]

I hope to go. I will need to find transportation to Yale and a place to sleep.

Edited by John Doe, 13 May 2003 - 06:00 PM.

[MichaelAnissimov]

I'm confirmed to go. Let's be sure to look around for each other, Yosé.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

Last minute post before heading off to bed - I have an early flight to Connecticut. I have a friend who is going who needs crash space. If anyone gets this and has space, please catch me tommorrow at registration. I hope to see you all there. I'm hoping they have internet access available there, or a Starbucks with wireless near by so I won't have part of my brain removed for the weekend ;^)

Best,
Peter

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

I'm hanging out in New Haven. Thank the gods of technology development and mass consumerism for Starbucks and T-Mobile. I can actually get some work done today I'll check in with periodic updates.

Best,
Peter

Edited by ocsrazor, 27 June 2003 - 05:41 PM.

[John Doe]

I was going to go but had to stop at the last minute. My father is a pilot for Delta Airlines so travel is not a problem. But I do not have a job this summer and could not afford the registration and hotel costs. I am also not old enough to rent a car which complicates matters. Perhaps next year.

[Bruce Klein]

Posting news from TV2003 here:


Alive and Ticking
The engineers of human souls at a Yale conference on Transhumanism
by Patrick Rucker - June 26, 2003

http://hartfordadvoc...t?oid=oid:22310

Imagine this. Waking from a coma, a man learns that his twin brother has been killed in the same car accident that destroyed his own face. Yet, the image he sees in the mirror is familiar -- a face transplant from his dead twin has meant he can continue a normal life but with his deceased brother's features.
Or this: Completely paralyzed by a degenerative neural disease, a mentally alert woman becomes a prisoner in a lifeless body. Then doctors install "neural prosthetics" that translate her brain waves into letters of the alphabet -- she thinks "move left index finger" and the implant translates that thought to the letter "A" which flashes on a computer screen. Soon the woman is "speaking" freely, again able to communicate.

Or this: An immune deficiency leaves an infant defenseless against infection. The prognosis is grim until doctors inject a molecular-sized robot that alters the child's genetic makeup so that she is practically invulnerable to illness.

If these medical breakthroughs seem distant, they shouldn't. The first two are possible today and the third might not be so far off.

But while modern science offers advances into the realm of the possible, it provides no guidelines as to when tinkering with the human person is morally acceptable, and when it isn't.

At the World Transhumanist Association's conference at Yale this weekend, over 130 scholars from around the world will discuss The Adaptable Human Body: Transhumanism and Bioethics in the 21st Century -- a major gathering of those who want life-altering science to change the very nature of human existence.

Among the ideas they will consider are ethical questions, like will the artificial intelligences of the future have legal rights? And what about the dilemma of self-identity after a brian transplant? -- thinkers from many fields will consider the implications of such a brave new world.

Artist and conference participant Natasha Vita-More, for instance, will present a paper on her creation, which she calls "Primo Transhuman" -- her model of a transhuman organism with uncommon physical strength, restorative health powers, natural anti-aging properties and computer-like intelligence.

"Primo shows the kind of human upgrades that will soon be possible," says Vita-More. "Some people will want to hold onto their good-old American bodies but others will want something more."

This weekend's conference is largely a gathering of enthusiasts for transhuman advances rather than the technicians who will bring it about. Still, organizers see their work as an important step in preparing the world for the dawn of a trans-human age.

"Transhumanism is the belief that it is possible and desirable to use technology to transcend the limits of the human body," explains James Hughes, a professor of public policy at Trinity College and secretary of the World Transhumanist Association. "We look forward to living in that age."

Conventional thinking has always considered medicine a tool for improving human health -- finding miracles to fight cancer, heal the lame and restore wellness, and so on. But what if today's technical leaps can do more?

What if this new technology could be harnessed to increase brain power, promote athleticism, even agelessness? Then couldn't today's medical technology be considered an evolutionary advance -- a transition between a human and a post-human species?

Hughes and other transhumanists think so -- and they imagine a day when human biology and modern technology combine to radically improve the human form.

This new being would be as intellectually superior to any current human genius as a modern man is to the other primates. Its body would be resistant to disease and immune to aging. It would control its own desires, moods and mental states so that it can experience levels of consciousness that today's human brains may not even be able to access.

"This sort of technology is already being developed, marketed and sold to us," Hughes says. "What are contact lenses and breast implants if not an attempt to improve our physical form? As transhumanists we are here to scrutinize the technology, embrace the good and criticize the bad. These issues are just too important to be rejected for the sake of a neo-Luddite fear of change."

In other words, Hughes and his transhumanist colleagues believe that we have already entered a period where our evolution as a species is being extended by technology -- We are engineering ourselves -- and there's no point in pretending that isn't what we are doing.

Instead, Hughes argues, what the world needs are philosophers, artists and policymakers to imagine a transhuman world and to ease us all into the age of transhuman discovery.

But there are those who say that morally, as humans, we need to reject the transhuman vision before it gets out of hand. These enemies of transhumanism can be found in some expected corners. Religious fundamentalists, biological purists and social apocalyptics are but a few.

But along with them are many hard-headed thinkers who warn that transhumanists are dabbling with powers they cannot fully control and so could unleash consequences far more damaging than any benefits.

"Transhumanists insist that their ideas will improve our lives," allows professor George Annas, chair of the Health Law Department at Boston University's School of Public Health. "But when it comes to questions like DNA splicing and other gene engineering, the real question is who should carry the burden of proof as to whether these advances will do more harm than good?"

Since the final impact of the sort of profound genetic engineering espoused by many transhumanists can never be measured, Annas says, it has to be prohibited.

"Adults can decide on their own lives but what about unborn babies?" Annas continues. "What about their right to live a normal life?"

At this weekend's conference, Annas will explain why he believes the genetic engineering espoused by many transhumanists should be considered a crime against humanity.

"What alarms me is the ethos that science should aim to create a new species or subspecies of humans," Annas says. "International anti-cloning treaties should be expanded to control that kind of engineering. Before anyone changes the nature of what it means to be human, they should at least have to solicit permission from the humans that exist now through the United Nations or another international body."

Still, Annas knows as well as other critics that the transhuman promise of increased mental and physical prowess is tempting.

In his recent critique of the transhuman vision, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age , author Bill McKibben recalls a 1995 survey that asked 200 Olympic hopefuls if they'd take a drug that would guarantee them a five-year winning streak and then kill them. Almost half said yes.

For McKibben, that survey points to the need for more stringent anti-doping screening and the need for modern culture to stress the merits of natural human achievement.

For Trinity professor Hughes, that natural ambition to improve performance points to the need for a fair-minded debate about the benefits of the transhuman vision.

"Consider space," Hughes offers. "One of the biggest constraints to space exploration is that the human body does not travel well. But what if a more robust, transhuman pilot were used. The kind of space exploration we can only imagine now might be possible."

Debate and discussion is fine, says Annas, a participant in the opening debate of the conference -- Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming Post-Human? Still, he harbors deep suspicion about transhumanism.

"What really gives me pause is whether we can control the technology," Annas says. "I'm not the only one who worries that this all ends like a scene from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle with the technology mastering the inventor."

[Discarnate]

It was a truely mindblowing amount of information. I cannot reccommend it highly enough, if you're even vaguely interested in so-called 'transhuman' technologies. I would reccommend that you do brush up on the commonly accepted information before you go, though - you'll almost certainly still get polite answers if you ask "what is nano?", but there are so many more interesting questions to ask... *smile*

-Discarnate

[Lazarus Long]

I am finally getting a chance to sit down and start a reflection on what transpired at the WTA Transvision 2003 Conference but before I do I would like to thank a number of people starting with you Bruce. I was greatly honored to represent our organization and while I think I could have done better I am none the less please with this first trial. I don’t think I left a poor impression though I am afraid I did talk too much, but that is after all why I was sent. The Conference wasn’t good, it was actually much better than that, it was very impressive.

It wasn’t spectacular for reasons of special effects but of the content and the personalities that gathered to debate and address significant issues and explain to the best of their ability complex technological options and opportunities.

I would also like to continue by thanking the members of our group that gathered to support my efforts and participate in the larger specter of the activities. I would start by thanking Discarnate, (John Benner) is for his support and advice, and he was always there when needed even if I would sometimes forget to ask for help. Michael Anissimov was also a consummate professional and demonstrated maturity well beyond his years. It deeply saddened me that our schedules and endeavors contradicted one another so that we couldn’t spend more time together. I had hoped to spend more time in discussion with you Michael.

Hugh Bristic was a continuous valuable contributor to every presentation where I encountered his presence. The only major regret I have is that the manner in which the various talks were organized made attending all I might want to simply impossible.

With respect to Ocsrazor (Peter Passaro) I cannot begin to explain how grateful I was for his educated participation. He in concert with some of the presentations (in particular the one I was honored to moderate between Aubrey de Grey PH.D. and Rafal Smigrodski M.D. PH.D.) provided in hours what some people spend months going to school to learn. I felt like I was already the beneficiary of an implant that allowed accelerated learning.

Before I go into more details about the various discussions and presentations, the open exchanges of poignant questions and answers as well as just the dynamic, virtually electric atmosphere of the event I would be remiss not to mention the incredible effort of James Hughes. By the end of the event it was firmly believed by many that he had already been cloned for he not only appeared to be in more than one place at a time but always where and when needed. We should be very grateful that he has chosen to put his estimable talent to our common cause because this is a person that would make a fortune should he ever leave academia for large scale media production.

I also was very pleased to meet and spend some time with Jose Cordiero and I believe we will be building significant bridges with our Latin American brothers sooner rather than later. Anders Sandberg PH.D., Nick Bostrom, Gregory Stock, Natasha Vita-Moore, Greg Pence PH.D., and Ron Bailey gave highly informative and articulate arguments that it was very rewarding to be present for and at the dinner I must add we were all deeply moved by the words of Dr. William Sims Bainbridge whose speech at the banquet can only be described as inspiring and almost radical. I only hope we can somehow get the words printed to this site at some point if they get published on http://www.transhumanism.org it was simply rousing to say the least.

I wish I could comment on Eliezer Yudkowsky’s and Michael’s talks but I was sadly either moderating or myself talking during their presentations. For this reason I would like to not only ask any of you that may have been present for their talks or mine to please provide an objective review of what transpired.

Your criticisms of my effort would certainly be greatly appreciated. I am prepared for the review of errors as I know I made a number that I have already learned from but the perspective of those of you that were present is a mirror that would help me to refine my technique and methods.

We accomplished a significant amount of networking and I hope that this event will have helped bring more interested people into our group.

As to some of the naysayers I think it is fair to include George J. Annas who I nevertheless must say is articulate, amusing, and generally rational though misguided and committed to what I consider the incorrect position. He did however observe my presentation with a minimum debate but that may have been more due to the shortness of time.

I am exhausted and will return to discuss other aspects as I get the opportunity but I want to close with what I consider extremely promising news. Dr. Rafal Smigrodski gave a talk that not only addressed an issue of importance with regard to one significant aspect of the aging process but announced a forthcoming paper that will announce a new technique for replacing damaged and mutated old mitochondria with new mitochondria that can extend our life expectancy a significant number of decades if the subsequent trials prove as positive as these early ones have been purported to be.

This process is called Mitofection and when the paper is released we will learn more as to its specific mechanism and also how the plans will go forward with to test the ability to replace the entire body’s damaged organelles.

What we were told is that the first stage of this process has already been accomplished and the replacement process functions in lower mammals. The clock is ticking on the first of the methods that may change the rules. This isn’t a panacea but it is important if this technique proves to be without side effects and can do what is promised. It promises to push that 120 year boundary when we come up against other concerns.

In closing this was but one of the exciting ideas and techniques discussed and of course as this is unknown in the literature should be treated with skepticism until it passes all the necessary scientific proofs. There were numerous other issues raised and I would hope that when Peter is more rested he can contribute his perspective on much of the neurophysiology that was discussed during the conference. A lot of issues were raised and perhaps Michael can give a review of Eliezer’s talk and visa versa?

Again I want to extend my sincere thanks to all of you that contributed to sending me to this conference and I hope that my small contribution will have added something to the overall mix that helped bring some more resistant minds over to our cause.

My sense of what we did was that it was extremely useful and important, more a beginning than a true result, but a true beginning of real results to come.

[Bruce Klein]

Ken,

Susan and I, wish to personally thank you for all of your efforts. I’ve already heard from John Benner (Discarnate) on how you gave a fine and convincing presentation. Now more than ever, I think we can make a difference, however small or large, but as long as we're moving in the right direction, we're bound to make a positive impact.

As you say, this is only a start, but what a great start indeed. With your help, we've now placed ourselves in a good position to advance the immortalist movement. And with the leadership from you and others, we'll continue to more toward a future where death is no longer certain and physical immortality is no longer a dirty word.

Thank You!
Bruce

---

-- As this does not merit its own post, I shall quietly sneak in here and send my own very warm regards to Ken, Michael, John and Peter who attended "on behalf" of all Immortality Institute members who could not make it this year. Thanks guys, looking foward to your stories! -- caliban

Edited by caliban, 01 July 2003 - 07:12 PM.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

I wanted to check in to give you my first post conference impressions (I'm in another Starbucks somewhere in very residential Connecticut [B)] - I return home tommorrow)

I greatly enjoyed meeting Laz (Ken), Hugh Bristic, Michael, and Discarnate (John) from the boards here and getting to meet Jim Hughes again. The Betterhumans team was terrific to meet - George and Simon were just so full of energy and purpose. It was great to see some old friends as well and to see they are still making great strides towards their own goals (John Smart - IAC, Aubrey de Grey - Methuselah Prize, Robert Bradbury - Robiobotics). I'm going to try and recruit Anders Sandberg into my lab, he is looking for a Post-Doc, and I think my mentor will soon be loooking for one. I made some new friends who will probably wind up being scientific or publication collaborators for me - Ramez Naam, Stuart Hammeroff, Anatoly Nichvoloda, Wrye Sententia, and Lanfranco Aceti. Many more people, my brain is definitely full of new ideas and it is going to take me at least a week to parse everything and finish establishing contact with everyone.

Eliezer's talk on Fun Theory was one of the most entertaining, but also contained deep information about the motivations for where we are heading with the converging philosophies of immortality, AI, transhumanism, etc. Bravo Eli! John Smart's post-conference briefing on the acceleration of technology was also incredibly information rich and parallel's my thinking on where accelerating developmental trends are taking us. I was focusing on the brain sessions so I unfortunately missed most of the talks on life extension - parallel sessions suck when you want to see everything - too much good stuff.

The most significant points from the conference for me were:
1) The neurobiology of cognition is not well understood by people working in AI. (The synapse/transistor comparison is NOT valid for estimating the computational power of a brain) Neuroscientists and AI researchers need to make an increased effort to reach out to each other to get better models of the brain based computation and to accelerate progress on building better structures for computation.

2)The debate about germ-line engineering is one area about transhumanism that makes me uncomfortable with the dominant position in our philosophical community. I found myself agreeing with George Annas that genetic experimentation on children by parents through germ-line engineering is not a good thing. I disagree with him that regulation is the necessary way to counter this trend, but I do feel it should be discouraged through education. I absolutely believe in the right to self-determination for individuals and I feel that through a combination of somatic genetic engineering and bioengineering within 2-3 generations all individuals will be able to determine their own morphological destinies.

3)I enjoyed immensely the projections on the social implications of the Transhuman movement and the associated technolgies. We need to do more deep thinking on how to smooth the shockwaves being caused by the rapid transitions in paradigms. The efforts of groups such as WTA, IAC, Imminst, Singinst, and the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics are vital to making sure we don't have a societal collapse.

More to come in the next week - I have generated a ton of notes from this weekend that I'm converting into essays.

Best,
Peter

[Discarnate]

Peter - regarding your points -

1) I believe Anders Sandberg would disagree with you on this one. True, the actual cell-level mechanism may or may not be flawed, but his position (as I understand it - may have gotten this wrong) was that you don't need that level of detail to undertake the creation of a consciousness. If, instead, you're referring to Sir Penrose & the Arizonan group's quantum-pumped-tubules theory, there also appears to be a good bit of dispute over it.

2) I agree that the experimentation could be very bad. However, I do think that a 'proven' cure for a genetic defect - sickle cell anemia, MD, Crohn's, or some forms of cancer - might well be best applied to a fetus to prevent damage during development, which in some cases appears to be the initial leading cause of the disease. The problem is in the 'augmentation' area, and the ongoing >H concept that there's no difference between aug & treatment makes this difficult to handle, IMO. Also, FWIW, I reject the arguement that the child's rights trump a parent's responsibilities. Children don't have the information or maturity to handle their rights, IMO - and a flat 18-and-you're-an-adult rule just don't cut it, but that's the current Law of the Land. And globally banning a technology which, according to the proponents of the ban, "could be implimented by a single person" is more'n silly - it's driving the technology underground, where it can pretty much be guaranteed to be developed in very nasty situations...

3) I found the projections fascinating, and more'n slightly scary - Dr Robin Hanson's economic projections regarding uploads, for instance (that was Thurs - IIRC he's published it elsewhere before) amongst others.

I look forward to your essays, and am working on a fairly long one myself regarding where we are, where we could go, and some of the problems along the way for a general audience. I'm not qualified for much more'n that. *wry grin*

-John/Discarnate

[reason]

There's an article by Ronald Bailey up at Reason Online:

http://www.reason.co.../rb070203.shtml

Anyone have a chance to meet the chap?

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org/

[Discarnate]

Not directly, but his closing notes were quite interesting. Also IIRC some of his questions at a couple of the sessions were pretty sharp.

[Lazarus Long]

Not enough, but we did converse a little and I very much enjoyed his closing address. Funny that you linked the article, I had planned earlier today to post his 2002 article to the Reason Online site and I was waiting till the text of his speech at the conference got posted. Thanks for posting it. It was very well delivered.

I very much enjoyed participating with him during a variety of question and answer periods such as Natasha's and my own.

Here is his Reason online article from August 2002.

Forever YoungThe new scientific search for immortality

Do you also write for Reason Online?

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

Replies to Discarnate
1)I don't think I have ever heard Anders mention anything that would contradict what I have been trying to tell the AI community. Right now a good comparison of biological and standard von Neumann/Turing computation is just not possible, the styles of computation are just so different. Biological brain computation is massively parallel in time and space, analog, and uses multiple systems for information flow (chemical synapses, electrical synapses, neuromodulators, local electric fields, etc.) all of which interact concurrently. von Neumann/Turing computation is for the most part linear, digital, and uses a single method for information flow. AI researchers continue to ignore these facts in developing comparisons between the two. There may be some low level information you can ignore, but most of the current models of brains coming from the AI side ignore many of the fundamental processes for information processing that exist in biological neural networks. You may be able to create an AI by not modeling biology and just developing a system that has the same order of complexity as the human brain, but AI researchers are also underestimating the difficulty of this task, as the brain is THE MOST complex structure we know of in the Universe. Raw processing power just not equal structural complexity.

I don't buy the Penrose/Hammeroff quantum conciousness hypothesis because they ignore compexity in their arguments and are proposing a single physical explanation for conciousness. Emergent properties of complex systems always arise because of increaing numbers of information loops that have greater numbers of interactions. Hammeroff may be on to something in talking about microtubules being involved though. Dendritic summation in single neuron modeling is still not understood and he may be on to something about microtubules being involved, but I believe he is looking at the wrong level by going all the way down to the quantum.

2)The core issue for me on germ-line genetic engineering is that you are going to have to experiment on humans at some point to develop the technology. I am uncomfortable with the idea of experimentation on anyone else, but I am completely supportive of self experimentation. Single gene defects are rare and will be easily fixable as compared to the complex multi-gene traits that most parents would want to alter for enhancement. The potential for unforseen side effects is extremely high in these multi gene-traits. I do not agree that legislation is necessary, but I do feel educating people as to the risks would be beneficial. I have a bit of personal bias here as well, as I feel bioengineering, MEMS, and nanotech will make genetic engineering irrelevant within 2-3 generations - making the whole discussion moot.

3)I'm sorry I missed Hanson's talk, it sounded very interesting. We need to continue to get out in front of potential problems and fully explore the possible consequences of technological advance through discussion. The more we talk about this stuff the less we will be suprised by what comes next.

Ron and Virginia Postrel of Reason are two of the most intelligent journalists you will find anywhere. We need more like them. Not conservative, not liberal, just rational.

Best,
Peter

[MichaelAnissimov]

Hi guys, I certainly agree that Transvision went excellently! My deepest thanks to the Immortality Institute for covering my registration fee. I too wish that I could have spent more time talking to everyone, but so many things were going on at once! Laz, your presentation was wonderful, and your capacity to freestyle on relevant immortality-related issues was very impressive. We had slightly too many slides for our presentation, but I was happy at their quality and how each one had our url at the bottom. It is genuinely hard for me to come up for a critique of your talk - it was very uplifting and inspiring in contrast with the more cut-and-dry science-minded presentations before it (which were also good, but in different ways). It is very important for us to be straightforward that the Immortality Institute is primarily an online organization, and I'm glad that was mentioned.

Talks with John Benner, Peter Passaro and others went very well - I only wished that the conference were longer and more chances for mingling were available. I don't know about you guys, but I actually needed around 8 hrs per day of sleep to function. At the next Transvision in Toronto, if you guys choose to attend it, we should definitely have an Immortality Institute mini-gathering - in a private room rather than a common area, heh. It was pleasant to be reassured that those who are articulate in discussing these topics online are equally as articulate in real life, possessing all the fantastic social and conversational skills that are still required for mutually beneficial interactions in realspace.

On the first day of Transvision, I was so excited that I woke up prematurely at 5:15AM! It was really cool to be staying in the same building, nay, on the same *floor* as all the big transhumanist thinkers and doers, an experience that happens all too rarely. Some of the folks who attended the conference clearly were not familiar with transhumanism in the general sense that we are, and it made me darn impressed that James Hughes and others were still able to get their attention and attendance at this wonderful event.

Laz, with regard to my talk, I will post an edited version of it online within a few days, along with all the digital camera shots I was able to take during the event. The town of New Haven and the architecture of the lecture halls were gorgeous and impressive, an excellent context for the sort of discussion we were having. I was happy to get at least 40 business cards out, and wish I could have networked more, but it's tough when you're interested in actually having a conversation with these people rather than simply throwing your card at them

I agree with Laz that George Annas was a moving and entertaining speaker, and I in fact agreed with a lot of his premises, but not his conclusions. Maybe he is already trained to only say premises that everyone agrees with, I'm not sure. It was evident, however, that he was trained. For example, during a certain session while Greg Stock was speaking, I saw Annas *continuously* fidgeting, polishing his glasses, changing position, and generally trying to distract the audience with a flurry of motion. I'm convinced that this was not accidental, and it disappoints me to see this sort of behavior even during an academic debate. Annas also had more of a tendency to twist words around, yelling out "so I see you don't care about humanity!" or something along those lines when Stock said "I don't care about the species, I care about individual people". Emphatically quoting someone out of context may be acceptable in the lax industry of reporting, but not here.

Eliezer's talk was very entertaining and funny, titled "Posthumanity: a Nice Place to Live?" which went into Fun Theory, which includes the notion that the number of possible fun things to do expands exponentially with increased intelligence. No Singularity or Friendly AI related stuff was really discussed. Questions such as "why is it fun to eat a cookie?" were addressed, and the distinction between philosophically acceptable fun (perhaps increasing the level of complexity in the universe) and philosophically unacceptable fun (pushing a button hooked up to your pleasure center).

With regard to the points that Peter and John mentioned:

Of course I agree with Peter on the Hameroff thing. We actually discussed that at the conference. I'm not sure too many people there took Hameroff's idea very seriously.

1) This is what I wrote before I read over your paragraph completely, Peter:
It is true that the neurobiology of cognition is not well understood by the people working in AI, but why is an understanding of distinctly human neurobiology necessary to understand general intelligence? I would point to higher levels of organization. Neurons are just incidental processing tools that evolution had available at the time when it started to build nervous systems - a neuroscientist does not need a detailed understanding of particle physics in order to create appreciably close models of working neurons, and a cognitive engineer will not necessarily need a detailed understanding of biological neurons in order to recapitulate the critical regularities of general intelligence in code (although it might help). However, I definitely think there should be more communication back and forth between AI and the cognitive sciences, and I don't take any so-called AI designer seriously who isn't deeply familiar with cognitive science.
This is what I'm writing after reading it more closely:
I'm pretty sure I agree with just about everything you're saying, although I fear that a swing of the pendulum too far in the other direction (biologically inspired, overly complex mimics of neuronal networks) could have just as negative of an outcome for AI as oversimplification. It's interesting, anyway, how most people I know of involved in cognitive science have much more sane ideas than actual AI designers about AIs.

2) I agree with Peter that germ-line engineering will be rendered moot by more powerful technologies. But I don't understand how you can mention MEMS and biotech in the same breath as nanotech. The latter is vastly more powerful, and requires far less money than the other two to become advanced once it gets started. At least, that's what the Foresight Institute and the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology are arguing. They are also arguing that these changes will probably be arriving in possibly less than a decade, not within two or three generations. I know that Murphy's Law makes us intuitively disbelieve this, but the way I interpret Murphy's Law in this scenario is that "things not working out as planned" is more likely to result in huge disasters as consequences of the technology rather than the technologies not being developed at all...

Again, thanks to the Immortality Institute and everyone, I had a great time and I can't wait to do it again next year!

[Lazarus Long]

Sorry, about the visual data overload Michael, but after the third time I was asked to move the laptop it crashed and I didn't know it because we had the screen down for the previous speakers. In battle, as with problems in the cockpit, those who panic die. [":)]

It threw my timing off dramatically when I had to work the script blind while waiting for the computer to reboot, but I tried to resequence back as the screen came up. As it is, it made me forget to call you guys up to pass out the papers because just as the screen came alive I was about to call for help. [8)]

I had purposely switched from first to be the last speaker, after I studied who would be ahead of me and then decided to try and tailor the substance of the presentation anyway. But what had been unexpected was my covering up the massive glitch and that too was a contributor to the freestyling. I did have a script, and I had not only rehearsed it, but I had written much of it, so I was able to swallow the panic, throw most of it out and charge on. )

After all so much of what I had prepared to discuss was preempted by numerous worthy speakers, so I decided instead of beating a dead horse to breathe some life back into it with a little rabble rousing. I am glad that the "inspiring message tact" was received well. lol

I had wanted to introduce the example of vitrification without cryo as an aside but also as an example of the biological machine. I left the screen on auto switch and only intervened when I saw I need to accelerate the pace to cover the lost time from the beginning. [!]

It was an aspect that can be smoothed out but the strategy was well worth it, in as much that much of what I said in that room segwayed beautifully into Ron Bailey's wonderful closing speech and that was just a coincidence of logical synchronicity, not any act of forethought and planning.

"I just love it when a plan comes together." [":)]

I know that Murphy's Law makes us intuitively disbelieve this, but the way I interpret Murphy's Law in this scenario is that "things not working out as planned" is more likely to result in huge disasters as consequences of the technology rather than the technologies not being developed at all

Murphy and Moore at war isn't about intuition Michael. It is that when Murphy is right it can also make you very dead very quickly and The Law of Unintended Consequences is what interferes with even the best laid plans; the ones with the very BEST intentions. [huh]

I am all in favor of planning, the "Moore" the merrier, but then still comes more evaluation and updating and as evolutionary synergy begins to accelerate and this means a type of planning that most people are very uncomfortable with like adlibbing when my computer crashed just as I needed it. [B)]

[hughbristic]

Hey all,

Back from TV03 and agree with others it was pretty cool. It was especially neat meeting all these transhumanist folks whom I've only experienced virtually, particularly the Imminst crew, Discarnate, Ocsrazor, and Laz (wish I'd had a chance to say hi to Michael while I was there, but there was so much I wanted to see and do and so little time).

I was encouraged by the fact that not everyone invited to speak was a believer and that those chosen to defend the other side were not, by and large, outright religious kooks like Kass, but reasonable people like Annas. I agree with others that he made some good points about the dangers (which I think Stock treated a little too glibly), though I don't like his solutions.

I found Hammerhoff's talk quite intriguing. I'd only heard of that quantum stuff secondhand and it makes me really want to learn more physics. The stuff about the information processing role of microtubules in microorganisms and the brain was fascinating and makes a good arument for the brain being more complicated than AI researchers suppose, but I didn't like his equating of consciousness with quantum phenomena. Basically, he didn't really seem to define consciousness sufficiently for me. He seemed to equate it with qualia and a traditional free will, which I don't think are very well-defined or helpful concepts. It felt like the reason why he equates consciousness with quantum phenomena is because the way he views consciousness is so poorly defined that it needs something not strictly deterministic to account for it. It struck me as hand-waving at a certain point, but I really need to study it more before I make up my mind.

I was really grateful that big shot researcher types like Ocsrazor, Aubrey DeGrey, and Rafal Smigrodzki took the time to personally chat with me a little and answer my dumb questions.

Quite an experience.

Hugh

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

Michael -

1)I fully agree with you that you don't have to model every interaction and every structure in brain to understand how it works. My doctoral dissertation is going to be an analysis of information processing in ~10,000 neurons and I'm trying to find which is the "important" information there. So, I'm focusing on what the fundamental constants are that can be tweaked to affect network behavior and then I'm moving on to modeling network dynamics. For me it is all about what level you want to understans at the system at.

I wouldn't be particularly interested in how single neurons work, except for the fact that we still don't understand how much information they process, or what their mathematical integration functions are. If we understood that, you could through away alot of the strictly biological information and focus on network properties alone. I absolutely think that mathematics is the critical problem here, and we need a "Newton" of complex dynamics to come along and solve the outstanding problems in economics, neuroscience, comsology, etc. and fully integrate evolution and development in structures of all scales.

I also completely agree that you don't have to do it the same way that the lady with the billion year engineering lead on us did it, but it is sometimes much simpler to follow her example than try to completely explore the state spaces she has already covered. Moravec and others have estimated we are currently closing the gap at roughly 1 million times the speed the green lady did it at though, and this trend is accelarating exponentially. BTW - my personal concept of conservation is information based, that we should be studying biology and ecosystems specifically because we should be trying to preserve all that information that evolution has already generated.

2)I don't see biotech, bioengineering, MEMS, and Nano as completely seperate fields. They are deeply intertwined and represent a continuum of technologies. Be careful of many of the nano-magic arguments that are out there. Having the power to manipulate single atoms doesn't give you the knowledge to know how to put them together in interesting ways. This is similar to the problem of AI where we now have vast computational resources, but we don't yet understand how to assemble it correctly to do the things that biological computational devices do. (My TV2003 mantra - "It's the complexity dammit") The fields that are leading the way for nano are assembling this critical information - engineers in the trenches putting stuff together and letting it loose in the real world to see what works.

On the imminst get togethers - maybe we should just show up at BJ's doorstep one day and invade the War Room

Hugh and Laz, I'm glad I could provide some intellectual stimulation lol

One additional thought from Transvision:
Passage of information should be a duty of any intelligent person - retaining your information for yourself without communicating it to the world is such a shame. I've met quite a few scientists and thinkers who can't communicate their interesting ideas, and it is incredibly frustrating. I'm a big fan of Feynman's teaching style and his comments that if we can't explain something at the college freshman level we don't really understand it. I would encourage everyone to adopt as clear and straightforward communication style as possible - i.e. avoid jargon whenever possible and avoid circuitous or meandering trains of thought. Strive for efficiency in communication because it represents the speed limit for our cultural development (and the reason I want my cell phone/internet access implant as soon as possible . [B)] )

Happy 4th of July to you 'Mericans out there.

Best,
Peter

[Lazarus Long]

I have since the event initiated a network linkage of our forum group with the NY Transhumanist group by joining their forum as well. I have not asked for their permission to reprint this but I thought it was appropriate to share.

I know some of you are members of that organization and if my reprinting from one board to another is something that worries anybody I won't make a practice of it but as our analysis of this event here in our organization is too important, I couldn't ignore the objective third quality of these observations that are astute and very relevant to our own current internal "organizational discussion" in this forum at this very time.

I have left the links in place for anybody from the NYC area to use if they are interested in pursuing more information about the New York City Transhumanists. I think the other aspect about building bridges between our orgaizations is easier done than said. It is a living bridge.


Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:38:29 -0400
From: "MIKE TREDER"
Subject: NYTA Meeting Recap

On Thursday night, July 3, the New York Transhumanist Association (NYTA) held a meeting to review and discuss the events of the WTA’s Transvision’03 Conference at Yale University. NYTA members in attendance, all of whom attended TV03, were Hatuna Pokrovskaia, John Lobell, Bill Sandler, Carmine Francese, and Mike Treder. Also attending were two guests: Brigham Golden, a Columbia University anthropologist, and Lynn Rawden, a specialist in computer art. Lynn said what attracts her to TH is the desire to “imagine the unthinkable, then see it happen in our lifetimes”.

In answer to the question, “How did TV03 change your opinion of
transhumanism or of the people who call themselves transhumanists?”

Bill responded that he was pleasantly surprised how many real scientists and real thinkers were at the conference, discussing realistic scenarios for the future. All conference attendees at the meeting agreed that the event was a huge success and even more enjoyable than expected.

Several people said they wanted to hear more reporting from scientists and academics on actual current research that is relevant to transhumanist interests. John stated that he sees three groups of people who impact the development of TH advancements:

1) those who do the actual scientific and technological work;

2) those who think and write about future advances from a theoretical standpoint; and

3) those who promote the work, especially in the sense of public relations. He said it would be good for the WTA to grow to the point where we can professionalize, able to hire staffers that can immediately respond to news articles and opinion pieces in major media outlets around the world.

John said TV03 was a success because learned and interesting people from so many different fields came together to explore similar interests. Hatuna discussed the need for TH courses at the university level in many different departments. Brigham said he sees a need to promote interdisciplinary thinking and interaction within universities. John responded that the politics of academia and other arcane concerns make it difficult for students to take courses that cross disciplines.

Everyone agreed that the next WTA conference, tentatively planned for
Toronto in spring 2004 and with a focus on transhumanist themes in arts and culture, holds great promise. Some meeting attendees are already thinking about papers to submit for next year’s conference.

Our next NYTA meeting will be held on Thursday, July 31, at the usual
location in downtown Manhattan. More information about a meeting topic will be coming soon.

See you in the future!

Mike Treder

Executive Director, New York Transhumanist Association - http://NYTA.net
Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html

The New York Transhumanist Association is an affiliated chapter of the World Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit membership organization that works to promote discussion of the possibilities for radical improvement of human capacities using advanced technologies. Transhumanism is a growing movement concerned with ethically expanding technological opportunities for people to live longer and healthier lives, to enhance their intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities, and to enjoy a future of expanded freedom and prosperity.

NYTA members meet on the first Thursday of each month, from 7:00
until about 9:00 PM.

For more information, see http://NYTA.net

[Bruce Klein]

Tripping on TransVision
The World Transhumanist Association's first major conference marks transhumanism's movement into the mainstream
Monday, July 07, 2003, 8:11:04 AM CT


Simon Smith

http://www.betterhum...ID=2003-07-07-2

excerpt:
In one telling event, for example, neural engineer Peter Passaro sat at my table and debated a man with a shaved head and a long white goatee for 15 minutes about possible quantum effects in neurons. Noticeably aggravated with the man's tenacity, Passaro kept returning to his point about complexity rather than quantum mechanics being able to explain consciousness. Then, suddenly, something in his own brain tweaked. "Wait. You're Stuart Hameroff," he said, while the rest of us laughed, knowing the entire time that Passaro's combatant was the controversial quantum consciousness theorist, and not realizing that Passaro had not.

[Bruce Klein]

Laz, did you have a chance to talk with Gregory Pence?

[Lazarus Long]

Yes he was my moderator and he seemed to be in a hurry to leave as he cut off the Q&A period after my talk. I don't think it was personal I think he had a flight but I did chat with him after his discussion as well. I find him articulate and spot on for many issues. He is down there where all you "good Ole boys" are.

We certainly do have a solid Confederate Contingent in our group Bruce ) though I think y'all be seeing some more Yankees soon too.

[Bruce Klein]

July 11th, 2003 TransVision Review article by Center for Genetics and Society (CGS)




TRANSHUMANISM RELOADED

For three days in June, scholars, computer programmers, scientists, social theorists, and bioethicists gathered at Yale University for Transvision USA, a conference sponsored by the World Transhumanist Association (WTA). This year's event, the first Transvision conference to be held in North America, was an attempt to promote transhumanism among mainstream scholars and scientists in the United States. Approximately 130 people from around the world attended.

What is transhumanism and why all the fuss?

More: http://www.genetics-...r/index.html#II