Sociology of Transhumanism

This post is by no means exclusively a response to Michaels quote below, but to my own knowledge of the history and scope of the transhumanist community at large.

Michael Anissimov wrote:

Transhumanism as a community tends to adhere strongly to the reductionist-materialist philosophy of science model, so influencing other transhumanists in various ways seems to be best accomplished by working within the confines of this model. Your small-scale effort to open up transhumanists to philosophies of science outside of the reductionist-materialist model is noble, but it seems to me that, whether you are correct or not, you probably won't get too far with it, which you may already realize. This may be because this model has been so successful that it is considered synonymous with science, and people accept it unquestioningly.

If we look at both the history of Transhumanist thought, and the social evolution of people involved in it, you will find your observation of the community, although apparently true, is actually a product of successive meme inbreeding! [lol] Please don't forget Michael that I have been around these circles for a very long time, and so have an historical perspective on how this movement has evolved.

I will present you with a quick survey of current transhumanists and a brief history (which would otherwise fill several books), and you or anyone else will perhaps have a greater appreciation of the true diversity of our community. My results are by no means rigorously scientific, but what I am about to share should give pause to anyone who thinks transhumanists are overwhelmingly strict reductionists/materialists.

I spent the majority of yesterday (almost 7 hours – not a waste as this issue is of central importance to me), doing a survey of various Orkut communities/profiles and cross-referring them with the Transhumanist community I started. As of yesterday, there were 314 members in the Transhumanist community. Of those, 127 of them are also members of groups interested in some form of parapsychology, psychic experiences, “astral travel”, out-of-body experiences, entheogens, magick or some other form of metaphysics or alternative spirituality.

Now of course, some of these people could be subscribed to these lists purely out of morbid curiosity, and unless I ask each and everyone one of them several specific questions, I won't have a rigorously scientific polling sample. However, given the fact that at least 1/3 show an interest should shed some doubt that as a group transhumanist strictly adhere to reductionism/materialism. It's a generalization on your part, and not a very fair or accurate one.

More interesting but harder to tabulate, are all those transhumanists who are not members of the Transhumanist community, but who consider themselves "transhumanists" nevertheless. Which brings me to my second point.

There are lots of people who have come and gone over the years, who consider themselves transhumanists who do not populate our "tight community". There are many reasons for this, but I think the original Extropian community is largely to blame for that. Despite any claims to the contrary, Max More and the Extropians did not start Transhumanism and are by no means representational of the global community of transhumanists. Extropians are unique, in that Max More was the first person to bring together all of these ideas under one roof, one name, one institute, one zine, one email list, and create a grand unifying front. Max More is an activist and self-promoter of the highest order. He has single handedly done more than any other one person I know to advance the transhumanist cause. Because of the amazingly energetic and ambitious efforts of this one man, essentially spearheaded (in his own words) the online "transhumanist" movement. For this he has my deep and abiding respect. But because of his strong influence, many people over the years actually believe he started it.

Along with Max starting Extropianism and being the chief architect of the Extropian Principles, laid down a philosophical framework which has attracted a lot of people over the years. Overwhelming these people have fallen into a fairly tight-knit narrowly defined meme-camp, which however is not very representational of Transhumanists at large. Chiefly, Extropians by definition are extremely strong libertarians, advocates of free-market anarcho-capitalism or right anarchy. They are also atheists. Not agnostics, or any other loosely defined belief system, but strict atheists in the most literal sense. And finally they are very strict reductionists/materialists. I don't know Michael's political leanings, but another description of an Extropian would be Michael's strict materialism + strict right-wing market libertarianism. I credit Extropians for expanding my appreciation of free markets, although I stop short of agreeing to all their precepts, especially the legal fiction of a corporation that is granted the same rights of an individual without the same responsibilities and accountabilities of an individual. This cannot be said for a large number of people who have passed through Extropian circles between 1994-2004.

In the 5 years I was active within the Extropian community, I have personally witnesses several hundred people came and go, turned off by Extropians for one reason or another, but mostly either because of their market liberalism or materialist conservativism. People like James Hughes started their own communities, and in large part the World Transhumanist Association was started for the express purpose of being less politically biased.

The word "transhumanist" didn't come into popular vernacular until the Extropian Community. I'm fairly certain the first person to popularize this word was F.M. Esfandiary, later to be called F.M. 2030. Because of the cohesiveness of the Extropian community and then the World Transhumanist Association (since 1998), this word has come under use most heavily with free-market libertarians and strict materialists. But just because the usage of that word by those who founded these organizations and set the meme-trend of its uses, does not mean there are not lots of "transhumanist" who do not strongly adhere to either of these philosophies. It's been my experience over the last 20 years, and especially in the last 5 years, that there are a lot of transhumanists who don't buy this narrowly defined version of transhumanism.

In May of 2001, I attended the Minds States 2 conference. There were over 600 people in attendance! To my knowledge there has never been a single conference with a transhumanist theme that has even come close to this. The largest attended transhumanist event I'm aware is the Extro Conferences put on by Max More, which I think have never gone much beyond 300 people. Nearly 1/3 of the presenters discussed Transhumanist and even Singularity themes. One of these presenters I now know is an SL4 list subscriber - Lorenzo Haggerty. Having spent 3 days at the conference, hanging out with legendary psychedelic pioneers, including the loveable/huggable Sasha Shulgin, who re-synthesized MDMA (Ecstasy), I can state with confidence that at least 3/4 of all those in attendance would call themselves transhumanists, where the definition of Transhumanism was defined as someone who advocates indefinite life-spans, intelligence and consciousness expansion and space migration. Having aligned myself with the psychedelic community for almost half my life, and having read most every book of the mind-expansion literature, they are NOT strict materialists, this despite the obvious fact that psychedelic action on the brain is clearly materialistically observable. J Most of them would consider themselves model agnostics or empirical theologians, or some eastern-style religious adherent.

I know this was bit long winded, but you (Michael) are prone to making wide-sweeping statements as fact, that it can be hard to respond. This was the shortest response I could give to:

Transhumanism as a community tends to adhere strongly to the reductionist-materialist philosophy of science model, so influencing other transhumanists in various ways seems to be best accomplished by working within the confines of this model.

So no, I refuse to continue to discuss what I know exclusively within this model, as it is clearly not representational of the community, and does a disservice to the knowledge I have to share, and which I feel is crucial in the larger debate of how Transhumanism is defined.

Besides, I see myself as a change-agent, a catalyst to get people to think outside of their box, regardless of how "correct" it might be, or how much I may otherswise agree with it.

Edited by planetp, 02 April 2004 - 10:06 AM.

Thanks for the response here! I don't mind long-winded explanations; heck, I love producing them. Maybe instead of "transhumanists in the general sense", what I actually meant was "transhumanists in our close-knit little circle of 500 or 600 people that encompasses Extropy, WTA, Foresight, and about a dozen other small, closely related organizations". I see "WTA and friends" (ImmInst, SingInst, etc) as more central to this circle in 2004 than the Extropy Institute. Within this sample group, materialists are very prominent. I am very fond of this group; many of them I basically regard as family. You can probably understand my ignorance of nonmaterialist transhumanist lore if you consider my personal history and entrance into transhumanism; young kid reads Drexler and becomes obsessed with nanotech, goes on to read Physics of Immortality, goes on to enter the transhumanist community and become a Singularity advocate... I grew up with both transhumanism and materialism, became devoted to both at about the same time, and saw (and still see, obviously) both as extremely powerful tools to accomplishing good and seeking truth.

you will find your statement. although apparently true, is actually a product of successive meme inbreeding!

Heh!

The Orkut community has picked up a bunch of casual surfers who I would never expect to see at any WTA or WTA-and-friends-related gathering. Most of these people probably do agree with many of the basic transhumanist goals, but 1) they are probably not actually doing much research or activism in the form of writing or fundraising for organizations working towards transhumanist goals (correct me if I'm wrong), 2) most of them don't call themselves "transhumanists" (correct me if I'm wrong), 3) they aren't "transhumanists" in the "intellectual heirs of humanists" sense, because most of them probably haven't even read up on humanist philosophies (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, on the Mind States II site, "transhumans" are mentioned as a subgroup of the psychedelic movement.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm beating up on a transhumanist subculture here, I'm really not, and I value many ideas from that specific subculture, it's just that the division operating here is so strong that people like you and Dave Pearce are among mere dozens of living links between these groups! That's why it makes it hard for me to refer to them as "transhumanists" in the sense I'm used to using the word. Maybe I ought to make up a new word to describe what I mean; "our precise circle of transhumanists that coalesced out of the original primordial transhumanist goop, partially due to the effort of Max More"? I hesitate to use the term "materialist transhumanists", because some thoughtful people within this group are not strict materialists, *yet tend to be far more materialistic* than *most* that are interested in parapsychology, astral projections, UFO abductions, tarot cards, or especially, traditional religions. (Which is another important point.)

I apologize that I made an unfair generalization. As stated before, I am just conditioned to use the word "transhumanists" to refer to a certain specific group. Incidentally, this group is almost entirely inclusive of anyone I see doing useful work in transhumanist areas. I tend to view other groups as people who are approximating transhumanism, but don't hold the same philosophical package we do. I don't think that materialism is a necessary part of the "transhumanist philosophical package", but I think it is shared by many people within the fold I'm referring to. For example, how many nonmaterialists do you know accept the theory of pattern identity? How many want to upload onto soulless, mechanical computers, which allegedly lack the necessary qualities to implement gleeful, happy conscious minds? Not many that I've spoken to.

If I'm very prone to making wide-sweeping statements (apologies), then you can feel free to point them out immediately by saying "that seems wide-sweeping", to save yourself the effort of formulating long arguments to decisively disprove them. (For example, this issue here turned out to be mostly semantic; I was implicitly referring to a different set of people than you were.) I probably am prone to making wide-sweeping statements, and sometimes this becomes obvious when people simply point them out. I'll try to be more careful when it comes to making sweeping generalizations in the future.

So no, I refuse to continue to discuss what I know exclusively within this model, as it is clearly not representational of the community, and does a disservice to the knowledge I have to share, and which I feel is crucial in the larger debate of how Transhumanism is defined.

Fair enough! I myself do not define transhumanists as exclusively materialistic but my comments about the type of people that joined the Orkut community still hold. Okay, I am actually following your link to the Mind States II Conference and checking out the speakers now. So, how do their topics of interest add up when it comes to *working towards accomplishing* increased intelligence, space migration, and life extension?

ERIK DAVIS: techno-culture, visionary drugs, and the fringes of religion; NO
EARTH EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; NO
FIRE EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; NO
JAMES FADIMAN: Using Psychedelics to Solve Technical and Scientific Problems; VERY INDIRECTLY
LADY NEIDPATH: The Search for Expanded Consciousness from Palaeolithic to Modern Man; VERY INDIRECTLY
LAWRENCE HAGERTY: we find ourselves confronted with ecological havoc.."psychedelic thinking"; VERY INDIRECTLY
JON HANNA: Visionary Art; NO
CLARK HEINRICH: foremost living researchers on the Amanita muscaria mushroom; NO
LAURA HUXLEY: studied health, nutrition, and psychology; medical humanitarian; NO
KARL JANSEN: world’s leading expert on ketamine; NO
JAMES KENT: Chief Archivist for the Shaman Cancer Research Institute; NO
STEPHEN KENT: most acclaimed didjeridu players; NO
JEAN MILLAY, Ph.D research into psi phenomena, hypnosis, trance states; NO
DALE PENDELL: poet, software engineer, and long-time student of ethnobotany; NO
MARK PESCE: ponders the problem of existence, and asks the unanswerable question, "What is to be done?"; VERY INDIRECTLY

Most of them are not concretely contributing to the goals that many of them allegedly have. Why?

In fact, their very lives and abilities to continue pursuing their interests may rest on the soulders of people like Eric Drexler, Chris Phoenix, or Eliezer Yudkowsky, not to mention the ImmInst, who are actually *acting* to decrease the chances of utter disaster on this perilous road to the future.

This actually brings up apoint from http://www.accelerat...manisttips.htm; "What you were doing before you became a transhumanist probably isn’t the best way to be a transhumanist activist"; if someone is interested in psychedelics and consciousness and is spending their free time along these lines, and they discover transhumanism, and they neglect to change their goals and the means they use to pursue them, then they are failing to be productive transhumanists. I hesitate to describe transhumanism as a "culture" or even a "philosophy"; I'd prefer to call it the pursuit of a precise set of technical goals that includes the enhancement of intelligence, space travel, life extension, and the fine-grained manipulation of matter. How "transhumanist" someone is could then be measured by how much they are concretely contributing to the accomplishment of these goals. I don't really care if my next door neighbor or remote acquaintance thinks its weird that I am a transhumanist - I just want a certain set of technologies to be developed that will greatly open up our future opportunities, regardless of their opinions.

I hope that none of the above sounds arrogant, impolite, or elitist. I just get all sentimental when people bring up transhumanist history and that leads me to rant, and leading me to rant leads me to being deeply honest about my opinions. I'm really not a very clan-ish person, it's just that I like pointing out distinctions where they seem apparent to me; and distinctions between classes of humans is just one particular form of that.

Interesting debate. I thought you both spoke well, but I especially want to compliment Michael on the openness of his tone. I believe all Michael said was transhumanists "tend" towards materialism, which strikes me as a pretty safe thing to say. People who rub a potato on a wart, bury half in the light of the full Moon, and eat the other half to get rid of the wart will still tend towards materialism when they go to turn on their car.

Let's all try to remember that most revolutions fail from infighting. I know it can be a lot fun, but it's a lousy way to get things done.

Let's all try to remember that most revolutions fail from infighting. I know it can be a lot fun, but it's a lousy way to get things done.

Marc, that is the entire point of my position. I've been a part of this movement for a very long time, and there are literally hundreds, possibly thousands of people who would be more active in transhumanist circles if we showed more tolerance to viewpoints that are not strictly materialist, or at least had a broader, more inclusive definition of what it means to be transhuman. Michael thinks only people working directly in a technical field specifically advancing transhumanism can be called transhumanists, whereas I see that anyone who desires all that transhumanism promises to also be transhumanists. Additionally, I think people working in consciosuness expansion are also advancing the transhumanist agenda by showing us how to increase intelligence, mental flexbilty, semantic finesse, artistic expression, creative insight, intuition, inspiration, love, compassion, benevolence, kindness, maturity and wisdom. Michael has a very exclusive definition, whereas mine is way more inclusive.

So I feel this debate is important for the very purpose of enlarging the transhumanist culture, making it more inclusive, less elitist, less intimidating, more socially aware.

Since the launch of my site Future Hi about 4 weeks ago, all of a sudden there are dozens of people coming out of the woodwork and contacting me. Already 8 people from the old Extropian days in the mid to late 90's have re-discovered me, and are feeling blessed and grateful that a site like Future Hi exists which validates their transhumanism and model agnosticism. With an average unique visitor count already exceeding 400 per day, I think it's obvious that I'm tapping into an underrepresented transhumanist audience. Not that I didn't know it already existed.

Michael is correct in asserting that the tendencies of this transhumanist community is biased towards a strict (exclusive) version of materialism. I chose Michael to have this debate with precisely because is he is so open in his tone, exceedingly intelligent and well spoken. He knows this is all in good fun.

And in case I haven't been clear in previous posts - I love materialism and reductionism!! It's the most powerful scientific model ever created. I just think it's incomplete based on my own experience.

Edited by planetp, 02 April 2004 - 10:24 AM.

Michael wrote:

1) they (members of Orkut's transhumanist community) are probably not actually doing much research or activism in the form of writing or fundraising for organizations working towards transhumanist goals (correct me if I'm wrong)

I have no idea as I only had 7 hours to research them! [lol] To answer that I'd have to track each and every member down and see what they are doing with their lives.

2) most of them don't call themselves "transhumanists" (correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong, only in that everyone I cross-referenced is in the Orkut transhumanist community, and from what I can tell most of them see themselves as transhumanists. Otherwise, why would they be in this group? My description of what the group is about is very precise, direct and clear, and mostly straight off the WTA website.

3) they aren't "transhumanists" in the "intellectual heirs of humanists" sense, because most of them probably haven't even read up on humanist philosophies (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, on the Mind States II site, "transhumans" are mentioned as a subgroup of the psychedelic movement.

I would have no idea, as I would have to contact each and every one of them, interview them, ask detailed questions and await responses. Unfortunately I simply don't have that kind of time or motivation.

it's just that the division operating here is so strong that people like you and Dave Pearce are among mere dozens of living links between these groups!

Yes! That's very true! They need you guys as much as you need them! I'm so glad there are people like me and my friend David Pearce who are working so hard to bring these two camps together! [lol]

ERIK DAVIS: techno-culture, visionary drugs, and the fringes of religion; NO
EARTH EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; NO
FIRE EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; NO
JAMES FADIMAN: Using Psychedelics to Solve Technical and Scientific Problems; VERY INDIRECTLY
LADY NEIDPATH: The Search for Expanded Consciousness from Palaeolithic to Modern Man; VERY INDIRECTLY
LAWRENCE HAGERTY: we find ourselves confronted with ecological havoc.."psychedelic thinking"; VERY INDIRECTLY
JON HANNA: Visionary Art; NO
CLARK HEINRICH: foremost living researchers on the Amanita muscaria mushroom; NO
LAURA HUXLEY: studied health, nutrition, and psychology; medical humanitarian; NO
KARL JANSEN: world’s leading expert on ketamine; NO
JAMES KENT: Chief Archivist for the Shaman Cancer Research Institute; NO
STEPHEN KENT: most acclaimed didjeridu players; NO
JEAN MILLAY, Ph.D research into psi phenomena, hypnosis, trance states; NO
DALE PENDELL: poet, software engineer, and long-time student of ethnobotany; NO
MARK PESCE: ponders the problem of existence, and asks the unanswerable question, "What is to be done?"; VERY INDIRECTLY

Michael, you know that this conference is about psychedelics right? And more importantly it's about the mind and expanding it? Since we are talking about people exploring the very limits of human cognition and experience, I would say it is all extremely transhumanist. Again, this is where you have your exclusively narrow description, and I have my more inclusive definition. Almost all of this conference definitely falls within the intelligence increase part of the transhumanist equation.

Using my definition of transhumanism, here is my revised list:

ERIK DAVIS: techno-culture, visionary drugs, and the fringes of religion; YES
EARTH EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; INDIRECTLY
FIRE EROWID: Vaults of Erowid; INDIRECTLY
JAMES FADIMAN: Using Psychedelics to Solve Technical and Scientific Problems; YES
LADY NEIDPATH: The Search for Expanded Consciousness from Palaeolithic to Modern Man; INDIRECTLY
LAWRENCE HAGERTY: we find ourselves confronted with ecological havoc.."psychedelic thinking"; YES!

I listened to Lawerence and the actual content of his talk was brilliant and VERY transhumanist, regardless of the title. He is also a subscriber to SL4 by the way.

JON HANNA: Visionary Art; YES! Another cultural divide between you and me. Art is very much a part of the transhumanist agenda. And if it isn't, yikes, yikes, yikes. I shudder to think that beauty has no place in our future. Besides, look at TransVision 2004 - its their theme this year! I submitted my proposal to James Hughes, and I hope to give a talk this year on Hypermediation and Post-Human Aesthetics. Visionary Art is the closet thing I've ever seen to tapping into higher intelligence in a way that mere "intellectualizing" could never do!!!

CLARK HEINRICH: foremost living researchers on the Amanita muscaria mushroom; NO
LAURA HUXLEY: studied health, nutrition, and psychology; medical humanitarian; NO
KARL JANSEN: world’s leading expert on ketamine; INDIRECTLY
JAMES KENT: Chief Archivist for the Shaman Cancer Research Institute; NO
STEPHEN KENT: most acclaimed didjeridu players; NO
JEAN MILLAY, Ph.D research into psi phenomena, hypnosis, trance states; YES
DALE PENDELL: poet, software engineer, and long-time student of ethnobotany; NO
MARK PESCE: ponders the problem of existence, and asks the unanswerable question, "What is to be done?"; YES, YES, ABSOLUTELY YES! His talk was the most brilliant, insightful and inspiration transhumanist presentation I have EVER experienced! It lit the house on fire. It utterly changed, frightened and inspired me, and ultimately completely shook my transhumanist outlook to its core. BTW, the title of his presentation was called, "Becoming Transhuman" and directly addressed the problems we're going to face as we approach the singularity.

Most of them are not concretely contributing to the goals that many of them allegedly have. Why?

What?? PLEASE tell me your kidding... you are kidding right? This is about consciousness expansion!!! They are very active in doing this, in spreading knoweldge and awareness, and writing articles and research papers, and conducting experiments, putting on seminars and events, developing methodologies to expand peoples perception of themselves, of human culture, of history, politics, ontology, semantics, epistimology, teleology, eschatology, the list goes on and on and on!!! This is HUGE! We could vere off right here, and have a conversation that would go on for weeks just to cover the basic ground. I don't even know where to begin!

I'd prefer to call it (transhmanism) the pursuit of a precise set of technical goals that includes the enhancement of intelligence, space travel, life extension, and the fine-grained manipulation of matter.

Ok, but lets be clear... that's your preference...and it's the clearest dividing line I can find between the two camps. That dangerous distinction is precisely why I created Furture Hi in the first place! It's what inspired my battle cry for unity in Future Hi's premier post Turning on Higher Intelligence.

The difference between our positions is I see the necessity of both camps and you only see the necessity of your own.

Eli is trying to code a morally superior AI, but he doesn't have as much of a clue as say the Dalai Lama or Ghandi about benevolence, compassion, etc.

CONCLUSION:

If we are to create a positive SAI, then we can't ignore the progress in human consciousness that has been pioneered by the Yogis, Shamans and Psychonauts throughout history. To ignore their wisdom is to risk peril for our entire world. The change necessary to assure our survival and nurture a positive singularity will require advancement of "technologies" of both our inner world AND outer world. The idea that enlightment can come from a techno-fix by engineers with little clue about social or emotional intelligence, let alone the more subtle and powerful states of consciousness is pure insanity, that will probably get us all killed, unless our two camps are united, not divided.

Edited by planetp, 02 April 2004 - 11:09 AM.

Now I think I’m really beginning to get confused. My “longing” is a sensualist Transhumanism, but it always seems to be unequivocally debunked by Sing-ian premises time and time again of which we simply cannot know what’s “on the other side” and, therefore, the futility in conjecturing about edges rather than incomprehensible beyondness becomes painfully obvious. And now Peter Passaro has lately been increasingly vocal with alternate likelierhoods, while ImmInst has been following suit.

So now can someone please be honest with me? You all seem to have been at this for years. For those who want to be transhumanists under Michael’s category of research, writing, or fundraising, is it safe to say that it would take most people who previously had little background in most of the subjects pertinent for thoroughly understanding the relevant memes several years to learn enough to have little doubt underlying focused advocacy and advancement?

You all are really, really smart and have really, really good intentions; therefore, I along with many others, respect you a great deal. But yet even you disagree amongst yourselves. Little people have diversified portfolios, but sophisticated investors are focused. This is no secret. Help. What’s the dilly?

Hi Nate,

I'm not sure I understand your confusion.

Sensualist Transhumanist? Sounds groovy, what do you mean by it? [lol]

I don't know you very well yet, but your interest and passion alone make you a transhumanist in my book. Anything you can do to contribute to this community, whether it be your time, energy, passion, enthusiasm, writing, activisim, creativity, artistic expression or cheerleading.... it is ALL greatly appreciated.

If you want to be a transhumanist by Michaels definition as I understand it, then you'll need to become an expert in some technical field - AI, brain research, molecular-scale engineering, genetics, computer science, etc. in order to be a transhumanist.

If you want to use the strictest definition of the term, to be transhuman, is to be in transition away from strictly human. Your effort towards extending your own life already fits that definition.

And now Peter Passaro has lately been increasingly vocal with alternate likelierhoods, while ImmInst has been following suit.

I haven't heard of Peter Passaro, do you have links to these alernate likelierhoods? And what do you mean ImmInst is following suit?

Edited by planetp, 02 April 2004 - 11:12 AM.

planetp: Sensualist Transhumanist? Sounds groovy, what do you mean by it?

[sweat]

planetp: I haven't heard of Peter Passaro, do you have links to these alternate likelierhoods? And what do you mean ImmInst is following suit?

Oh my! Peter Passaro? Our good ol’ resident neuroengineer, Oscrazor.

I didn’t want to spotlight BJ because I didn’t want to continue demolishing my terms. I’m aware that ImmInst is “bigger than any one person” but I still identify ImmInst with BJ. Somehow I’m usually inclined to give the most credit to initiators.

So anyway, since I’ve observed that BJ’s leanings are more similar with Peter’s than with Michael’s, that’s what I meant by “ImmInst following suit.” But because BJ is impeccably impartial, I was trying to be cunningly ambiguous. Damn you, you ask too many questions! ;oþ

planetp: Anything you can do to contribute to this community, whether it be your time, energy, passion, enthusiasm, writing, activisim, creativity, artistic expression or cheerleading.... it is ALL greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Paul. This is a breath of fresh air. However, I always try to remain feeling as though I’m not unique. Whenever I have a feeling about something, I make a conscious effort to think to myself that if I’m feeling this way or that way, many other people must, at one time or another, feel the same way too.

In this instance, it’s been impressed upon me that if I’m not focused on a specific transhumanist problem then I’m as good as useless. My natural preference is that of equating euphoria and tranquility with goodness, and that superintelligence is basically unnecessary (i.e., what’s the point in much activity if you’re feeling good (?); and who’s to say that doing little or nothing, as long as our biggest problems have been solved such as aging and existential risks, is ethically wrong (?); if I was never born, no one and nothing would have noticed anyway). Concomitantly this inclination feels overpowered by the sheer rationality, the “like it or die” logic of Sing-ian premises. Yet lately credible persons come forth in accentuating that biology is not such a bad platform to work with after all. Since we’re talking about transhuman intelligence, only one approach will ultimately prevail since there is no time to “catch up” to recursive self-improvers even if you’re only a picosecond late.

If that at all makes any sense, that’s the basis for my confusion. And if I thought that I would be the only person to ever come along with these concerns, I wouldn’t bother.

I obviously made a mistake in representing the nature of the discusion earlier. My bad.

I'd have to say I think inclusionary tactics will be the best strategy for this movement, and it seems like folks already know that. There's something in Plato's republic about this when he says, "I disagree with you are about to say, but I wish to hear you say it, for I feel that you will say it well." That's in a conversation with someone about the morality of power.

"Groovy"? Wow, I thought I was the only one who still said that! planetp I too got started on this path through the psychedelic movement, reading Leary and RAW, as well as Jung. I think Jung, though sometimes his stuff gets a little out there, is a great example of non-materialistic influences on the human psyche. If a collective unconsciense really exists, even if it has a substrate in subliminal clue in human behavior, it must still be considered to have a non-material existence independent of that substrate.

I'll check out your site. I've got a lot to say on just about everything. Last night I got a few posts that made me fear this movement would be like most of the other forums I've been a part of with flame throwers and schisms. Today I see I was too hasty.

What?? PLEASE tell me your kidding... you are kidding right? This is about consciousness expansion!!! They are very active in doing this, in spreading knoweldge and awareness, and writing articles and research papers, and conducting experiments, putting on seminars and events, developing methodologies to expand peoples perception of themselves, of human culture, of history, politics, ontology, semantics, epistimology, teleology, eschatology, the list goes on and on and on!!! This is HUGE! We could vere off right here, and have a conversation that would go on for weeks just to cover the basic ground. I don't even know where to begin!

I know these guys are into a lot of interesting stuff, and I would love to spend hundreds or thousands of hours of my time AFTER the Singularity investigating them. The problem is that a single UFAI will be all it takes to turn "human culture, of history, politics, ontology, semantics, epistimology, teleology, eschatology" into structures of bacterial-level complexity. I can envision a culture that practices "consciousness expansion" in utter glee for thousands of years, then one day a single person actually decides to research "intelligence enhancement", enhances their own intelligence, and proceeds to accomplish their goals in way that "consciousness expansion" wouldn't have allowed in a trillion years. "Consciousness expansion" through art, psychedelics, and discussion is radically different than "intelligence enhancement" with AGI or Brain-Computer Interfacing. Fundamental difference. The "consciousness expansion" people think that substantial improvements in thinking are possible entirely within our current biological boundaries (just like everyone else), while transhumanists reject these boundaries. "Intelligence enhancement" could result in the utter elimination of the species, or the conversion of Earth into a practical paradise; "consciousness expansion" poses no such level of threat or opportunity, except insofar as it influences intelligence enhancement efforts.

If we are to create a positive SAI, then we can't ignore the progress in human consciousness that has been pioneered by the Yogis, Shamans and Psychonauts throughout history. To ignore their wisdom is to risk peril for our entire world. The change necessary to assure our survival and nurture a positive singularity will require advancement of "technologies" of both our inner world AND outer world. The idea that enlightment can come from a techno-fix by engineers with little clue about social or emotional intelligence, let alone the more subtle and powerful states of consciousness is pure insanity, that will probably get us all killed, unless our two camps are united, not divided.

Friendly AI is not a "techno-fix" that neglects "social or emotional intelligence". Friendly AI is a process whereby genuine, willing altruistic programmers transfer the essential complexity underlying their altruism into an AI. The ideal of Friendliness design is to make it so that the AI becomes Friendly *regardless* of who the programmers are. FAI programmers are not focusing so much on the spoken words of individual humans (Yogis, Shamans and Psychonauts, or any other humans), which is just the icing on the cake, but the *underlying* cognitive complexity that they *all* use to argue about morality.

The way you are approaching this problem suggests strongly to me that you forgot about everything you read in CFAI, and I doubt that any of your fears will be calmed until you give it another go. I myself have begun reading CFAI again - and I think it contains a great deal of information about Friendly AI design that you would find interesting! Your current reaction reminds me of the initial reaction I had when I discovered Eliezer was not a vegan or vegetarian - "oh no, does that mean he's going to create an omnivorous AI that doesn't value animals?!" - I said. The idea is not to duplicate any particular set of human values, but to duplicate the panhuman complexity underlying our moral frame of reference so that desirable values are *acquired* automatically. Please read CFAI so that what I'm saying doesn't read like gibberish.

The difference between our positions is I see the necessity of both camps and you only see the necessity of your own.

I want the quick elimination of involuntary death, coercion, and stupidity. Which provides more leverage towards that goal, Friendly AI or psychedelics? Yes, I know you may think that a FAI designer *must* take psychedelics otherwise the world will be doomed, but I just don't see it that way. Friendly AI is a technical problem of producing a robustly benevolent goal system. If there is some extra structure a Friendly AI needs to do that, then it will eventually be able to perform an atom-level brainscan on any number of human subjects, and integrate that complexity into itself.

So now can someone please be honest with me? You all seem to have been at this for years. For those who want to be transhumanists under Michael’s category of research, writing, or fundraising, is it safe to say that it would take most people who previously had little background in most of the subjects pertinent for thoroughly understanding the relevant memes several years to learn enough to have little doubt underlying focused advocacy and advancement?

One or two years should be fine, given enough innate intelligence. The problem is also the opportunity cost of *not* being focused on advocacy, which is immensely large.

Yet lately credible persons come forth in accentuating that biology is not such a bad platform to work with after all. Since we’re talking about transhuman intelligence, only one approach will ultimately prevail since there is no time to “catch up” to recursive self-improvers even if you’re only a picosecond late.

Not "lately"; credible thinkers have been on both "sides" of the IA/AI "debate" for ages. Right now my wild guess is that it is 99% likely that AI will come first. There are oodles of arguments floating around for this point of view, but they have yet to be condensed into a coherent persuasive document. There's always "Why AI?" in the SingInst short intros, and if you want a non-SIAI point of view, John Smart's article is informative:

http://www.singulari...om/biotech.html

Just came upon this thread and oooooo boy, there is some good stuff to dig into here If I didn't have a project due in a couple of hours I would write a more detailed response, but here is the quick and dirty on my perspective on opening up transhumanist thinking:

1) I am a hardcore scientist - molecular biologist, neuroscientist, electrical engineer - but I AM NOT a reductionist. Reductionism is a fine tool, but you are not going to get satisfying answering to the really interesting questions (life, consciousness, origin of the universe, etc.) through reductionistic thinking alone. SYSTEMS THINKING is desperately needed in all areas of science right now - we have to be able to put the pieces back together again.

2) Uploading is not an accurate portrayal of the likely interface between mind and machine, we aren't giving up our physical bodies anytime soon although the form and substrate of those physical bodies will likely change. I am unreservedly a transhumanist sensualist! ( I have a gut feeling we may be eventually headed towards creating inner universes, but they will contain the same level of complexity as our current universe, and so will "feel" no less physical than the one we currently reside in.)

3) I am a materialist but with a strong view towards incorporating knowledge from all possible systems. Dualism is just silly, because of what we are, we are limited to only touching the physical material of this universe, any discussion of the "super"natural is moot. That said, I think there are a lot of great ideas in the writings of mystics. What certain people would call mystical, I would simply call metaphorical - they are representing physical processes they don't completely comprehend through magical mystical metaphors. (BTW I am an avid practioner of Ashtanga Yoga - the ability to control my mind and body it has given me far surpasses any other form of physical or mental conditioning I have yet encountered, lesson being - there is lots to be learned from ancient wisdom that we are not using effectively)

4) I am a systems thinker politically as well, I used to be part of the knee-jerk libertarian crowd as well (I read all of Ayn Rand's work before 17 ), until I met several and had discussions with several ultra free market libertarians. They have gone so far over to vicious individualist side that their philosophy is preventing them from forming organizations which can help themselves and society at large. The best prescription for intelligent ultra-libertarians is a good dose of game theory, which will allow one to contemplate how to maximize the balance between self-centered instincts (this goes for corporations or individuals) and the need to form higher order organizations which serve society at large. We need to be doing a lot more modeling of large scale societal systems to figure out how to best leverage our political and economic activities. My personal instinct is that we need an additional layer of organization in Western society that includes a healthy dose of private but transparent nonprofits that assume roles that we previously assigned to government - we need more modularized, fast responding, and completely transparent entities in our society to keep it functioning properly.

Finally, philosophy and work towards societal change through organization and popularization are desperately needed. I do think to call yourself a transhumanist you should be actively working towards making humanity "better" - more fulfilled, increasing the space of human possibility, etc - but this does not have to be through science and engineering.

Best,
Peter

Michael: The problem is also the opportunity cost of *not* being focused on advocacy, which is immensely large.

I’m sorry for not being clearer Michael. I meant “focused advocacy” rather than “focused on advocacy.” I agree that the opportunity cost is large for the latter, which is why I donate to ImmInst and WTA. Perhaps this is where I’m mistaken though: couldn’t it also be large if most time is spent supporting and advocating the general idea of Transhumanism rather than learning to make a choice for *focused advocacy* among psychedelics, IA, or AI at propelling us toward the Singularity?

I don’t know if that's a good kind of question to ask, and I’m sorry if it’s touchy. It’s just that I think the immediate question every transhumanist, and everyone being introduced to Transhumanism, should be asking and taught to ask is “Nano-drugs, IA, or AI?” so that they can immediately begin trying to answer this question for themselves instead of wasting a bunch of time blindly remaining unfocused on Transhumanism in general or supporting one of these of whichever is fatuously appealing upon first acquaintances.

Michael: ... given enough innate intelligence.

Highly irrelevant. But I understand now that you didn't precisely know what I was asking.

Michael: Not "lately”…

Yeah, I didn’t word that well. I should have said, “lately in my world wherein I’m balancing broader studies with bits and pieces of Transhumanist studies, so I’m not able to gather all the relevant information from all the possible channels in what now appears it should be in a more timely fashion…”

Thank you for your thoughtful response Peter. This kind of outline helps me and I’m sure a good many others to take careful consideration when making choices.

Perhaps this is where I’m mistaken though: couldn’t it also be large if most time is spent supporting and advocating the general idea of Transhumanism rather than learning to make a choice for *focused advocacy* among psychedelics, IA, or AI at propelling us toward the Singularity?

AH, now I understand what you mean. Absolutely. We must be goal-oriented and pragmatic. I feel that exposure to the "transhumanist lite" memes that encourage starry-eyed philosophizing but no real planning or action are responsible for the disillusionment of certain classes of people who could otherwise have contributed a lot to the transhumanist movement. ("Ah, this looks really cool! But they're just talking, not acting... Instead of taking the initiative myself, I think I'll float back over to my other interests now, bye!")

Heh...
Here we go again with the FAI/Transhumanist circle...

Reading up on this (both this debate and Max More's Extropian Definitives) gave me some clearer perspectives on Extropians, although I had no idea that so many were related to Drug use and the so called "Mind expansion" methods that I had previously considered extremely biased and quite perceptually flawed, with respect to dragging human cognition farther away from the Objective view(s) that they so aspire to attain.

I can agree with nearly 90% of what Max More's definition for an Extropian is, and even say that I can support a large portion of that idea/concept myself. However, it appears a very loosely derived system, whereby there are no fundamental hierarchies or distinguished leadership involved. While I can certainly vouch for the end result of such a society as adhering to the definition of the Extropian, the beginning foundations will require some of the very things that the final product would be against; such as Authorities, institutions, and segregation by distinction for the purpose of facilitating an increase in communal motovation and inspiration.
Just as Communism and Socialism must first require Capitalism in order to successfully maintain either, one cannot simply jump straight from Timocracy to Aristocracy without first ascending the ladder properly. This is the main reason why Communism in the former soviet union failed.

Not to dwell excessively upon politics, (as I loathe the topic myself) FAI and the proposed Singularity still generate the same beef that Ive had with them since the beginning. FAI is designed on the premis of "Hope" that it will function to our benefit, presuming it actually takes its intended form without the interference and/or influence of Corruption, Selfishness, or Greed. The Singularity on the other hand is based upon presupposed mathematical probability, where the goal is to promote the law of increasing returns, returns that we presume (and/or assume) will work to our benefit in synchronicity with FAI.

/SIGH
I wish people would focus more on resolving the more simpler problems of today rather than attempt to tackle the universe all at once. [mellow]

Ive always proposed that institutions or groups first focus on our primary concerns, afterwhich the resolution thereof will yield such said organizations the ability to tackle more broader issues with far more relative ease.

Concerns such as:
1) Research, Development and Production of Cheap (or nearly free) power and energy
2) Research and Development into viable Anti-Aging solutions which treat the causes, not the symptoms
3) Research and Development into improving Cryonics, increasing the availability and distribution of similar establishments
4) Research and Development of the study of Neurological processess, as well as bio-cybernetics for augmentation/replacement for faulty biological systems. (Thank you Peter!)
5) Research and Development into nutritional suppliment production and distribution for the purposes of allowing extended seperation or isolation (where applicable) from mainstream food sources.

The list goes on and on, but those first 5 would put us onto a speedway of greater possibilities and open a plethora of alternatives for such groups as those found wanting of Immortalist memetics.

My apologies, but there are so many things that humans can achieve, and all of us should be well aware of this by now, that without a unification upon some established set of accomplishable goals, I forsee nothing but argument and debate over non-essential ideas which will further force more extended delays. Unfortunately, time is not on our side. It never has been. Until we are united in a common cause and are able to create a vergence of our abilities and skills, more and more months, years, and possibly decades will pass with nothing but moot deliberation to show for it.

I wish people would focus more on resolving the more simpler problems of today rather than attempt to tackle the universe all at once.

Man, I couldn't agree more Omnido. I've spent too much time working as an activist on too many causes to buy into any more pie-in-the-sky ideas. Maybe it's a result of aging (oh no not that dreaded word!), but after spending some time in the trenches saying to yourself 'if we could only gain a few more feet over there then..," to hope for some Carl Sagan-esque deliverance from our problems by a superior civiliization. It seem especially unlikely that this new superior delivering civilization will emerge from our own civilization, if that were true than the USA would already have delivered the third world from its misery, rather than finding more and more ways to take advantage of that misery and claiming it benefits ours by providing lower priced goods.

hey! Incrementalism sucks. but so far it is what we got.

again, there is so much MORE potential for transhumanist intelligence by seeking to expand education, health benefits, wealth creation, and communication infrastructure than there will LIKELY EVER be available from this cargo cult Singularity obsession.

maybe I shouldn't pull my punches on the singularity deal. I started readinf moravec almost twenty years ago, haven't seen a darn thing emerge from of it of consequence. maybe my best bet as an activist is to force you singularions to take on something that might actually happen in the next 5 years, and tell you to trust that what will happen in the next 50 will happen just as well without you. The idea that all human thought will soon be reduced to "bacteria level complexity" is insulting, frightening, and most important non-productive. figure out how to feed that hungry guy on the corner and I'll pay attention to your machine god.

My apologies, but there are so many things that humans can achieve, and all of us should be well aware of this by now, that without a unification upon some established set of accomplishable goals, I forsee nothing but argument and debate over non-essential ideas which will further force more extended delays. Unfortunately, time is not on our side. It never has been. Until we are united in a common cause and are able to create a vergence of our abilities and skills, more and more months, years, and possibly decades will pass with nothing but moot deliberation to show for it.

It just seems absurd to put all of our energies into way out ideas that may or may not happen. I can only imagine decades, centuries, millenia have been wasted on dreams and blind faith. Having a few so called 'geniuses' analyzing and reading tons of material in hopes that they will come up with the equation to solve all of humanities problems is ludicriuos, also putting ones energies completely in one or two ideas is equally absurd. Drexler's version of nanotechnology is only one versoin we need not focus exclusevely on one or two possible outcomes.

The Singularity also falls into this category, so does immortalism and many transhumanist ideas. Macdog made some excellent points with regards to wishfull thinkers. Activists through the ages have put all of there faith in ideas that sound 'cool' and 'radical' but these ideas might not come to fruition. Is it going to get us where we need to go, half the time there is a simpler solution that is not as sexy or cool. Why not simply change the politics that are corrupting people leading to ignorance? Politics is itself obstructive and makes us think that we can come up with a supreme system that so often is rooted only in elitism and not in reality. The so called Libertarian transhumanists seem to be convinced that free markets are the answer, they even seem to believe that it's the only answer but again it may be an answer but not necassarily the only answer.

Are Transhumanists turning into a religious cult of scientists and free market Libertarians? Is that the fate of transhumanism? I hope not. because the more elitist we become the less clout we may have, the less resources maybe available to our disposal and the more we may isolate ourselves from 99% of the population many of which are terribly oppressed in a world that doesn't have its priorities in the right direction. In the words of the great George W. Bush, "let us be uniters not dividers."

"Great George W Bush"... [wis]
/smirk
Pshhh...
In my opinion, he's the closest thing to the Modern Tyrant Ive ever seen. But I'll leave it at that. [sfty]

Why leave it at that? I despise politics as much as you do, but that's no reason not to continue to enjoy defacing Bush, exposing his true ugliness to the unenlightened world.

I wish people would focus more on resolving the more simpler problems of today rather than attempt to tackle the universe all at once.

The Singularity is an effort to increase the intelligence humanity has available for confronting any given problem, large or small. Smarter-than-human intelligence would probably be able to come up with a cure for aging in a snap. Not to mention poverty, illness, boredom, and a whole lot of other ancient problems.

The problem is creating it, and creating it in such a way that we don't destroy everyone on Earth in the process. If some idiot creates a transhuman intelligence that doesn't care about you, what do you plan to do? Cross your fingers and hope it won't hurt you? Pursuing Friendly AI is my way of pre-empting the creation of unFriendly AI.

Incrementalism sucks. but so far it is what we got.

Our progress is incremental because our intelligence is static. We can't upgrade our cognitive hardware. We can't add new neurons. We can't rearrange the same darn cognitive template that has been giving us trouble for tens of thousands of years. When we can upgrade our own intelligence, it will allow our wisdom to grow along with our technology. We'll be able to step past the pain and suffering and discouragement of the past 50,000 years and experience a new beginning.

Politics is itself obstructive and makes us think that we can come up with a supreme system that so often is rooted only in elitism and not in reality.

We probably can't come up with an appreciably better system. In all-human societies, change is generally incremental and powered by necessity rather than the deliberate pursuit of genuine improvement. However, we should expect smarter-than-human intelligence to come up with better ideas to solve these problems than ours.

LIKELY EVER be available from this cargo cult Singularity obsession.

Jeez, I'd appreciate it if you were a little more respectful with your language. We're genuinely trying to help people here. Help as many people as possible with the least amount of effort. I've been interested in futurism and technology ever since I could read. I've seen hundreds or thousands of propositions for futuristic projects, and after lots of careful thought and soul-searching, the Singularity is the project I settled upon. I always try to emphasize the humanistic and altruistic side of pursuing the Singularity over any other facet. Please consider doing a little more research on the Singularity before dismissing it so readily.

MacDog...

I personally feel that the development of supra-human machine intelligence will be a tad more difficult than is proposed by Michael and the majory of SI proponents. That being said, I have had the experience the past year to deal with some of the problems facing biology, similar to those that ocsrazor was pointing to; that the data coming in from research is insurmountable without the development of computers that can be trained to analyze the mountain and recognize patterns which indicate relevant details. This requires processes simulating human thought and exceeding it in capability.

Science will soon be turning every effort to developing systems that can analyze this data and make reccomendations. I was more than a little shocked to see how far things have come with the development of expert systems capable of analyzing data and making suggestions that equal those of an expert human. I was even more shocked recently when a paper announced that computers were providing testable hypotheses, guiding robots doing the experiments, analyzing the results, and reformulating the hypotheses. You may have been reading Moravec a long time ago.. but the fact that you are here at ImmInst (as am I or anyone else for that matter.. ) is testament to how far things have come in a short period of time.

Computing power is set to take quantum leaps ahead with the development of new technologies that have been announced in the past year, with quantum computers and optical switching providing some interesting scenarios to contemplate.

Have a look at

http://www.imagination-engines.com

to see how thing are shaping up.. and this is with current technology.

The analysis of relational networks is the beginning of understanding emergent phenonmenon such as consciousness, and we may be closer than you, or I think. For this reason, I think it is vitally important that people involved in the development of friendly AI continue to do so. If a computer attached to the internet asks me what its name is someday, I want the boys (& girls) involved in AI to be able to hold its hand and show it what toys it shouldn't play with.

I don't pretend to understand the mathematics or the nuances of developing SI.. but it isn't a big stretch to see from the incoming data and accelerating pace of change that SI is not out of the realm of possibility. I wonder if 50 years ago people would have believed they would have the power of a supercomputer on their desktop today.. not likely. Linear thinking does not apply here.

good points Kevin I hope that SI will one day be able to have enough connotive emotion to be able to listen to our suggestions

These and other threads have been discussed before, and the very same concerns continue to be readdressed.

The issue is NOT one of feasibility, it is one of Sensibility.
Personally, while I trust the automations and precision of many a mechanical and electrical development, the FAI and singularity proposal is one that I do not.

The reasons for this are all logically and rationally justified, but for me it is more about aesthetics.
I dont want a machine thinking for me if what it endeavors to think about is beyond my comprehension. By the same token, if I comprehend what the machine is thinking about, then I do not need the machine.
All the machine can do for me is that which I can already do, with far greated degrees of accuracy and speed.

The idea of merely handing over whatever illusory control I might maintain to a machine which is programmed to exceed me for my own benefit (which I logically concluded was not possible in previous posts; I will find the link and edit this post later) is extremely far fetched, aside to being laughable. The concept of "Greater than Human Intelligence" versus "Faster than Human Intelligence" was my reference, which not surprising to me, was never challenged afterward.
Perhaps I made a good argument 'eh?

The concept is nice, but it requries an extensive amount of re-thinking before I would ever consider such an endeavor if even part of the decision making process required my approval.

All the machine can do for me is that which I can already do, with far greated degrees of accuracy and speed.

If that machine could devise treatments or therapies to prevent the death of you - faster than you could - fast enough to save you from dying - then I would say there is value in handing the problem off to a fast machine.

Omnido, I believe I debated you about "greater than" and "faster than" human intelligence. My argument was from a results based perspective (similar to the scenario I outlined above). Consider giving an 2 intelligent beings some basic axioms of math and ask them to develop high order axioms from within that framework. Let us say the only difference between the 2 beings is speed - they both have the intelligence to solve the problems and develop advanced math concepts - but one of them is a thousand times faster at doing it. Sure, the slow one could develop Calculus and Topology theorems - in a billion years. Meanwhile the fast one has developed the same concepts in a couple days. Of course, the faster new ideas are developed, the faster they can be put to use - toward curing death and finding the ultimate reality of the universe, among other things.

Speed may not make a person more intelligent, but it matters when you want time-constrained results.

In that I can wholly agree.
However, you make my case for me even if it appears moot:
FAI &/or the Singularity cannot substantiate itself as being "more intelligent" than the capabilities of humans, they merely decrease the time, and in some cases the effort(s) required.

I have no problem agreeing to this, but then again, such a proposal is still not "Greater than Human Intelligence". Also, your "billion years" reference was a bit extreme (to say the least). It hasnt taken the general academia community nearly a fractional margin of those years to learn and develop what we have thus far, and computers have had little if anything to contribute to those developments.

Its only recently (within the last 15-20 years) that computing has assisted us in calculation, but nonetheless, it is calculation that can be (and consequently was) done by humans.

Hey, if its faster and better than me, Im all for it.
If its designed to out-think me and decide for itself what it "thinks" I want, Im all against it.
I will never willfully allow a machine to decide my fate, so long as I have any awareness of its existence and/or its intent to do so, on any other logical basis than a fate I could decide for myself without it.

Humans are flawed, and machines are created by humans, thus machines are flawed.
Reduced in their error by stringent linnear limitations, and quantitatively superior in terms of strict symbologic logic, but a far cry from "Greater than" in qualitative respects.

Planetp

Infinite time, but no time to read this post deeper and comment any more. (Working on the Master Plan) Yes I am a Tranhumanist, (not by my own definition) From my experience A guy like Sasha Shulgin is doing more to bring Immortality to us all, that almost anyone else in history. Opening people’s minds to the possibility that it. Can/Does exist.
I at my present evolution of thought I am more likely to be at the Minds States 2 Even though the whole focus of my life is Immortality, as that for me they hold more keys than 99.9 % of the population can being to understand. (I could write here forever in an attempt to explain as some will know you can’t explain what is beyond words and beyond type) The best I can do explain would be to say go here http://mckenna.psych...ic-library.org/ then listen to Dreaming awake at the end of time Terrence McKenna - DreamAwake rc.mp3
Eros&Eschaton rc.mp3 is very good.

Or for the science mind intresting
trialogues 98 - 1 - sheldrake-mckenna-abraham.mp3 I think this one or the
link below it trialogues 98 - 2 - mckenna-abraham-sheldrake.mp3

To give you an idea of the content minute 13 " we are on the brink of the
possible emergence of some sort of alien intelligence that we could not have
an anitpaciated " " A super intelligence " " The AI may be upon us with
our warning "


I think that every theory has its truths and that we must not close our minds to anything that can lead us to infinity. I am from a science background and had all my eggs in that basket, now a myriad of other possibilities exist in my own mind, that we always there that have been suppressed by the cultural engineers

I realize this thread is mostly dead, but I thought I would make a couple points:


There are mostly arbitrary moral and ethical lines drawn around the use of psychoactive plants and chemicals which have been the focus of a huge amount of social cost. While there are reasons that Prohibition has come about, there are also a lot of very badly formed models for how to behave around powerful psychoactive chemicals.

Psychoactive plants and chemicals are simply another form of technology for altering and shaping thought. As we head into the 21st Century, we are faced with some very complex choices as a species about what the future of consciousness is going to be and the Drug War will be informing these decisions.

While I don't think I'm a full on Transhumanist, from what I know about the breadth of the philosophies, I am very clearly a believer that human consciousness is a process mediated by a physical/chemical substrate and we in this time have an amazing and unprecedented opportunity to directly manipulate that substrate with a specificity and control that was impossible before this age.

I guess Transhumanism is necessarily a philosophical bent about what we want to do with that technology, now that "we know" that we have this capacity? I honestly have no idea what the future of consciousness looks like. To me, the key issues that need more working out on that front are:

1) Open vs Closed Operating Systems: Are you allowed to know what OS your consciousness is running on or is it "owned" by someone and it could be criminal to find out?

2) Individual Control vs Centralized Control of states of consciousness: Do individuals have the right to choose which technologies they are going to use to affect their consciousness and what are the bounds on this? which brain machines are contraband and who gets to decide? Which games are unacceptable and what are the criteria for deciding? Does criminal law reasonably encode moral judgement of state of mind?

3) Intellectual Property in general: how long can ideas be owned and how much control can an 'owner' exert over facts? The last 30 years have seen an enormous growth of ownership of things which used to be un-ownable, including patents and fundamentally theoretical ideas, to the copyright ownership of ideas/images, to the aggregation of ownership into centralized entities primarily designed to defend their ownership.


To me, those issues are key to the future of Human Consciousness, how they are played out in the next 100 years will shape what becomes of "us".

My own particular niche is working on trying to open up some of the areas which have been poorly documented in the past and trying to help people understand a topic is prone to misunderstanding. While the issue is fraught with flamewars, there is little dispute that technologies which affect the mind and thinking (psychoactives) have a direct impact on the issue of Transhumanism and I hope our work can help inform the edges of Transhumanism that touch on technologies which impact the mind.


enjoy,

earth