7 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Do any of you here ever go to atheist forums and try to commicate interesting concepts about science with traditional atheists? Do you ever find that they are so completely focused on disproving Christianity that nothing else matters to them? [mellow]

I find this to be disconcerting. Granted, I enjoy trashing Creationism just as much as the next atheist (edit: I now consider myself an agnostic/edit:nope. atheist against, hehe), but I also don't focus on it day and night. I have plenty of issues dealing with science that occupy my mind most of the time. By always debating whether Christianity is true or false we (brights, atheists, secular humanists, etc...) are playing ball on the Christian's field. WE NEED TO SET THE AGENDA, NOT THE CHRISTIANS. And in my mind, the best way to set the agenda is through Immortalism/transhumanism. The only way that Christianity will ever be castigated to the grave yard of dead religions is if a viable alternative is offered. Traditional atheism doesn't do this, and there in lies the problem. Immortalism does, and there in lies the solution.

Comments anyone?

Edited by DonSpanton, 05 April 2006 - 12:29 PM.

[Jace Tropic]

Don, I totally agree. But I would still suggest that Immortalism/Transhumanism is a difficult agenda to sell. Having faith in ultraintelligence in which we are not allowed to comprehend or anthropomorphize, but just having enough faith that working toward it will solve all of our problems in light of the fact that it’s fundamentally easier to want less than to want more (the Transhumanist paradox in which Transhumanists generally endorse Occam’s Razor but can’t acknowledge keeping needs simplistic and congruent with purposeless reality), is practically just as ludicrous as angels and demons.

However, you are absolutely right. Atheists must set the agenda if physical immortality for sentient-kind is to be at all possible, regardless of the all the numerously wild ethical systems in all our atheistic glory. After all, we are 5 million year old winners not because of genetic across-the-board conformity.

[DJS]

I would still suggest that Immortalism/Transhumanism is a difficult agenda to sell. Having faith in ultraintelligence in which we are not allowed to comprehend or anthropomorphize

I do not believe that 'buying into' SAI is a prerequisite for becoming a transhumanist or an Immortalist, although I personally have come around somewhat to the idea of AI and to the information based side of Immortalism in general.

I never bring up AI when having a preliminary conversation with an atheist unexposed to our meme. I usually go with the life extension meme. It's more orthodox and easier to attach to contemporary issues such as therpeutic cloning or gene therapy. Stem cell is particulary easy to build upon as it is a hot button issue within our society and many free thinkers have at least a rudimentary understanding of what it entails.

Case in point: often I will see the traditional potential applications of therapeutic cloning being discussed on an atheist forum (such as potential cures for Parkinsons, diabetes, cirrhosis, etc.) and I will step in and point out the 'untraditional' potential applications. Then I'll plug Michael West's The Immortal Cell and his site www.michaelwest.org. I consider West to be utterly main stream and this is important. We want to show the uninitiated that our movement's line of reasoning has a solid basis in the real world and mainstream science.

the Transhumanist paradox in which Transhumanists generally endorse Occam’s Razor but can’t acknowledge keeping needs simplistic and congruent with purposeless reality), is practically just as ludicrous as angels and demons.

I think I understand what you're getting at and I am inclined to agree, but could you further ellaborate?

After all, we are 5 million year old winners not because of genetic across-the-board conformity.

3.6 to 4.0 MYO winners, but what's a million yrs in the scheme of things? )

Why do I bother?

Because the way I look at it, in the United States alone (leaving aside a secular Europe), there are 30 million individuals who are close to "getting it". If we could convince even 10% of this 30 million that life extension is feasible and worthwhile then we would become a force to be reckoned with.

One last thing. Another idea I have for trying to open the door to our meme among atheists is by presenting them with a common enemy and showing how that enemy is threating their freedoms and the progress of society (AKA; the enemy of my enemy is my friend ). As I stated earlier, most atheists love to attack what they see as the negative impact of Christianity upon society. Nothing gets under a free thinker's skin like a fundie standing in the way of medical progress and Kass (with his close ties to the Bush Administration) couldn't be a more perfect straw man. I plan on utilizing this strategy in the not-too-distant future.

[Jace Tropic]

DonSpanton: I do not believe that 'buying into' SAI is a prerequisite for becoming a transhumanist or an Immortalist…

I probably tend to think that the prospect of physical immortality invokes a lightning-fast thought response which includes apprehending the direction of intelligence in general—knowing and doing everything. Whether it will be augmented minds or seed AI propelling us in this direction, it’s nothing we are allowed to imagine or speculate about, only that the qualitative idea is there. Nevertheless, it is still a very tough faith that alienates existentialistic atheists.

DonSpanton: If we could convince even 10% of this 30 million that life extension is feasible and worthwhile then we would become a force to be reckoned with.

Are you familiar with the show “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (this show and crystal meth are the whole reasons for living)? Aside from John Sperling, I think that some of the most dynamic powerhouses for supporting life extension would be some of the cast from this show, and their affiliations. I’m currently working on it though…

[DJS]

I probably tend to think that the prospect of physical immortality invokes a lightning-fast thought response which includes apprehending the direction of intelligence in general—knowing and doing everything. Whether it will be augmented minds or seed AI propelling us in this direction, it’s nothing we are allowed to imagine or speculate about, only that the qualitative idea is there. Nevertheless, it is still a very tough faith that alienates existentialistic atheists.

You have the mind of a philosopher, and as such "apprehending the direction of intelligence in general" may come easier for you than for most. I can tell you that it is not the way I arrived at the concept of physical immortality. My initial thoughts were regarding biotech/nanotech and the implication on life span -- I was a materialist very unsatisfied with the choices available to him. Admittedly this is a more conservative avenue by which to arrive at our conclusions, and at the time I was extremely skeptical about the potential for SAI, but now that I have had more time to converse with members of the Imm/transhum community I am beginning to see the subtle logic that goes along with information based paths to immortality. Still, I would like to reiterate my contention that, when trying to sell the meme, pointing out Kurzweilian trends is not the way to go with the average atheist.

What we are discussing here is really quite representative of the rift that exists within our community. I tend to think that the differences are insignificant when compared to the similarities and that in reality there is a great, underlying convergence that many members of our community are not aware of.

Are you familiar with the show “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (this show and crystal meth are the whole reasons for living)? Aside from John Sperling, I think that some of the most dynamic powerhouses for supporting life extension would be some of the cast from this show, and their affiliations. I’m currently working on it though…

I've always been a Seinfeld freak and I was hooked on Curb Your Enthusiasm from the first episode I watched. The episode revolving around Larry trying to find a new chef (bald chef who got caught by Larry wearing a toupee in public and summarily fired or opening night with the turrets chef...) for his restaurant is very funny. As far as CryMeth, if the year were 1998 I would tend to agree.

[John Doe]

Do any of you here ever go to atheist forums and try to commicate interesting concepts about science with traditional atheists? Do you ever find that they are so completely focused on disproving Christianity that nothing else matters to them? 

I find this to be disconcerting. Granted, I enjoy trashing Creationism just as much as the next atheist, but I also don't focus on it day and night. I have plenty of issues dealing with science that occupy my mind most of the time. By always debating whether Christianity is true or false we (brights, atheists, secular humanists, etc...) are playing ball on the Christian's field. WE NEED TO SET THE AGENDA, NOT THE CHRISTIANS. And in my mind, the best way to set the agenda is through Immortalism/transhumanism. The only way that Christianity will ever be castigated to the grave yard of dead religions is if a viable alternative is offered. Traditional atheism doesn't do this, and there in lies the problem. Immortalism does, and there in lies the solution.

Comments anyone? 

I started developing the idea that religion is premature/frustrated transhumanism before I discovered that Mike West said the exact same thing. In this regard, some atheists might be even further from transhumanists than Christians -- because Christians would seem to hunger for immortaltity more. I personally regard transhumanism as a wonderfully optimistic compliment to the atheist worldview which can be terrifying and depressing. I also agree that Christians should not "set the agenda" of a debate. One of the very first questions I ask Christians is "why not Islam or Hinduism?"

The question of whether or not transhumanism will become popular is interesting. I personally favor a more optimistic prediction that as people begin to see Time Magazine and The New York Times writing about the War on Aging the movement will grow exponentially and reach a critical mass. However, I could also see a more pessimistic future in which most people are simply emotionally unprepared to confront an indefinite lifespan and biological enhancement.

[PaulH]

I resonate with this delima. Most athiests having in many cases escaped the pain of a religious upbringing or culture, have emotional wounds and therefore an axe to grind. Such efforts I suppose are therapeutic for the budding young independent thinker, and perhaps necessary as a catharsis, but it certainly does little to change the minds of most theists. I agree, that time would be better spent pursuing what you do believe in, rather than what you don't. It's certainly more productive.

Beyond that I only have one prevailing problem with most athiests, and that is they completely discount "trancendent experience", throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Who cares whether such sublime experiences are arbitrary brain states produced by a flood of seratonin and endorphins or are something else? It doesn't matter! As Hans Moravec has repeated often, simulated experience is for all philosophical purposes as real as non-simulated experience. And besides, how could we tell the difference? How do we know we are currently not in some kind of hyper-advanced "matrix" simulation of a post-singularity SI?

[DJS]

The more I see this discussion play out, the more I think I should have put it in memetics.

JD and Planetp, I agree with your sentiments entirely. [thumb] I would also like to add that belief is very closely tied to personal identity. This makes any attempt to modify an individual’s world view extremely difficult as it is often viewed by the recipient as an attack. To quote Lazarus:

Lazarus Long  Oh BTW, don't expect to endear yourselves to very many people this way. Most people take assaults on their systems of faith personally; no matter how much you make the arguments objective and depersonalize the specifics. Remember the problem begins with the definition of "self" and since people attach themselves to religious and cultural themes that are related to the paradigm shifts longevity represent they will resent the implication of "fault" no matter how ignorantly innocent you try to get them to feel. It is still fault and it triggers the psychology of a defensive posture. I suggest we take a more tangential approach.