Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

[Calm]

aros, I am getting a number of pop ups before I can view the paper plus lots of other stuff on the page for the link that I think is your website, so am using the scribed link instead as it is pure paper   .  Let me know if it is the wrong one, please.

https://www.scribd.com/document/272746927/What-Is-Mormon-Transhumanism

Edited July 12, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

I had to read everything twice to try and understand...(no surprise there)😊 The first time I read through it...I thought...oh my gosh...this sounds like "Stepford Wives" or something.  Interesting..

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

aros, I am getting a number of pop ups before I can view the paper plus lots of other stuff on the page for the link that I think is your website, so am using the scribed link instead as it is pure paper   .  Let me know if it is the wrong one, please.

https://www.scribd.com/document/272746927/What-Is-Mormon-Transhumanism

I linked to the paper in the OP.

Nice clean pdf.

Edited July 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Arosophos said:

Hi. The Interpreter article misrepresents both Mormon Transhumanism and my work. I’d be happy to share a link to a free version of the original article, but it appears I’m unable to post links. You can find the free version by googling for “Lincoln Cannon free manuscript Mormon Transhumanism” without the quotes. 

I presume you are Lincoln. Thanks for stopping by. 

What precisely is the misinterpretation?

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no reason to assume it is feeling threatened as opposed to simply being interested.  Greg tends to investigate things rather than rely on others' reports, but he is also really good about sharing his efforts to save others time.  He has been a big contributor to the FM Wiki as well as answering people's questions who write in over the years.

Over the time I have been involved with FM (since 2002 iirc), FM has received a number of questions about the Mormon Transhumanism movement (not a huge number, probably not more than a dozen...enough to remind us it exists   ).  I checked it out early on.  I have written a bit about it for those curious back then.  In no way did I feel threatened, but it was still interesting to me.

I think it is really strange that you first go to "threatened" when dealing with a group of people who tend to have an academic approach to life (writers for the Interpreter).

Calm, I was just being honest about my initial feelings.  I really disliked the Greg Smith infamous hit piece on John Dehlin.  I also typically find the audience that the Interpreter is aiming at is not my cup of tea, its too apologetically bent for my tastes.  So thats two strikes against to start with.  Thirdly, I like the Mormon Transhumanists and couldn't think of any good reason that an apologetically bent organization like the Interpreter would want to write an essay on them other than for border maintenance purposes. 

But, all those prejudices I hold that informed my initial negative reaction aside, I'm planning to read the article based on Mark's recommendation.  However I noticed Lincoln Cannon posted last night on the thread, so apparently this thread got back to some Transhumanists and I'm thinking some of my initial skepticism of the author and the publication may have been warranted after all.  You can't teach an old guard dog new tricks after all. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Calm, I was just being honest about my initial feelings.  I really disliked the Greg Smith infamous hit piece on John Dehlin.  I also typically find the audience that the Interpreter is aiming at is not my cup of tea, its too apologetically bent for my tastes.  So thats two strikes against to start with.  Thirdly, I like the Mormon Transhumanists and couldn't think of any good reason that an apologetically bent organization like the Interpreter would want to write an essay on them other than for border maintenance purposes. 

But, all those prejudices I hold that informed my initial negative reaction aside, I'm planning to read the article based on Mark's recommendation.  However I noticed Lincoln Cannon posted last night on the thread, so apparently this thread got back to some Transhumanists and I'm thinking some of my initial skepticism of the author and the publication may have been warranted after all.  You can't teach an old guard dog new tricks after all. 

You're not alone. Rightly or not, when I see Greg Smith's name, I assume it's a boundary-maintenance piece. I've read a lot of Interpreter articles, but this one just doesn't interest me, and not because it's written by Greg Smith. 

ETA: So the elders quorum president and one of his counselors came by last night, and we had a nice visit. Good guys. Of course, they had to mention they haven't seen me at church, and my wife said, "Yes, this is the first ward we've lived in that he hasn't attended at all." As I mentioned, my wife and I have been discussing me attending with her again, and I've pretty much decided I will, starting Sunday. But I just told them, "We're discussing it." I just hope they don't have any illusions that my faith and testimony will magically reappear.

Start a new thread in Social Hall for personal posts, this is a particularly strange derail for a technical thread.  Off-topic posts are being removed. 

Sorry about that.

Edited July 13, 2018 by jkwilliams

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You said we might be able to EXPLAIN what is happening in individual experience. That is not what I said I was talking about describing subjective experience. Explaining is not describing. That is still the point that separates us. That is the whole point. Science tries to explain how we experience but what cannot be done is describing our experiences. 

Can you elaborate on this distinction between explaining and describing?  I don't think I'm understanding your point here.  I understand that as individuals we all will describe experiences somewhat differently.  For example, if ten people are present at and witness the exact same event, but those ten people are asked privately to describe the experience, all ten descriptions will have differences to them.  This tells me more about how individuals interpret experiences through their individual subjective lens.  But I'm not sure how that relates back to what I was saying about science increasingly finding causes that better explain the way our minds work.  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Religion is about creating an attitude about your purpose in life. It is about creating experiences that give you purpose in life. It is not about explaining the experiences it is not about how the experience s occur. It is not even about describing the experiences. It is about having the experiences and the practice s that induce those experiences.

What we call Righteous living helps one see the world in a different way than one sees it when one is not living righteously.

Religion is about becoming a person who has a certain set of attitudes about life and the world.

Prayer meditation and a certain lifestyle all contribute to becoming a person with that kind of attitude.

Building a prosthetic heart or growing a new kidney does not change one's attitude, except perhaps tangentially. One can simply live longer while being a jerk. 

A change in Attitude requires becoming a new person from within. Yes maybe a new heart would give someone a longer time to change their attitude but maybe not.

Exaltation is about what you become not about what mechanics you have implanted.

It seems to me that religion is a broad term that can mean just about anything.  Who's to say that some religions can't be centered around organ transplants and implanted mechanics.  And who's to say that can't be exalting from their religious perspective.  Whose to say that those operations can't also be life altering religious experiences?  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yes I did survive the 60s as a non-member as well. I have partaken of the fruit of that tree of Good and Evil and though the experiences can be profound they do not have the power to change one's life. Drug experiences can only bring out what you already know. As in a dream perhaps you will experience something you already know in a different way for or from a different perspective but one cannot learn anything new from such experiences.

At least that is my subjective experience.

I have ZERO personal experience with psychedelics or any illegal drugs.  From what I've read, I haven't seen any evidence to support your assertion that there is a qualitative difference between a psychedelically induced mystical experience and those experiences brought on through meditative practice, prayer, or some other cause.  Why do you think these experiences are different or can't be life altering?  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would never use the words "it's just a psychological experience".

Everything you think everything you know every feeling you've ever had every bit of logic you've ever applied is just a psychological experience if you look at it that way.

As I've said before we look out at the world and just see our own psychology looking back at us. We don't see the world as it is we see our psychological States. And that is pure Rorty if you read my Siggy yet again. That is exactly what he is saying.

So will a new heart and living for 200 years make you a different person ?

Maybe yes maybe no but it will still require just as much work to become a new person no matter how long you live.

I understand that the way we interpret every sensory input is filtered through our minds, so in some sense is psychological.  I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe like the chair I'm sitting on as I type this message on my computer that also exists in the universe.  

If someone else were to walk over to my desk right now, and I were to shake their hand, then that person and handshake exist in the universe, and my experience shaking that person's hand is a different kind of experience than if I just close my eyes and imagine a person coming to my desk and shaking my hand. 

Those two events are qualitatively different.  Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction.  Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something.  I don't agree, there is a difference.  

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate on this distinction between explaining and describing?  I don't think I'm understanding your point here.  I understand that as individuals we all will describe experiences somewhat differently.  For example, if ten people are present at and witness the exact same event, but those ten people are asked privately to describe the experience, all ten descriptions will have differences to them.  This tells me more about how individuals interpret experiences through their individual subjective lens.  But I'm not sure how that relates back to what I was saying about science increasingly finding causes that better explain the way our minds work.  

It seems to me that religion is a broad term that can mean just about anything.  Who's to say that some religions can't be centered around organ transplants and implanted mechanics.  And who's to say that can't be exalting from their religious perspective.  Whose to say that those operations can't also be life altering religious experiences?  

I have ZERO personal experience with psychedelics or any illegal drugs.  From what I've read, I haven't seen any evidence to support your assertion that there is a qualitative difference between a psychedelically induced mystical experience and those experiences brought on through meditative practice, prayer, or some other cause.  Why do you think these experiences are different or can't be life altering?  

I understand that the way we interpret every sensory input is filtered through our minds, so in some sense is psychological.  I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe like the chair I'm sitting on as I type this message on my computer that also exists in the universe.  

If someone else were to walk over to my desk right now, and I were to shake their hand, then that person and handshake exist in the universe, and my experience shaking that person's hand is a different kind of experience than if I just close my eyes and imagine a person coming to my desk and shaking my hand. 

Those two events are qualitatively different.  Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction.  Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something.  I don't agree, there is a difference.  

Explaining (analyzing) is a more illuminating version of describing (recounting). Imagining or describing something that cannot be realized is actually imagining something that can be realized given an explanation.

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Explaining (analyzing) is a more illuminating version of describing (recounting). Imagining or describing something that cannot be realized is actually imagining something that can be realized given an explanation.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate?  

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate?  

An example of the difference between describing and explaining: “I once knew a guy” who described Marlin K. Jensen’s remarks about having faith in the Gospel, that God is in charge, and that His servants have the keys of authority, and about the culmination of this faith being allegiance to Church authority, the #1 priority for people in this life and in the LDS religious system. Without an explanation, this might come across as promoting blind trust and loyalty, in contradiction of Christianity and Mormon tradition.

You suggested there is a difference between imagining a person doing something in the world and a person doing something. I’m saying that given an explanation, they are the same.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Without an explanation, this might come across as promoting blind trust and loyalty, in contradiction of Christianity and Mormon tradition.

You suggested there is a difference between imagining a person doing something in the world and a person doing something. I’m saying that given an explanation, they are the same.

The English language can be so hard.  I'm really trying to understand your point, but I'm still confused.  The words explanation and description are so similar.  I looked up multiple dictionary definitions just to refresh myself.  Explanation seems to emphasize more of how something works, and description seems to be more about telling a story of the attributes of something.  That said, I don't understand how someone's imagination of an event and an actual event could be the same.  

Wouldn't an explanation tell us the how around the event, how something happened, the mechanics around it, and that would contrast with how someone imagined something in their head.  The two explanations would be different wouldn't they? 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/13/2018 at 7:23 AM, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate on this distinction between explaining and describing?  I don't think I'm understanding your point here.  I understand that as individuals we all will describe experiences somewhat differently.  For example, if ten people are present at and witness the exact same event, but those ten people are asked privately to describe the experience, all ten descriptions will have differences to them.  This tells me more about how individuals interpret experiences through their individual subjective lens.  But I'm not sure how that relates back to what I was saying about science increasingly finding causes that better explain the way our minds work.  

It seems to me that religion is a broad term that can mean just about anything.  Who's to say that some religions can't be centered around organ transplants and implanted mechanics.  And who's to say that can't be exalting from their religious perspective.  Whose to say that those operations can't also be life altering religious experiences?  

I have ZERO personal experience with psychedelics or any illegal drugs.  From what I've read, I haven't seen any evidence to support your assertion that there is a qualitative difference between a psychedelically induced mystical experience and those experiences brought on through meditative practice, prayer, or some other cause.  Why do you think these experiences are different or can't be life altering?  

I understand that the way we interpret every sensory input is filtered through our minds, so in some sense is psychological.  I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe like the chair I'm sitting on as I type this message on my computer that also exists in the universe.  

If someone else were to walk over to my desk right now, and I were to shake their hand, then that person and handshake exist in the universe, and my experience shaking that person's hand is a different kind of experience than if I just close my eyes and imagine a person coming to my desk and shaking my hand. 

Those two events are qualitatively different.  Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction.  Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something.  I don't agree, there is a difference.  

1. The correspondence theory of truth does not work. The deflationary theory has replaced it. We have been over this many times.

2. An "explanation" of the experience of blue might entail discussing how the eye works how certain wavelengths of light enter the eye and are perceived by the brain Etc.

A "description "of blue however is impossible. A perfect description of blue would be a description of the experience of blue such that an individual who was blind or a never seen blue or experienced it would understand precisely what blue is.

This is the problem with transhumanism. It does not account for human consciousness which includes for example the experience of blue which is not describable. It is stuck in physicalism. The article by Nagel quoted in Greg's piece was precisely on the money.

We have been over this perhaps literally a hundred times. Philosophers acknowledge this but I don't seem to be able to communicate it to you. I have quoted you articles I have given you stuff to read but it still does not communicate.

You insist there's a difference but no one can define it. 

Again it always comes down to the Rorty quote in my Siggy. I guess either you get it or you don't.

Rorty is about as atheist and materialist as one can be and yet he understands religion. The same can be said for Wittgenstein, James, Kiekegaard, Gadamer, and whole schools of philosophy.

Looks like I can explain it but not describe it.  Maybe that will help you understand the difference between describe and explain.

But it appears we are not getting anywhere.

Edited July 19, 2018 by mfbukowski
inverted two words

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The English language can be so hard.  I'm really trying to understand your point, but I'm still confused.  The words explanation and description are so similar.  I looked up multiple dictionary definitions just to refresh myself.  Explanation seems to emphasize more of how something works, and description seems to be more about telling a story of the attributes of something.  That said, I don't understand how someone's imagination of an event and an actual event could be the same.  

Wouldn't an explanation tell us the how around the event, how something happened, the mechanics around it, and that would contrast with how someone imagined something in their head.  The two explanations would be different wouldn't they? 

Yes. Transhumanism is stuck in how things work. What is missing is why things work and the purpose of life. Science doesn't teach that. 

Religion is about the purpose of life.

It teaches us how to become a different kind of person. 

I would like to keep this thread about transhumanism and the article please.

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The English language can be so hard.  I'm really trying to understand your point, but I'm still confused.  The words explanation and description are so similar.  I looked up multiple dictionary definitions just to refresh myself.  Explanation seems to emphasize more of how something works, and description seems to be more about telling a story of the attributes of something.  That said, I don't understand how someone's imagination of an event and an actual event could be the same.  

Yes I agree with those differences in nuance, that is essentially it.

 And yes that last sentence is exactly the problem. That Cartesian dualism and the correspondence theory of Truth in a nutshell.

But please let's keep this discussion to the article.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate on this distinction between explaining and describing?  I don't think I'm understanding your point here.  I understand that as individuals we all will describe experiences somewhat differently.  For example, if ten people are present at and witness the exact same event, but those ten people are asked privately to describe the experience, all ten descriptions will have differences to them.  This tells me more about how individuals interpret experiences through their individual subjective lens.  But I'm not sure how that relates back to what I was saying about science increasingly finding causes that better explain the way our minds work.  

It seems to me that religion is a broad term that can mean just about anything.  Who's to say that some religions can't be centered around organ transplants and implanted mechanics.  And who's to say that can't be exalting from their religious perspective.  Whose to say that those operations can't also be life altering religious experiences?  

I have ZERO personal experience with psychedelics or any illegal drugs.  From what I've read, I haven't seen any evidence to support your assertion that there is a qualitative difference between a psychedelically induced mystical experience and those experiences brought on through meditative practice, prayer, or some other cause.  Why do you think these experiences are different or can't be life altering?  

I understand that the way we interpret every sensory input is filtered through our minds, so in some sense is psychological.  I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe like the chair I'm sitting on as I type this message on my computer that also exists in the universe.  

If someone else were to walk over to my desk right now, and I were to shake their hand, then that person and handshake exist in the universe, and my experience shaking that person's hand is a different kind of experience than if I just close my eyes and imagine a person coming to my desk and shaking my hand. 

Those two events are qualitatively different.  Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction.  Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something.  I don't agree, there is a difference.  

But even you can't describe the difference can you.

That is precisely the point. The difference is non-linguistic yet you know it.

That difference is precisely the difference between robots and humans.

It is the quality of the experience of blue not an explanation of it in science. That makes a difference.

The difference is what is indescribable. We do not experience angstrom units we experience the color blue. 

We cannot describe the color blue. We explain it in terms of angstrom units. That is the difference I was referring to between explaining and describing.

In this context I was saying that science explains but cannot describe.

If a blind man reads the explanation of the color blue he still would not know what blue looks like.

The raw experience is not the same as the scientific explanation.

Transhumanism sees the science but does not touch the spiritual.

Spirituality is the raw experience of God.

 One cannot describe God scientifically.

For me that is the essential error of anything which could be called Mormon transhumanism. 

It turns godliness into science. And science doesn't want to talk about God.

Phenomenology has already made giant strides in that direction by creating its own vocabulary. That's the only way it can be done.

But transhumanism is not phenomenology.

 

 

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The English language can be so hard.  I'm really trying to understand your point, but I'm still confused.  The words explanation and description are so similar.  I looked up multiple dictionary definitions just to refresh myself.  Explanation seems to emphasize more of how something works, and description seems to be more about telling a story of the attributes of something.  That said, I don't understand how someone's imagination of an event and an actual event could be the same.  

Wouldn't an explanation tell us the how around the event, how something happened, the mechanics around it, and that would contrast with how someone imagined something in their head.  The two explanations would be different wouldn't they? 

Yes, in that they are two different explanations (and it depends). And imagining an event and the event of imagining that event are the same, and I better stop there!

Edited July 13, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1. The correspondence theory of truth does not work. The deflationary theory has replaced it. We have been over this many times.

Firstly, I have read all the links, and I still don't fully understand them, philosophy is admittedly hard for me to wrap my arms around.  I can't defend exactly why I believe what I believe and how it relates to these theories in a logical way.  I can tell you that I can see how believe that everything has to correspond to something is too simplistic.  I'm not saying that.  I am saying there is a difference between imagination and what exists in the universe.  Rorty seems to say that as well, and you've told me you agree, so I'm not sure what bone you're picking here with me.  

Hallucinations, dreams, imagination while a person is asleep.  There is a distinction and difference between these things and someone's waking interactions with the universe. 

I know Clark has had some back and forth with you on this same topic, and he has education and understanding on philosophy way above my level of understanding.  I see him disagreeing with you on various points along this line of thinking as well.  And while I don't always understand the nuances of the points you both are making, it does tell me that this isn't a slam dunk issue that everyone clearly agrees about.  

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

2. An "explanation" of the experience of blue might entail discussing how the eye works how certain wavelengths of light enter the eye and are perceived by the brain Etc.

A "description "of blue however is impossible. A perfect description of blue would be a description of the experience of blue such that an individual who was blind or a never seen blue or experienced it would understand precisely what blue is.

This is helpful, thanks for the clarification of terms.  I agree that a perfect description of blue would be impossible, and I also think descriptions will have subjective variations influenced by language and culture.  I don't think this necessarily means that science will never be able to inform this world of describing colors.  When science invents the first artificial eye ball, it will be able to help a person experience blue and describe it. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the problem with transhumanism. It does not account for human consciousness which includes for example the experience of blue which is not describable. It is stuck in physicalism. The article by Nagel quoted in Greg's piece was precisely on the money.

I read Lincoln's "What is Mormon Transhumanism" and didn't see this component about consciousness discussed.  However, I did see where the wikipedia page on Transhumanism mentions it as one line of thought within the movement.  I also don't see a problem with thinking that we might be able to upload the consciousness of a human to a machine at some point in the future.  Nobody knows for sure, this is just one speculative theory, so I don't understand how this is a criticism of some flaw within Transhumanism.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes. Transhumanism is stuck in how things work. What is missing is why things work and the purpose of life. Science doesn't teach that. 

Religion is about the purpose of life.

It teaches us how to become a different kind of person. 

I would like to keep this thread about transhumanism and the article please.

It seems like Mormon Transhumanism is a unique blending of the secular and the religious.  The summary opening paragraph from Lincoln's article seems to clarify this fairly well.  

Quote

Mormon Transhumanism is the idea that humanity should learn how to be compassionate creators. This idea is essential to Mormonism, which provides a religious framework consistent with naturalism and supportive of human transformation. Mormon Transhumanists are not limited to traditional or popular accounts of religion, and embrace opportunities and risks of technological evolution. Although usually considered secular, Transhumanism has some religious origins and sometimes functions as religion. Accelerating change contextualizes a Mormon Transhumanist narrative of common expectations, aspirations, and parallels between Mormonism and Transhumanism. Mormon Transhumanism has produced secular arguments for faith in God and religious arguments for Transhumanism.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Calm, I was just being honest about my initial feelings.

But it is not your feelings you are talking about when you say someone else feels threatened, but others' feelings, so that seems like more of an excuse than an explanation to me.

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Transhumanism sees the science but does not touch the spiritual.

Spirituality is the raw experience of God.

 One cannot describe God scientifically.

For me that is the essential error of anything which could be called Mormon transhumanism. 

It turns godliness into science. And science doesn't want to talk about God.

Phenomenology has already made giant strides in that direction by creating its own vocabulary. That's the only way it can be done.

But transhumanism is not phenomenology.

Trying to steer back towards Mormon Transhumanism, since you asked.  

Why can't Mormon Transhumanism touch the spiritual?  Are you suggesting a human with prosthetic limbs or bionic eyes has changed so much that they no longer experience things spiritually and describe these spiritual experiences?  I didn't find anything in that essay by Lincoln that would cause me to think your criticisms are correct.  I also didn't read anything that attempted to describe God scientifically. 

 

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it is not your feelings you are talking about when you say someone else feels threatened, but others' feelings, so that seems like more of an excuse than an explanation to me.

Not an excuse at all, just wanted to be honest about my perspective.  What I said about them feeling threatened is just speculation on my part and may not be accurate.  I explained why I thought this was possible as well.  Not sure what else you want from me to clarify.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, in that they are two different explanations (and it depends). And imagining an event and the event of imagining that event are the same, and I better stop there!

Not just two different explanations, but two different experiences that have a measurable and distinct difference.  

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Trying to steer back towards Mormon Transhumanism, since you asked.  

Why can't Mormon Transhumanism touch the spiritual?  Are you suggesting a human with prosthetic limbs or bionic eyes has changed so much that they no longer experience things spiritually and describe these spiritual experiences?  I didn't find anything in that essay by Lincoln that would cause me to think your criticisms are correct.  I also didn't read anything that attempted to describe God scientifically. 

 

The issue comes down to the definition of consciousness which is itself a division of philosophy called "philosophy of the mind" and the "mind/body problem"

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue comes down to the definition of consciousness which is itself a division of philosophy called "philosophy of the mind" and the "mind/body problem"

I couldn't find any definition of consciousness for Mormon Transhumanism, or Transhumanism in general.  

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I couldn't find any definition of consciousness for Mormon Transhumanism, or Transhumanism in general.  

Exactly.  They know nothing about it.

How can you transfer consciousness into a machine if you don't even know what it is?  They are in above their heads living in a bad sci-fi movie.

Now we are back to Transhumanism, let's discuss the problem in more detail as is relevant to the article.

Trying to steer back towards Mormon Transhumanism, since you asked.  

Quote

Why can't Mormon Transhumanism touch the spiritual?  Are you suggesting a human with prosthetic limbs or bionic eyes has changed so much that they no longer experience things spiritually and describe these spiritual experiences?  I didn't find anything in that essay by Lincoln that would cause me to think your criticisms are correct.  I also didn't read anything that attempted to describe God scientifically. 

We are not talking about bionic eyes here- I personally have "bionic" implants and understand what they are and what they are not quite well. 

Those are just the plug-and-play inputs into the conscious system, the microphones and speakers, not the central processor.

We are talking about transferring a human mind- with emotions and prejudices and its own perspective including all that it has done in its whole life- that whipping as a child, long lost memories which have had a great impact on ones life, the funny way one walks because it feels better, the political bent and way of thinking, particular preferences like strawberry  ice cream, memories of dreams, the direction your eyes roll when thinking  of a certain topic, the itching of  a mosquito bite, not liking fish, the smell of your first class room, why you think your wife is"cute" because of that smile that hooked you, hating the smell of glue, why you think as you do about abortion, the burning in the bosom when you hear the prophet speak, the time you  meditated and saw the face of God- EVERYTHING that  makes you YOU into a non-human AI machine WHEN YOU CANNOT EVEN DESCRIBE THE COLOR BLUE in WORDS!  And Why is strawberry clearly better than chocolate?  

Are such computers still "me"?

Are such questions answered in transhumanism?   I honestly don't know.  Here is some indication that these problems are huge as even noted by Transhumanists

http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/2010/06/why-transhumanism-wont-work.html

I keep quoting all these philosophers who would evaluate Transhumanism negatively and have not found one who understands the mind-body problem in favor of it.

Please educate me- I would love to see a real discussion about this from an informed philosopher on the Transhumanism side

This is a place to start- but frankly few here will read this or begin to grasp the scope of the problem

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#FirPerThiPerDat
 

Quote

 

4.2 Qualitative character

Qualitative character is often equated with so called “raw feels” and illustrated by the redness one experiences when one looks at ripe tomatoes or the specific sweet savor one encounters when one tastes an equally ripe pineapple (Locke 1688). The relevant sort of qualitative character is not restricted to sensory states, but is typically taken to be present as an aspect of experiential states in general, such as experienced thoughts or desires (Siewert 1998).

The existence of such feels may seem to some to mark the threshold for states or creatures that are really conscious. If an organism senses and responds in apt ways to its world but lacks such qualia, then it might count as conscious at best in a loose and less than literal sense. Or so at least it would seem to those who take qualitative consciousness in the “what it is like” sense to be philosophically and scientifically central (Nagel 1974, Chalmers 1996).

Qualia problems in many forms—Can there be inverted qualia? (Block 1980a 1980b, Shoemaker 1981, 1982) Are qualia epiphenomenal? (Jackson 1982, Chalmers 1996) How could neural states give rise to qualia? (Levine 1983, McGinn 1991)—have loomed large in the recent past. But the What question raises a more basic problem of qualia: namely that of giving a clear and articulated description of our qualia space and the status of specific qualia within it.

Absent such a model, factual or descriptive errors are all too likely. For example, claims about the unintelligibility of the link between experienced red and any possible neural substrate of such an experience sometimes treat the relevant color quale as a simple and sui generis property (Levine 1983), but phenomenal redness in fact exists within a complex color space with multiple systematic dimensions and similarity relations (Hardin 1992). Understanding the specific color quale relative to that larger relational structure not only gives us a better descriptive grasp of its qualitative nature, it may also provide some “hooks” to which one might attach intelligible psycho-physical links.

Color may be the exception in terms of our having a specific and well developed formal understanding of the relevant qualitative space, but it is not likely an exception with regard to the importance of such spaces to our understanding of qualitative properties in general (Clark 1993, P.M. Churchland 1995). (See the entry on qualia.)

 

And no, that last reference was not to our "Clark" (love yah, dude!)

So qualia are defining characteristics of consciousness.  

But I look out there and see a lot of people snoozing. 

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by mfbukowski