7 ms·

In case like me, you were also wondering what Transhumanists are supposed to believe in (what the article says is): > transhumanists have deepened their belief

by nico 2y ago

In case like me, you were also wondering what Transhumanists are supposed to believe in (what the article says is): > transhumanists have deepened their belief in a fated future in which the human species will achieve “augmented” evolution through fusing with machines, leading to the emergence of an artificial superintelligence that will far outstrip all human knowledge and achieve God-like powers (The Singularity). This digital deity will lead us to a new era, in which all human biological limitations will be transcended; bringing about end to sickness, suffering and even death, and leading us to colonise the cosmos

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Well, when you put it like that, it doesn't not sound like a cult at all.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Phrasing does a lot of things. If I rephrased the quoted passage as: > transhumanists have deepened their hope for future in which the human species will augment evolution by fusing with machines (as we already do with brain-computer interfaces, but better), and the potential that current AI — which is already helping us decode proteins, perform and write up scientific research — will continue to improve, helping us to expand our medical knowledge even faster and help us develop cures for things currently beyond us. As the AI we already have has allowed us read the complete connectome — neural structure — in small animals, there's even a possibility we may expand this to human brains (though we don't know how long this will take us to do!), and if we manage that, then it would allow us to back up and restore our minds as we already do with digital documents. Doesn't seem nuts, unless you believe humans have souls that can't be digitised. That said, I'm skeptical about any specific future: when the only flying machine you've heard of is an airship, it's easy to imagine a future filled with them — what's our airship? What's the thing everyone expects but which won't happen?
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    It doesn't seem nuts, it just seems to miss the point, even ignoring souls. No matter how perfect the copy it'll still be a new instance, and the original meat brain instance of myself will one day fail and that consciousness will cease. A copy may fire up and it may be perfect could be a brand new "me", but the consciousness that is the running instance of me will be no more. There's no escape from that. I don't care about copies of myself running around, I'm not that egotistical to think the world needs more of me, but the eternal dark of death scares me, and duplication does nothing to assuage those fears.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Some care about that, others don't. The eternal dark that I can't experience doesn't scare me, but I'd still like to have a backup — or at least, I did, then I started seriously considering what else can be done with those backups besides restoring from them… I probably still would, but I'm much less optimistic about people than I used to be.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        A backup of what? And why do you want a copy of yourself? To what purpose? And yeah, wait for someone to create 1,000 instances of you to do whatever they want with.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Backup of my brain. Lost two relatives to Alzheimer's, seems plausible that I might benefit from a freshly printed brain in 30 years, even if the scan, reprinting, and transplant are all done on the same day under general anaesthetic. (Today such a thing is totally implausible; perhaps it still will be in 30 years, but I'll only find out by living until then). I'm sure from your previous comment that you don't see that as a continuation of self, but I do see it as such. Similar works for any potentially dangerous activity.
    - dinfinity 2y ago
zajio1am 2y ago
Which is gross mischaracterization. Many transhumanists do not think the singularity is real. It is just a prediction of simplified model, where in reality technological progress would hit limitations not accounted in the model. And even if the singulary happened, it would be unpredictable what it would bring.
- throwanem 2y ago
  This is what I believe your pal Scott calls a "motte-and-bailey argument."
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Who is doing which? Wikipedia says: """ […] one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey") […] """ The claim "the article is mischaracterising transhumanism" is saying the article's definition of transhumanism is a bailey, surrounded by the motte of "huh, these ideas sound a bit like Christianity and Revelations…" I don't know the actual distribution of transhumanists who believe in any specific outcome of the singularity, but I would at least point at the simultaneous existence of e/acc (who think it will be good) and LessWrong (who mostly think it's going to be misaligned, meaning it goes off and does its own thing even when we don't want it to). But even the most extreme ideas of what might be possible are still couched in terms of atoms, not magic.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      People get hung up on the Pascal's Basilisk stuff, but "hard-takeoff singularity" is also semiotically indistinguishable from the Christian eschaton. Someone who shapes their life around the belief this is possible definitionally participates in what we need not also recognize as a Christian heresy - though a well-catechized Christian would - to recognize for the new religious movement (itself a term of art) which it is. That's the bailey. The motte - where one such as my prior interlocutor seeks resort when challenged on the obvious and barely disguised roots of a faith no longer stabilized by the tradition from which it was severed - is "atoms, not magic" and "transhumanists don't actually believe the singularity is real." No actual defense of the concept, on which enough enthusiastically favorable not to say Marinettiesque ink has been spent over the last quarter century to exhaust an entire universe of squid. Just a Gish gallop of excuses, in the hope this will serve the role of the squid's own obscurantist jet - not yet, I'm sorry to say.
edanm 2y ago
I don't think this accurately defines transhumanism, at all.
Gud 2y ago
Frankly, this is wrong. The singularity is first of all, mischaracterized. The singularity is the point in time when AI has become smarter(however you may define it) than humans. The point is, we don't know what will happen beyond that point. It does not necessarily imply "God-like powers". It is the "not knowing" I think that is interesting. Transhumanists simply believe in augmenting their bodies beyond their natural capabilities. The rest is just misrepresentation. Me personally, I believe we should throw a wrench in the whole thing because the people who are in control are some of the worst people. Unless that changes, it would be a mistake to develop this technology further.
- dcow 2y ago
  > Transhumanists simply believe in augmenting their bodies beyond their natural capabilities. The rest is just misrepresentation. I have trouble with this characterization, because if you use it, then 99% of the human race is transhumanist, so the term loses any meaning. I’d argue the landscape isn't fenced to body modification, either, but that’s not really important. We’re clearly talking about something else here. Everybody knows it—don’t play coy. As far as I’ve been able to discern over the years, a transhumanist advocates for the use of technology to improve human experience irrespective of the implications to humanity. And the way they rationalize this is with a specific set of beliefs that conveniently skirt issues of consciousness and soul. I am not saying they are wrong, they’re operating off arguable axioms, all of which may be end up being true. I’m saying they have to hold a set of beliefs in those axioms that are not shared by 99% of humans to rationalize their worldview.

by nico 2y ago

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago

Well, when you put it like that, it doesn't not sound like a cult at all.

ben_w 2y ago
Phrasing does a lot of things. If I rephrased the quoted passage as: > transhumanists have deepened their hope for future in which the human species will augment evolution by fusing with machines (as we already do with brain-computer interfaces, but better), and the potential that current AI — which is already helping us decode proteins, perform and write up scientific research — will continue to improve, helping us to expand our medical knowledge even faster and help us develop cures for things currently beyond us. As the AI we already have has allowed us read the complete connectome — neural structure — in small animals, there's even a possibility we may expand this to human brains (though we don't know how long this will take us to do!), and if we manage that, then it would allow us to back up and restore our minds as we already do with digital documents. Doesn't seem nuts, unless you believe humans have souls that can't be digitised. That said, I'm skeptical about any specific future: when the only flying machine you've heard of is an airship, it's easy to imagine a future filled with them — what's our airship? What's the thing everyone expects but which won't happen?
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  It doesn't seem nuts, it just seems to miss the point, even ignoring souls. No matter how perfect the copy it'll still be a new instance, and the original meat brain instance of myself will one day fail and that consciousness will cease. A copy may fire up and it may be perfect could be a brand new "me", but the consciousness that is the running instance of me will be no more. There's no escape from that. I don't care about copies of myself running around, I'm not that egotistical to think the world needs more of me, but the eternal dark of death scares me, and duplication does nothing to assuage those fears.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Some care about that, others don't. The eternal dark that I can't experience doesn't scare me, but I'd still like to have a backup — or at least, I did, then I started seriously considering what else can be done with those backups besides restoring from them… I probably still would, but I'm much less optimistic about people than I used to be.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      A backup of what? And why do you want a copy of yourself? To what purpose? And yeah, wait for someone to create 1,000 instances of you to do whatever they want with.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Backup of my brain. Lost two relatives to Alzheimer's, seems plausible that I might benefit from a freshly printed brain in 30 years, even if the scan, reprinting, and transplant are all done on the same day under general anaesthetic. (Today such a thing is totally implausible; perhaps it still will be in 30 years, but I'll only find out by living until then). I'm sure from your previous comment that you don't see that as a continuation of self, but I do see it as such. Similar works for any potentially dangerous activity.
  - dinfinity 2y ago

zajio1am 2y ago

Which is gross mischaracterization. Many transhumanists do not think the singularity is real. It is just a prediction of simplified model, where in reality technological progress would hit limitations not accounted in the model. And even if the singulary happened, it would be unpredictable what it would bring.

throwanem 2y ago
This is what I believe your pal Scott calls a "motte-and-bailey argument."
- ben_w 2y ago
  Who is doing which? Wikipedia says: """ […] one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey") […] """ The claim "the article is mischaracterising transhumanism" is saying the article's definition of transhumanism is a bailey, surrounded by the motte of "huh, these ideas sound a bit like Christianity and Revelations…" I don't know the actual distribution of transhumanists who believe in any specific outcome of the singularity, but I would at least point at the simultaneous existence of e/acc (who think it will be good) and LessWrong (who mostly think it's going to be misaligned, meaning it goes off and does its own thing even when we don't want it to). But even the most extreme ideas of what might be possible are still couched in terms of atoms, not magic.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    People get hung up on the Pascal's Basilisk stuff, but "hard-takeoff singularity" is also semiotically indistinguishable from the Christian eschaton. Someone who shapes their life around the belief this is possible definitionally participates in what we need not also recognize as a Christian heresy - though a well-catechized Christian would - to recognize for the new religious movement (itself a term of art) which it is. That's the bailey. The motte - where one such as my prior interlocutor seeks resort when challenged on the obvious and barely disguised roots of a faith no longer stabilized by the tradition from which it was severed - is "atoms, not magic" and "transhumanists don't actually believe the singularity is real." No actual defense of the concept, on which enough enthusiastically favorable not to say Marinettiesque ink has been spent over the last quarter century to exhaust an entire universe of squid. Just a Gish gallop of excuses, in the hope this will serve the role of the squid's own obscurantist jet - not yet, I'm sorry to say.

edanm 2y ago

I don't think this accurately defines transhumanism, at all.

Gud 2y ago

Frankly, this is wrong. The singularity is first of all, mischaracterized. The singularity is the point in time when AI has become smarter(however you may define it) than humans. The point is, we don't know what will happen beyond that point. It does not necessarily imply "God-like powers". It is the "not knowing" I think that is interesting. Transhumanists simply believe in augmenting their bodies beyond their natural capabilities. The rest is just misrepresentation. Me personally, I believe we should throw a wrench in the whole thing because the people who are in control are some of the worst people. Unless that changes, it would be a mistake to develop this technology further.

dcow 2y ago
> Transhumanists simply believe in augmenting their bodies beyond their natural capabilities. The rest is just misrepresentation. I have trouble with this characterization, because if you use it, then 99% of the human race is transhumanist, so the term loses any meaning. I’d argue the landscape isn't fenced to body modification, either, but that’s not really important. We’re clearly talking about something else here. Everybody knows it—don’t play coy. As far as I’ve been able to discern over the years, a transhumanist advocates for the use of technology to improve human experience irrespective of the implications to humanity. And the way they rationalize this is with a specific set of beliefs that conveniently skirt issues of consciousness and soul. I am not saying they are wrong, they’re operating off arguable axioms, all of which may be end up being true. I’m saying they have to hold a set of beliefs in those axioms that are not shared by 99% of humans to rationalize their worldview.