Transhumanism - the gods of upload
SANDBERG 'might I ask (somewhat impolitely) what extropianism has to do with transhumanism philosophy? extropianism is a 20th century movement;
XX And extropianism is a part of this stream of thought. What is so strange with that?
SANDBERG "I don't buy it. I believe that extropians consider themselves "better" than history, outside of it, unconstrained by it. Which is a mighty bit of a problem, as well as world-class arrogance. I haven't seen any indication that extropians believe in any history before the Epoch.
This incoherence clearly harboured the usual themes of arrogance and contempt.
Transhuman Mailing List Phil Goetz on: Ethics: Animals, Humans, Transhumans
Today, we have animals and trans-animals (humans). When a trans-animal wants the same thing as an animal -- a rain forest, for instance -- the animal loses. When a trans-animal needs an animal for labor, it figures out how to condition the animal to want to serve the trans-animal.
Why should trans-humans act any differently?
Because we are more reasonable than Trans-animals?
Because we want to set a good example?
Because we have morals?
But the Trans-animals believe they are being reasonable and moral in their treatment of animals. Why should transhumans feel moral obligations towards humans?
I am not advocating animal rights. I am saying it is inconsistent to
Not advocate animal rights even when they conflict with human desires, and at the same time to claim that transhumans will have any moral obligation to take notice of human rights.
Except many people do advocate animal rights. And many people who is carnivorous object to animal cruelty.
No, that is a complete dodge. The percentage of people who seriously advocate animal rights is a tiny minority. The level of kindness and consideration humans give to animals would be considered completely unacceptable to humans if that were the same level of kindness and consideration given them by transhumans."
This idea that monkeykind has got it coming to them is prevalent amongst these people. These people comprise some of the worlds top scientists.
Subject: power: Singularity, Vinge, and Concrescence.
"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. "
- Vernor Vinge, lecture for NASA scientists, 1993
(complete talk available at :
In 1980, Vinge published a novella, "True Names"; his first to deal with what he calls "The Singularity".
What is The Singularity?
The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than Human intelligence. There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
So the word is out amongst the strange atheistic scientists that they can live forever as digital dream either in a black box, or a continually renewing implanted clone or as a cyborg. However as far as I can tell - their faith in escaping the lie of total death when their own materiality/mortality fails is misplaced.
The problem right at the heart of the computer industry is that although it can continue to build massive supercomputers with number crunching powers - they simply have not got enough public domain theory and resources to make that computing power portable and globally available.
The way that it can and should be done - and probably is, beyond our knowing, in some hive somewhere - is that we draw analogies of the processes we are observing.
This taking the long view [philosophically] in context is called a top down approach - as opposed to the hopeless task of one-for-one duplication of every 'atom' and its interactions - the bottom up approach. It's hopeless because the arithmetic required is attempting to emulate random complexity and chaos and will also take it out of context.
The current crop of public domain computing science will never be a threat to anyone so we maybe have to realise that Non-Human computing awaits the confused Monkeys.
Transhuman Mailing List
"Corwyn J. Alambar"
This is a problem - however in the context of the democracy discussion, it became important to emphasize that democracy isn't necessarily the "best" solution, either. A functioning democracy assumes either an educated, interested populace (which one might argue that the US possesses neither) or elected representatives who are (and this is less and less true as time goes on - where are our "principled statesmen" now?). Given the current state of education and involvement, "democracy = good" is not necessarily a valid assumption anymore, stupid things, yet we do not question their intelligence so much as their common sense. There are admittedly those who do not have the cognitive resources to adequately ascertain successful from unsuccessful outcomes - however we have no real way to measure this save in the most subjective manner.
Waldemar and I came up with a concept during a late night discussion a few years ago, the difference between being "korkad" (corky? in the following I will use the word dense) and stupid. A stupid person has low intelligence, he cannot solve problems or think well (for whatever reason). A dense person cannot think "outside the box", cannot extend his thinking to encompass new possibilities. It is possible to be quite stupid but not dense - those people are often gullible, but can accept new possibilities. It is also possible to be intelligent and dense - the archetypal example is the bureaucrat who applies a considerable amount of intelligence and education to solving problems within a certain framework but who is unable to even think of any alternatives to the framework or handle problems outside it.
Transhuman Mailing List "Joseph Larson"
I still think that the majority of persons are less than worthy of being part of our overall decision making process as societies. however, that ends up sounding like I believe anyone who disagrees with me is too dumb to be part of policy making, which is not what i want to get across at all.
I wonder who is actually doing the decision-making on a societal level? I would say you cannot get rid of the dumb people from the loop, because even if only certified reasonable and nice people hold office, the actions and ideas of the dumb people will still be decisions. After all, even the things we do at home are part of the overall social decision making - which detergent do I buy, do I watch certain television shows, who do I phone?
Maybe we could have a discussion forum for us pre-singularity old-timers laughing at the "good old days before total concept transfer and such new-fangled gadgetry..." :-)
So we can see then that there is a large group of intelligentsia that truly believe that they will one day be omnipotent. Except that the basis for this belief appears to be built on a rather stupid understanding of the nature of reality and the failings of technology.
Science has failed society in numerable ways - its applications have lost their rigour and regulation when faced by the political and industrial machinery of C20 corporations.
The real lack of unity in relativity seems to preclude a mastery of gravity and energy - there are no cures for cancer or aids now deployed and the pollution levels in-built within the human nutritional cycle are set to rise with wholesale introduction of untested products.
Everywhere we look we see the failure of scientific method - the slow painstaking analysis and testing required to make advances - and instead it is replaced by posturing and spin - and accusations of anarchy.
In 1936, Dr. Reiser, introduced and promoted the concept of "radio-eugenics" in the scientific Journal of Heredity. This promotes research into the applications of radiation for evolution. Dr. Reiser states that we learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that not only does radiation cause massive destruction but that even those who survive "the baptism by fire" have children with severe birth defects. He then states that unfortunately that is how evolution works and that hopefully with the proper applied harmonic resonance of radiation then a new human society and a new "World Sensorium" will be achieved. The "World Sensorium" of Dr. Reiser is based on utilizing the radiation of the ionosphere, amplifying it with high technology, and applying it globally to cause mutations. The effect is to achieve not only a higher dimensional reality but to harness the zero-point energy.
Dr. Reiser's work is then published in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram newsletter and Sri Aurobindo's students propose that the future body of humanity will be radioactive (Letters on Yoga III
In 1975 Dr. Reiser publishes "Cosmic Humanism and World Unity" (Gordon and Beech) as part of a series for the World Institute. This book calls the plan for the World Sensorium, "The Matrix" several times and states that, in concept, it is closest to H.G. Well's 1936 proposal for a "World Brain". The World Brain was inspired by the NeoPlatonic concept of the Matrix outlined by Professor John Ruskin, a favorite source of inspiration for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Dr. Reiser explictly describes the evolution of the Matrix by stating that the Earth is an egg and in the egg is an embryo. The embryo feeds off the humans, animals and plants, as the ectoderm and entoderm of the egg, in order to create the new World Mother or the Matrix, the Sub-Stance or Psi-Plasma of Nondualism. Again unfortunately, according to this plan, most of humanity and the environment are seen as necessary costs to developing the next level of evolution.