Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

[mfbukowski]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-is-mormon-transhumanism-and-is-it-mormon/

This is an excellent article by Greg Smith on Mormon Transhumanism, and shows an excellent understanding of the issues of physicalism and the gospel.  For what it's worth, I heartily endorse the article and its perspective on Mormonism.

To get to the point, Greg Smith takes the position that Transhumanism misses the spiritual side of the gospel- the aspect of changing our lives and getting in touch with the spirit and direct spiritual experience, or at least that is my understanding of Greg's point.

To make the issue overly simple "Transhumanism", as shown by this quote is a belief that technology will be part of the process of exaltation- that, for example "immortality" may be achievable by transferring human intelligence or "spirit" into intelligent machines using AI etc.

Quote

 

What is Mormon Transhumanism?

Mormon Transhumanism takes the Mormon idea that humans should become gods, and the Transhumanist idea that we should use science and technology in ethical ways to improve our condition until we attain posthumanity, and suggests that these are related, if not identical tasks. That is, we should ethically use our resources including religion, science, and technology to improve ourselves and our world until we become Gods ourselves.....

 

In other words, my understanding is that they believe that technology may be part of achieving immortality, using means such as cryogenics, bionics, Artificial Intelligence , genetic modification, etc.

I agree quite strongly with Greg on this issue- that Transhumanism misses the boat in misunderstanding spiritual advancement with technological advancement.

My purpose was to point out this article and expose it to those here who might not be aware of it- I think it raises important issues and questions about the nature of Mormonism and how much science has to do with religion.

I will avoid commenting directly for the most part- I have already stated that I agree with Greg,  but I am fascinated by what those here think of this.

Here is a link to the Lincoln Canon article

https://philpapers.org/archive/CANWIM.pdf

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

Lincoln Cannon (thanks mfbukowski) is thinking too linearly. He is also ignoring other causes and effects.

Quote

First Conclusion: “Because God commands us to use ordained means to participate in God’s work [P1], and because science and technology are among those means [P2], we can deduce [C1] that God commands us to use science and technology to participate in God’s work.”

Second Conclusion: “Because God commands us to use science and technology to participate in God’s work [C1], and because God’s work is to help each other attain Godhood [P3], we can deduce [C2] that God commands us to use science and technology to help each other attain Godhood.”

Third Conclusion: “Because God commands us to use science and technology to help each other attain Godhood [C2], and because an essential attribute of Godhood is a glorified immortal body [P4], we can conclude [C3] that God commands us to use science and technology to help each other attain a glorified immortal body.”

In C1, science and technology are among the means to participate in God's work (which includes a lot more than just the immortalization of the body). From then on, all the other means and objectives of the plan of God are ignored. Cannon reasons that since X is a tool and Y is an objective, X must be used to help Y come to pass.

The hammer is among the tools of a construction worker. One of the last things that happens before the house can pass inspection is the walls and doors must be painted. Is the hammer used to paint? Is the paint brush used to pound a nail?

Edited July 12, 2018 by Thinking

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Greg is thinking too linearly. He is also ignoring other causes and effects.........................................

Worse than that, the Transhumanists are thinking too linearly as well, and Mormon humanism does not need to be bottled up in primitive notions of technology.

Mormon theology is undeniably humanist, but human evolution finds its telos in transfiguration rather than in superficial transhumanism.  After all, God is an example of the ultimate result of human development -- apotheosis (divinization) the entirely natural result of the universal laws which govern the universe.  That final result (godhood) allows celestial beings to travel through space without spaceships, and to live "on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.  This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon" (D&C 130-6-11).  Cf. Rev 4:6 “And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal:” (Rev 15:2)

We need to think rather of Puccini's nessun dorma (1 Cor 15:51-53), as delivered victoriously by Pavarotti --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFUM4Uh_6Y .

This is what best explains Fermi's Paradox, and demonstrates what true human potential consists of.  Technology, yes, but of a fundamentally different kind.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I will avoid commenting directly for the most part- I have already stated that I agree with Greg,  but I am fascinated by what those here think of this.

From the abstract: "The article does not accurately reflect LDS teachings, and thus has not demonstrated that Transhumanism is congenial to LDS scripture or doctrine."

Cannon's paper doesn't mention LDS teachings or doctrine. That must be intentional. It's called Mormon Transhumansim for a very good reason.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-is-mormon-transhumanism-and-is-it-mormon/

This is an excellent article by Greg Smith on Mormon Transhumanism, and shows an excellent understanding of the issues of physicalism and the gospel.  For what it's worth, I heartily endorse the article and its perspective on Mormonism.

To get to the point, Greg Smith takes the position that Transhumanism misses the spiritual side of the gospel- the aspect of changing our lives and getting in touch with the spirit and direct spiritual experience, or at least that is my understanding of Greg's point.

To make the issue overly simple "Transhumanism", as shown by this quote is a belief that technology will be part of the process of exaltation- that, for example "immortality" may be achievable by transferring human intelligence or "spirit" into intelligent machines using AI etc.

In other words, my understanding is that they believe that technology may be part of achieving immortality, using means such as cryogenics, bionics, Artificial Intelligence , genetic modification, etc.

I agree quite strongly with Greg on this issue- that Transhumanism misses the boat in misunderstanding spiritual advancement with technological advancement.

My purpose was to point out this article and expose it to those here who might not be aware of it- I think it raises important issues and questions about the nature of Mormonism and how much science has to do with religion.

I will avoid commenting directly for the most part- I have already stated that I agree with Greg,  but I am fascinated by what those here think of this.

Here is a link to the Lincoln Canon article

https://philpapers.org/archive/CANWIM.pdf

 

This reminds me of the pitfalls of "dataism" wherein the universe, including all life, and humanity as a subset, is considered to be a data processing system (genetics, and socio-political / economic systems, etc.) where "natural selection" favors those who connect better and with more junctions, and in which we will eventually turn all authority over to connecting algorithms for efficiency's sake (rather than relying on our human feelings and judgement); I see transhumanism as as step in that evolution of thought. It seems to me that the "checklist" approach to living the Gospel has been a form of transhumanism all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataism

Can God work though such an ideology Probably, but that doesn't make it an effective contributor to what He wants us to become; more of an obstacle He tolerates in His messaging.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-is-mormon-transhumanism-and-is-it-mormon/

This is an excellent article by Greg Smith on Mormon Transhumanism, and shows an excellent understanding of the issues of physicalism and the gospel.  For what it's worth, I heartily endorse the article and its perspective on Mormonism.

To get to the point, Greg Smith takes the position that Transhumanism misses the spiritual side of the gospel- the aspect of changing our lives and getting in touch with the spirit and direct spiritual experience, or at least that is my understanding of Greg's point.

To make the issue overly simple "Transhumanism", as shown by this quote is a belief that technology will be part of the process of exaltation- that, for example "immortality" may be achievable by transferring human intelligence or "spirit" into intelligent machines using AI etc.

In other words, my understanding is that they believe that technology may be part of achieving immortality, using means such as cryogenics, bionics, Artificial Intelligence , genetic modification, etc.

I agree quite strongly with Greg on this issue- that Transhumanism misses the boat in misunderstanding spiritual advancement with technological advancement.

My purpose was to point out this article and expose it to those here who might not be aware of it- I think it raises important issues and questions about the nature of Mormonism and how much science has to do with religion.

I will avoid commenting directly for the most part- I have already stated that I agree with Greg,  but I am fascinated by what those here think of this.

Here is a link to the Lincoln Canon article

https://philpapers.org/archive/CANWIM.pdf

I read Greg to be saying that Cannon misuses LDS scripture on fundamental levels to draw several conclusions. Greg concludes that therefore Cannon's conclusions are not reliable or necessarily salient. On these points I mostly agree. I don't believe man is going to reach exaltation with technology or self-improvement. 

John 15:5

5 I am the ^avine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without ^bme ye can do nothing.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is ^ajust; because I seek not mine own ^bwill, but the ^cwill of the Father which hath sent me.

I don't see man progressing above what is prophesied. During the millennium man will reach very old ages, but nonetheless man will still die. Immortality will not come by man, but by God. Exaltation will come of God - not of man. Our own Savior taught that even He could not do the works of His ownself, but that His mighty works were by the power of the Father.

Man does not have an inkling of the power of the Father, but man will not learn it through His own intellect. We will have to learn to do the will of the Father, even as Yeshua did, if we want to attain those abilities. To think that we are doing it for ourselves is actually the opposite teaching of what is needed. Instead, only YHWH will be exalted, and man will be humbled. Then will man begin to learn of the ways and power of YHWH. 

So you are right Mark. This is a spiritual teaching. I believe it to be virtually the opposite of what Cannon espouses. What Cannon seeks to achieve by the arm of man, is a gift from God, and cannot be attained elsewise. The path is a spiritual one rather than a technological one, and few there be that find it.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-is-mormon-transhumanism-and-is-it-mormon/

This is an excellent article by Greg Smith on Mormon Transhumanism, and shows an excellent understanding of the issues of physicalism and the gospel.  For what it's worth, I heartily endorse the article and its perspective on Mormonism.

To get to the point, Greg Smith takes the position that Transhumanism misses the spiritual side of the gospel- the aspect of changing our lives and getting in touch with the spirit and direct spiritual experience, or at least that is my understanding of Greg's point.

To make the issue overly simple "Transhumanism", as shown by this quote is a belief that technology will be part of the process of exaltation- that, for example "immortality" may be achievable by transferring human intelligence or "spirit" into intelligent machines using AI etc.

In other words, my understanding is that they believe that technology may be part of achieving immortality, using means such as cryogenics, bionics, Artificial Intelligence , genetic modification, etc.

I agree quite strongly with Greg on this issue- that Transhumanism misses the boat in misunderstanding spiritual advancement with technological advancement.

My purpose was to point out this article and expose it to those here who might not be aware of it- I think it raises important issues and questions about the nature of Mormonism and how much science has to do with religion.

I will avoid commenting directly for the most part- I have already stated that I agree with Greg,  but I am fascinated by what those here think of this.

Here is a link to the Lincoln Canon article

https://philpapers.org/archive/CANWIM.pdf

 

I'm just not sure I have the patience to try and read this article by Greg.  I have a problem if he's critiquing Mormon Transhumanists in the Interpreter.  Why do they have to feel threatened by a group like this?  Its such a small movement of people.  Every Mormon Transhumanist I've ever listened to or read has been such a positive person and has such a positive outlook on life and doing good in the world.  Why do the boundary maintenance police have to feel threatened by such a small group trying to do good that they have to put them down.  My intuition tells me this is just insecurity by the apologists. 

Ugh....  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

............................... The path is a spiritual one rather than a technological one, and few there be that find it.

I am reminded of Pratt's Absurdities of Immaterialism, and the false either-or dualism which enables it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I read Greg to be saying that Cannon misuses LDS scripture on fundamental levels to draw several conclusions. Greg concludes that therefore Cannon's conclusions are not reliable or necessarily salient. On these points I mostly agree. I don't believe man is going to reach exaltation with technology or self-improvement. 

John 15:5

5 I am the ^avine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without ^bme ye can do nothing.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is ^ajust; because I seek not mine own ^bwill, but the ^cwill of the Father which hath sent me.

I don't see man progressing above what is prophesied. During the millennium man will reach very old ages, but nonetheless man will still die. Immortality will not come by man, but by God. Exaltation will come of God - not of man. Our own Savior taught that even He could not do the works of His ownself, but that His mighty works were by the power of the Father.

Man does not have an inkling of the power of the Father, but man will not learn it through His own intellect. We will have to learn to do the will of the Father, even as Yeshua did, if we want to attain those abilities. To think that we are doing it for ourselves is actually the opposite teaching of what is needed. Instead, only YHWH will be exalted, and man will be humbled. Then will man begin to learn of the ways and power of YHWH. 

So you are right Mark. This is a spiritual teaching. I believe it to be virtually the opposite of what Cannon espouses. What Cannon seeks to achieve by the arm of man, is a gift from God, and cannot be attained elsewise. The path is a spiritual one rather than a technological one, and few there be that find it.

 

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Greg is thinking too linearly. He is also ignoring other causes and effects.

In C1, science and technology are among the means to participate in God's work (which includes a lot more than just the immortalization of the body). From then on, all the other means and objectives of the plan of God are ignored. Smith reasons that since X is a tool and Y is an objective, X must be used to help Y come to pass.

The hammer is among the tools of a construction worker. One of the last things that happens before the house can pass inspection is the walls and doors must be painted. Is the hammer used to paint? Is the paint brush used to pound a nail?

I presume you meant "Lincoln" in that first sentence?

I agree that that appears to be what is missing.

There is no problem in the conclusion following from the premises, it is the assumptions behind the premises that are faulty.

I myself have lived longer due to science, and learned more about God. No one would argue against that.

If that's all Transhumanism is saying, it seems vacuous. Who would disagree with that? 

It's the notion that exaltation can be achieved through technology that I find very faulty.

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I presume you meant "Lincoln" in that first sentence?

Yes. Thanks. Fixed.

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Worse than that, the Transhumanists are thinking too linearly as well, and Mormon humanism does not need to be bottled up in primitive notions of technology.

Mormon theology is undeniably humanist, but human evolution finds its telos in transfiguration rather than in superficial transhumanism.  After all, God is an example of the ultimate result of human development -- apotheosis (divinization) the entirely natural result of the universal laws which govern the universe.  That final result (godhood) allows celestial beings to travel through space without spaceships, and to live "on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.  This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon" (D&C 130-6-11).  Cf. Rev 4:6 “And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal:” (Rev 15:2)

We need to think rather of Puccini's nessun dorma (1 Cor 15:51-53), as delivered victoriously by Pavarotti --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFUM4Uh_6Y .

This is what best explains Fermi's Paradox, and demonstrates what true human potential consists of.  Technology, yes, but of a fundamentally different kind.

A wonderful example of the kind of thing I've been dancing around since the late '70s when I was first introduced to Schiller's Briefe, their antecedents, and Zeitgeist milieu.  It is through overcoming both the material and intellectual, or at least achieving a state where the two are not in conflict, where we are in a place to be told "in [our] mind[ s] and in our heart[ s]" what G-d's Truth is (that "we are His offspring"), and that through the creative process, we achieve, in our sphere, son- and daughterhood.  When we reach that state , we are indeed demiurgical children of the Great Creator, creating a new self, a new world, a new universe.  Pavarotti becoming Pavarotti; Puccini becoming Puccini; Robert F Smith becoming Robert F Smith is an evolutionary process, and in the day you become you, He says, "Thou art My son; this day have I begotten thee."

Edited July 12, 2018 by USU78

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just not sure I have the patience to try and read this article by Greg.  I have a problem if he's critiquing Mormon Transhumanists in the Interpreter.  Why do they have to feel threatened by a group like this?  Its such a small movement of people.  Every Mormon Transhumanist I've ever listened to or read has been such a positive person and has such a positive outlook on life and doing good in the world.  Why do the boundary maintenance police have to feel threatened by such a small group trying to do good that they have to put them down.  My intuition tells me this is just insecurity by the apologists. 

Ugh....  

Your argument seems to be based upon the assumption that Mormon Transhumanists are so many D&D nerds speculating about Iron Man's armor.  Should we just not take them and their notions seriously?

[hope_for_things]

Just now, USU78 said:

Your argument seems to be based upon the assumption that Mormon Transhumanists are so many D&D nerds speculating about Iron Man's armor.  Should we just not take them and their notions seriously?

No, not at all.  I love their forward thinking ideas.  They aren't just nerds.  The ones I've listened to and read are extremely well educated and thoughtful.  They are people looking towards the future, but they are more concerned about practical ideas in this world and doing good in the here and now.  I thought about attending one of their conferences in the past, but I had some conflicts.  I likely will in the future.  

They don't view things through a supernatural lens, so its not that they live in a fantasy world, at least thats not at all the impression I've received.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just not sure I have the patience to try and read this article by Greg.  I have a problem if he's critiquing Mormon Transhumanists in the Interpreter.  Why do they have to feel threatened by a group like this?  Its such a small movement of people.  Every Mormon Transhumanist I've ever listened to or read has been such a positive person and has such a positive outlook on life and doing good in the world.  Why do the boundary maintenance police have to feel threatened by such a small group trying to do good that they have to put them down.  My intuition tells me this is just insecurity by the apologists. 

Ugh....  

 

 

I strongly suggest you read the article.

It touches on issues we have discussed before between us and not been able to establish communication well.

From what little I know about Interpreter, topics for articles are not assigned or anything like that. It is not like Interpreter is going after transhumanism. I am sure that what happened is that Greg submitted the article and Interpreter thought it was good enough to be published.

It does not necessarily reflect any position particularly of Interpreter.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I strongly suggest you read the article.

It touches on issues we have discussed before between us and not been able to establish communication well.

From what little I know about Interpreter, topics for articles are not assigned or anything like that. It is not like Interpreter is going after transhumanism. I am sure that what happened is that Greg submitted the article and Interpreter thought it was good enough to be published.

It does not necessarily reflect any position particularly of Interpreter.

I'll try and let go of my prejudices and give it a try...  Have to simmer down a little first.  Thanks for the encouragement.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, not at all.  I love their forward thinking ideas.  They aren't just nerds.  The ones I've listened to and read are extremely well educated and thoughtful.  They are people looking towards the future, but they are more concerned about practical ideas in this world and doing good in the here and now.  I thought about attending one of their conferences in the past, but I had some conflicts.  I likely will in the future.  

They don't view things through a supernatural lens, so its not that they live in a fantasy world, at least thats not at all the impression I've received.  

My suggestion is that we ban the word Supernatural forever.

This is actually the crux of the communication problem you and I personally have.

I suggest you read philosophical articles on what are called "qualia." The entire problem is that science cannot explain personal experience. It is as simple as not being able to explain what blue is to a person who is blind.

Scientific descriptions of light waves do not describe the experience of blue.

Transhumanism would seem to Advocate that duplicating the chemical reactions of seeing the color blue somehow conveys subjective Human Experience and wonder of looking at a blue sky.

It does not. But we have been over this  many times before.

If you want to discuss logic it is the problem of translating a first-person statement into a third-person statement.

Third person statements cannot convey the significance experienced in a first-person way. The subjective feeling of hunger for example cannot be described by blood sugar levels. It may be explained by blood sugar levels but it cannot be described by blood sugar levels.

That is the precise difference.

If I could perfectly describe all of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain at this very moment it would not describe what you are feeling. Science deliberately throws out feelings and that is precisely the problem. Because they are subjective they cannot be described in third person statements about what is happening "objectively".

Put simply the subjective cannot be described objectively. Science does not include the subjective therefore science cannot describe it.

Imagine and Indian Guru meditating. Science may be able to describe exactly what is happening in his brain but cannot convey The Experience he is having.

Spirituality is about the experience it is not about the objective scientific description of mental States.

Spirituality is Perfectly Natural not Supernatural.  Spirit matter is still matter.

So yes I am a materialist in that sense but I could never be a transhumanist because in my opinion they are missing the nature of describing the subjective experience which is what I am trying to attain in my life.

I am trying to attain the subjective experience of understanding in some small way what it's like to be in communion with God. I am not describing the chemicals that my brain produces during the process.

This is the distinction that seems to constantly stand in our way. Of course I affirm science who would not? I am here today because of science.

But that is not the point at all.

Edited July 12, 2018 by mfbukowski
Voice to text error changed meaning. I affirm science, not "burn" it!!

[mfbukowski]

Robots don't itch.

It's as simple as that.

[mfbukowski]

Without having to face death, we would never learn the significance and importance of life.

It's not about extending life even to the infinite. That would allow me to procrastinate becoming like God forever 

 

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A wonderful example of the kind of thing I've been dancing around since the late '70s when I was first introduced to Schiller's Briefe, their antecedents, and Zeitgeist milieu.  It is through overcoming both the material and intellectual, or at least achieving a state where the two are not in conflict, where we are in a place to be told "in [our] mind[ s] and in our heart[ s]" what G-d's Truth is (that "we are His offspring"), and that through the creative process, we achieve, in our sphere, son- and daughterhood.  When we reach that state , we are indeed demiurgical children of the Great Creator, creating a new self, a new world, a new universe.  Pavarotti becoming Pavarotti; Puccini becoming Puccini; Robert F Smith becoming Robert F Smith is an evolutionary process, and in the day you become you, He says, "Thou art My son; this day have I begotten thee."

Was that supposed to be bolded?

I love Schiller!

Edited July 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

I have considered the possibility that cloning might be how we will be resurrected, but there's still a lot of bugs to be worked out of that idea.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I have considered the possibility that cloning might be how we will be resurrected, but there's still a lot of bugs to be worked out of that idea.

Could be, but what is important is what the BELIEF in resurrection does for our lives. The benefit of the belief in changing our lives is what matters, not HOW it is done.

For me that is the big error here.

That is why the belief in Christ forgives our sins. Once we believe that our sins are forgiven. That is what is behind the belief that we are forgiven by faith alone. In a sense that is psychologically true.

It's not the technology behind balancing the scales of Heaven between mercy and justice it's about what the belief that our sins are forgiven that does for us in our lives and what it enables us to do.

It's about our attitudes not Mechanics.

Edited July 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My suggestion is that we ban the word Supernatural forever.

This is actually the crux of the communication problem you and I personally have.

I suggest you read philosophical articles on what are called "qualia." The entire problem is that science cannot explain personal experience. It is as simple as not being able to explain what blue is to a person who is blind.

Scientific descriptions of light waves do not describe the experience of blue.

Transhumanism would seem to Advocate that duplicating the chemical reactions of seeing the color blue somehow conveys subjective Human Experience and wonder of looking at a blue sky.

It does not. But we have been over this  many times before.

If you want to discuss logic it is the problem of translating a first-person statement into a third-person statement.

Third person statements cannot convey the significance experienced in a first-person way. The subjective feeling of hunger for example cannot be described by blood sugar levels. It may be explained by blood sugar levels but it cannot be described by blood sugar levels.

That is the precise difference.

If I could perfectly describe all of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain at this very moment it would not describe what you are feeling. Science deliberately throws out feelings and that is precisely the problem. Because they are subjective they cannot be described in third person statements about what is happening "objectively".

Put simply the subjective cannot be described objectively. Science does not include the subjective therefore science cannot describe it.

Imagine and Indian Guru meditating. Science may be able to describe exactly what is happening in his brain but cannot convey The Experience he is having.

Spirituality is about the experience it is not about the objective scientific description of mental States.

Spirituality is Perfectly Natural not Supernatural.  Spirit matter is still matter.

So yes I am a materialist in that sense but I could never be a transhumanist because in my opinion they are missing the nature of describing the subjective experience which is what I am trying to attain in my life.

I am trying to attain the subjective experience of understanding in some small way what it's like to be in communion with God. I am not describing the chemicals that my brain produces during the process.

This is the distinction that seems to constantly stand in our way. Of course I affirm science who would not? I am here today because of science.

But that is not the point at all.

Good points, and I agree with you about the descriptions for the most part.  Although I've seen some interesting things with respect to neuroscience that make me wonder if someday science might come closer to actually explaining some of the things that we today can't explain, and that we think are in this realm of the subjective.  Only time and technology will tell, but I would hesitate to draw a strong line with respect to saying what the limits of science are.  

I haven't read the article yet, and I'm not that tapped into what the Transhumanists think about the nature of subjective experience.  

It seems to me that an important thing to consider is the way we tell stories and narrate our experiences has a huge influence on our memories of these experiences.  Once we start to articulate an emotional/spiritual experience with words we begin to start to take something that's difficult to describe and put parameters around it.  We begin to give it order and meaning, and I believe that process of giving it order and meaning is also a process that limits the original experience itself. 

Because our language is limited and our memories are fallible, in the very act of trying to transmit the subjective and experiential into language, we lose the original experience itself, and what is left is only the language that we translated the experience into, but unfortunately we don't have that original experience to refer back to again.  Instead we refer back to the language we used, and of course that language evolves as our subjective lives evolve and it changes and so do our memories.  This is human nature. 

So when it comes to individual spiritual experience, whether this is something happening entirely inside our heads or whether there is something externally interacting with us is a question that might not matter for the individual having the experience.  We know from studies of people experimenting with psychedelics, they know that what they are experiencing is just inside their head, yet when evaluated after their experience, many of them consider these experiences some of the most life altering and profound that they've ever had.  And thats all from an ingested chemical substance.  So the effects of spiritual experience itself can be profound, independently from any objective evidence about whether spirit is matter or its just a psychological experience.  

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just not sure I have the patience to try and read this article by Greg.  I have a problem if he's critiquing Mormon Transhumanists in the Interpreter.  Why do they have to feel threatened by a group like this?  Its such a small movement of people.  Every Mormon Transhumanist I've ever listened to or read has been such a positive person and has such a positive outlook on life and doing good in the world.  Why do the boundary maintenance police have to feel threatened by such a small group trying to do good that they have to put them down.  My intuition tells me this is just insecurity by the apologists. 

Ugh....  

 

 

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).

Edited July 12, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points, and I agree with you about the descriptions for the most part.  Although I've seen some interesting things with respect to neuroscience that make me wonder if someday science might come closer to actually explaining some of the things that we today can't explain, and that we think are in this realm of the subjective.  Only time and technology will tell, but I would hesitate to draw a strong line with respect to saying what the limits of science are.  

I haven't read the article yet, and I'm not that tapped into what the Transhumanists think about the nature of subjective experience.  

It seems to me that an important thing to consider is the way we tell stories and narrate our experiences has a huge influence on our memories of these experiences.  Once we start to articulate an emotional/spiritual experience with words we begin to start to take something that's difficult to describe and put parameters around it.  We begin to give it order and meaning, and I believe that process of giving it order and meaning is also a process that limits the original experience itself. 

Because our language is limited and our memories are fallible, in the very act of trying to transmit the subjective and experiential into language, we lose the original experience itself, and what is left is only the language that we translated the experience into, but unfortunately we don't have that original experience to refer back to again.  Instead we refer back to the language we used, and of course that language evolves as our subjective lives evolve and it changes and so do our memories.  This is human nature. 

So when it comes to individual spiritual experience, whether this is something happening entirely inside our heads or whether there is something externally interacting with us is a question that might not matter for the individual having the experience.  We know from studies of people experimenting with psychedelics, they know that what they are experiencing is just inside their head, yet when evaluated after their experience, many of them consider these experiences some of the most life altering and profound that they've ever had.  And thats all from an ingested chemical substance.  So the effects of spiritual experience itself can be profound, independently from any objective evidence about whether spirit is matter or its just a psychological experience.  

 

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. 

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.

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.

But yes. Your comment shows that you understand that what makes the difference is the pragmatic effect of certain experiences in your life.

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.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Arosophos]

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.