Author
|
Topic: virus: Attack on transhumanists (Read 4198 times) |
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.75
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #1 on: 2004-12-02 12:31:20 » |
 |
Quote from: hkhenson@rogers.com on 2004-12-02 09:38:20
Here's what he says...
Quote:
The leading transhumanist website lists, among its core values, this statement: “Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism.”
|
OK....
Quote:
Translated to English, this is the belief that human beings are simply one of the animals of the universe and, apparently, simply part of an intellectual continuum that includes artificial intelligence.
|
So far so good...
Quote:
In a worldview, universe view (if you will), where human beings hold the same relative value as a microprocessors or sheep, growing humans inside other humans for the purpose of killing humans and experimenting on humans, for the sole purpose of trying to find out if some humans might live better or live longer, seems perfectly normal.
|
WTF? Same relative value? Where does this come from?!
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #2 on: 2004-12-02 13:40:18 » |
|
Keith Henson
Sent: 02 December 2004 04:38 PM
I don't know how many of you read the extropy list . . .
http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=21250
It had to happen . . . and it can be expected to get worse. Can you
imagine what is going to happen once someone discovers what
transhumanist
plan with regard to the "rapture"?
[Blunderov] OK, I'll bite. What do transhumanists plan with regard to
the "rapture"?
I e-mailed the editor of The Illinois Leader.
I read "One Vote is Too Close For Comfort on Stem Cell Legislation"
Apparently the author would prefer to believe in that nasty little hill
god Yahweh than in simple common sense. Ex nihilo nihil fit; out of
nothing, nothing comes - there is no creator. The universe (or its
precursor conditions) must always have existed. Otherwise something
would have to have come from nothing.
In any case, if forced, I would prefer to profess belief in almost any
other god than the drunken murderous thug of the bible who is apparently
so small minded as to be mollified by the fresh sacrifice of human
foreskins; (but perhaps he wished to do some stem cell research of his
own)
"And it came to pass by the way of the, inn that the Lord met him and
sought to kill him (Moses!). Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut
off the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet and said, surely art
thou a bloody husband to me. So he let him go. Exodus iv 24-26.
Mr. Thomas probably has a reasonable argument that the legislation he
decries would lead to abuses if passed. But appealing to his religion is
not a reasonable way to support this argument. He seems to suffer from
the common misperception that unless you believe in god, you can have no
ethics.
If Mr. Thomas has a moment to spare he might consider perusing:
Hermit: Virian Ethics: The End of God Referenced Ethics
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=
11557
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
Re: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #3 on: 2004-12-06 00:13:41 » |
|
I absoluely love that letter. Too bad I can't increase your rating higher.
Maybe we should have an award for acts of Virian bravery. If so, I'd like to call for a vote on it - any seconds?
------
I e-mailed the editor of The Illinois Leader.
I read "One Vote is Too Close For Comfort on Stem Cell Legislation"
Apparently the author would prefer to believe in that nasty little hill
god Yahweh than in simple common sense. Ex nihilo nihil fit; out of
nothing, nothing comes - there is no creator. The universe (or its
precursor conditions) must always have existed. Otherwise something
would have to have come from nothing.
In any case, if forced, I would prefer to profess belief in almost any
other god than the drunken murderous thug of the bible who is apparently
so small minded as to be mollified by the fresh sacrifice of human
foreskins; (but perhaps he wished to do some stem cell research of his
own)
"And it came to pass by the way of the, inn that the Lord met him and
sought to kill him (Moses!). Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut
off the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet and said, surely art
thou a bloody husband to me. So he let him go. Exodus iv 24-26.
Mr. Thomas probably has a reasonable argument that the legislation he
decries would lead to abuses if passed. But appealing to his religion is
not a reasonable way to support this argument. He seems to suffer from
the common misperception that unless you believe in god, you can have no
ethics.
If Mr. Thomas has a moment to spare he might consider perusing:
Hermit: Virian Ethics: The End of God Referenced Ethics
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=
11557
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
    
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #4 on: 2004-12-06 13:05:34 » |
|
I wrote to them as follows.
I am a Transhumanist. Scott Thomas was incorrect to write in his column of Wednesday, December 1 that Transhumanists hold humans to be of equal worth with microprocessors or sheep. They are not as sentient as humans. Embryos, however, are single-celled organisms that have not even become fetuses yet, much less people. The tissues used for stem-cell research have the potential to grow human minds if they are allowed to do so. But if not, they remain empty tissues. An early fetus is not a person because the lights are not yet on and no-one is home. The onset of consciousness is the onset of human rights. It is morally incompetent to preserve potential people at the expense of existing people.
-Matt Arnold, Oak Park Michigan
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #5 on: 2004-12-06 19:44:22 » |
|
Here is Mr. Thomas' reply, and my reply in response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt,
What is morally incompetent is creating human life, solely to destroy it, in hopes of altering human life.
Your moral compass points south. If, as you state, "The onset of consciousness is the onset of human rights", then please tell me the exact moment the onset of consciousness universally takes place. Has a 1 year old infant, still oblivious to the dangers of crawling up on a table, reached the onset of consciousness? Has a one week old baby that smiles when I make a stupid face reached the onset of consciousness. Has a 6 month old human fetus, reacting to a needle probing its body by flinching, reached the onset of consciousness? If no, then when is the magic, universally recognized, moment of the onset of consciousness? If yes, same question, except from a standpoint of how far back, towar the embryo, do we go before we know that exact moment? Does it differ from human life to human life? And, once gained, can one lose his or her consciousness and, therefore, be of diminished value to the transhumanist? And, like the onset of consciousness, when is the universally accepted moment of losing it?
My morality says, we don't know the exact answer to any of those, therefore, the only moral thing to do is assume the extreme until PROVEN otherwise. That is not only the competent approach, but the only consistent approach.
As I stated in the column, mine is a Christian worldview. The Bible tells me that, while in the womb, John (later to be John the Bapatist) lept inside his mother (Elizabeth) when Mary (Mother of Jesus) entered the room, pregnant with Jesus for less than 8 days. From God's perspective, a human being (John) recognized another human being (Jesus), while both were pre-born.
So, from a Christian worldview, my morality is right on the button. Your response shows me a Spiritual incompetence. I'll pray that changes in your life.
Scott Thomas
Afternoon Host
AM 1160 - WYLL Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas,
thank you for sending a personal reply. I understand your concerns, since I am the son of a pastor. Early in life I became a born-again Christian by choice and conviction, although you know I came to different convictions in my adult life. I acknowledge that you want society to be safe in our decisions and you have admirable good intentions, as I did at that time.
Thank you specifically for asking such important questions in your letter. I'm pleased to report that scientific instrumentation verifies that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features that an embryo lacks, the lights are on and somebody's home. Did you not know we have the ability to detect the onset of brain waves and even the ability of third-trimester fetuses to learn? You and I agree that a nine-inch trip down the birth canal is not what bestows personhood. Even though the answer to your question is more of a months-long window than a single universal instant, that window has an obvious beginning and end: how can there be thoughts in an organism without brain cells?
This is why one may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. If we are to take the path you advise, we would have to extend human rights to sperms and eggs. They are not from a different species. They are not dead. That makes them "human life," but life in the biological and not biographical sense. If conception is the onset of personhood, why is it that an embryo will just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall? They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
Your example of an infant is very helpful to my case. As a father, you would surely agree that your infant can not rightfully claim the full human right of freedom. Human parents grant independence gradually through the teenage years. So you are already used to the idea that human rights come in degrees with age. An organism that has not yet grown its first brain cell is not capable of choosing, feeling, thinking, loving, suffering, and desiring. Only people can do that.
This proves that the excerpt you cite from the bible is legendary embroidery. I can't recall from memory of my bible studies and bible college whether or not John the Baptist was even far enough along in pregnancy to have developed limbs to jump with. I understand, from personal experience, that when one's idiosyncratic and arbitrary choice of which holy book to place one's faith in is called into question, this is an instant thought-stopper for a person of faith. I wonder what you would do if you were confronted with a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu who would quote their own holy book back at you as a thought stopper and telling you they would pray for you? It's really enough to make me weep when I think about humans not employing the only interface they have-- reasoning with each other. I'm sorry for my choice of phrase "moral incompetence" which obviously has hurt your feelings. Nevertheless, ethics is a skill of observation and reasoning, like arithmetic. And like a mathematical illiterate who only uses a calculator, you exempt yourself from having to practice moral reasoning by getting it out of a book. I really can't describe it any other way.
-Matt
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.61
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #6 on: 2004-12-07 09:19:49 » |
|
Very nice, Matt.
Walter
<insert polite, muted British style golf clapping from the gallery>
Matt_Arnold wrote:
>Here is Mr. Thomas' reply, and my reply in response.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Matt,
>
>What is morally incompetent is creating human life, solely to destroy it, in hopes of altering human life.
>
>Your moral compass points south. If, as you state, "The onset of consciousness is the onset of human rights", then please tell me the exact moment the onset of consciousness universally takes place. Has a 1 year old infant, still oblivious to the dangers of crawling up on a table, reached the onset of consciousness? Has a one week old baby that smiles when I make a stupid face reached the onset of consciousness. Has a 6 month old human fetus, reacting to a needle probing its body by flinching, reached the onset of consciousness? If no, then when is the magic, universally recognized, moment of the onset of consciousness? If yes, same question, except from a standpoint of how far back, towar the embryo, do we go before we know that exact moment? Does it differ from human life to human life? And, once gained, can one lose his or her consciousness and, therefore, be of diminished value to the transhumanist? And, like the onset of consciousness, when is the universally accepted m!
>oment of losing it?
>
>My morality says, we don't know the exact answer to any of those, therefore, the only moral thing to do is assume the extreme until PROVEN otherwise. That is not only the competent approach, but the only consistent approach.
>
>As I stated in the column, mine is a Christian worldview. The Bible tells me that, while in the womb, John (later to be John the Bapatist) lept inside his mother (Elizabeth) when Mary (Mother of Jesus) entered the room, pregnant with Jesus for less than 8 days. From God's perspective, a human being (John) recognized another human being (Jesus), while both were pre-born.
>
>So, from a Christian worldview, my morality is right on the button. Your response shows me a Spiritual incompetence. I'll pray that changes in your life.
>
>
>Scott Thomas
>Afternoon Host
>AM 1160 - WYLL Chicago
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Mr. Thomas,
>thank you for sending a personal reply. I understand your concerns, since I am the son of a pastor. Early in life I became a born-again Christian by choice and conviction, although you know I came to different convictions in my adult life. I acknowledge that you want society to be safe in our decisions and you have admirable good intentions, as I did at that time.
>Thank you specifically for asking such important questions in your letter. I'm pleased to report that scientific instrumentation verifies that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features that an embryo lacks, the lights are on and somebody's home. Did you not know we have the ability to detect the onset of brain waves and even the ability of third-trimester fetuses to learn? You and I agree that a nine-inch trip down the birth canal is not what bestows personhood. Even though the answer to your question is more of a months-long window than a single universal instant, that window has an obvious beginning and end: how can there be thoughts in an organism without brain cells?
>This is why one may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. If we are to take the path you advise, we would have to extend human rights to sperms and eggs. They are not from a different species. They are not dead. That makes them "human life," but life in the biological and not biographical sense. If conception is the onset of personhood, why is it that an embryo will just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall? They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
>Your example of an infant is very helpful to my case. As a father, you would surely agree that your infant can not rightfully claim the full human right of freedom. Human parents grant independence gradually through the teenage years. So you are already used to the idea that human rights come in degrees with age. An organism that has not yet grown its first brain cell is not capable of choosing, feeling, thinking, loving, suffering, and desiring. Only people can do that.
>This proves that the excerpt you cite from the bible is legendary embroidery. I can't recall from memory of my bible studies and bible college whether or not John the Baptist was even far enough along in pregnancy to have developed limbs to jump with. I understand, from personal experience, that when one's idiosyncratic and arbitrary choice of which holy book to place one's faith in is called into question, this is an instant thought-stopper for a person of faith. I wonder what you would do if you were confronted with a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu who would quote their own holy book back at you as a thought stopper and telling you they would pray for you? It's really enough to make me weep when I think about humans not employing the only interface they have-- reasoning with each other. I'm sorry for my choice of phrase "moral incompetence" which obviously has hurt your feelings. Nevertheless, ethics is a skill of observation and reasoning, like arithmetic. And like a mathemati!
>cal illiterate who only uses a calculator, you exempt yourself from having to practice moral reasoning by getting it out of a book. I really can't describe it any other way.
>-Matt
>
>----
>This message was posted by Matt_Arnold to the Virus 2004 board on Church of Virus BBS.
><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=31108>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Pursue the small utopias... nature, music, friendship, love"
--Kupferberg--
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #7 on: 2004-12-07 14:45:05 » |
|
Excellent Matt! I would add some ideas of my own in here, but it seems you
have already covered my bases well. This kind of exchange represents
exactly the reasoned dialogue (on Matt's behalf anyway) that first
attracted me to transhumanism via the Church of the Virus. Instead praying
for Mr. Thomas, I would encourage him to consider adopting the virian
virtues of reason, empathy, and vision, and eschewing the senseless sins of
hypocrisy, apathy, and dogmatism. In other words, get a real moral compass
that works in any real-worldview, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise, instead
of this dogmatic clinging to texts that he apathetically uses to excuse
himself from thinking about real life and real people. In terms of actual
consiousness we CAN and DO know some exact answers, particularly that
consciousness depends on a functioning brain. To say otherwise amounts to
sticking his head in the sand while hypocritically accusing Matt of
"spiritual incompetance" who displays the intellectual and moral courage to
actually confront the issues that Mr. Thomas so willingly flees from.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Matt_Arnold <mattarn@123.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 12/06/2004 4:44:33 PM
> Subject: Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
>
>
> Here is Mr. Thomas' reply, and my reply in response.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
> Matt,
>
> What is morally incompetent is creating human life, solely to destroy it,
in hopes of altering human life.
>
> Your moral compass points south. If, as you state, "The onset of
consciousness is the onset of human rights", then please tell me the exact
moment the onset of consciousness universally takes place. Has a 1 year old
infant, still oblivious to the dangers of crawling up on a table, reached
the onset of consciousness? Has a one week old baby that smiles when I make
a stupid face reached the onset of consciousness. Has a 6 month old human
fetus, reacting to a needle probing its body by flinching, reached the
onset of consciousness? If no, then when is the magic, universally
recognized, moment of the onset of consciousness? If yes, same question,
except from a standpoint of how far back, towar the embryo, do we go before
we know that exact moment? Does it differ from human life to human life?
And, once gained, can one lose his or her consciousness and, therefore, be
of diminished value to the transhumanist? And, like the onset of
consciousness, when is the universally accepted m!
> oment of losing it?
>
> My morality says, we don't know the exact answer to any of those,
therefore, the only moral thing to do is assume the extreme until PROVEN
otherwise. That is not only the competent approach, but the only consistent
approach.
>
> As I stated in the column, mine is a Christian worldview. The Bible tells
me that, while in the womb, John (later to be John the Bapatist) lept
inside his mother (Elizabeth) when Mary (Mother of Jesus) entered the room,
pregnant with Jesus for less than 8 days. From God's perspective, a human
being (John) recognized another human being (Jesus), while both were
pre-born.
>
> So, from a Christian worldview, my morality is right on the button. Your
response shows me a Spiritual incompetence. I'll pray that changes in your
life.
>
>
> Scott Thomas
> Afternoon Host
> AM 1160 - WYLL Chicago
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>
> Mr. Thomas,
> thank you for sending a personal reply. I understand your concerns, since
I am the son of a pastor. Early in life I became a born-again Christian by
choice and conviction, although you know I came to different convictions in
my adult life. I acknowledge that you want society to be safe in our
decisions and you have admirable good intentions, as I did at that time.
> Thank you specifically for asking such important questions in your
letter. I'm pleased to report that scientific instrumentation verifies that
in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other
features that an embryo lacks, the lights are on and somebody's home. Did
you not know we have the ability to detect the onset of brain waves and
even the ability of third-trimester fetuses to learn? You and I agree that
a nine-inch trip down the birth canal is not what bestows personhood. Even
though the answer to your question is more of a months-long window than a
single universal instant, that window has an obvious beginning and end: how
can there be thoughts in an organism without brain cells?
> This is why one may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person,
as call a human embryo a person. If we are to take the path you advise, we
would have to extend human rights to sperms and eggs. They are not from a
different species. They are not dead. That makes them "human life," but
life in the biological and not biographical sense. If conception is the
onset of personhood, why is it that an embryo will just sit there and
become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall? They can be kept in
a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The
morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
> Your example of an infant is very helpful to my case. As a father, you
would surely agree that your infant can not rightfully claim the full human
right of freedom. Human parents grant independence gradually through the
teenage years. So you are already used to the idea that human rights come
in degrees with age. An organism that has not yet grown its first brain
cell is not capable of choosing, feeling, thinking, loving, suffering, and
desiring. Only people can do that.
> This proves that the excerpt you cite from the bible is legendary
embroidery. I can't recall from memory of my bible studies and bible
college whether or not John the Baptist was even far enough along in
pregnancy to have developed limbs to jump with. I understand, from personal
experience, that when one's idiosyncratic and arbitrary choice of which
holy book to place one's faith in is called into question, this is an
instant thought-stopper for a person of faith. I wonder what you would do
if you were confronted with a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu who would quote
their own holy book back at you as a thought stopper and telling you they
would pray for you? It's really enough to make me weep when I think about
humans not employing the only interface they have-- reasoning with each
other. I'm sorry for my choice of phrase "moral incompetence" which
obviously has hurt your feelings. Nevertheless, ethics is a skill of
observation and reasoning, like arithmetic. And like a mathemati!
> cal illiterate who only uses a calculator, you exempt yourself from
having to practice moral reasoning by getting it out of a book. I really
can't describe it any other way.
> -Matt
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Matt_Arnold to the Virus 2004 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=311
08>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #8 on: 2004-12-08 13:25:45 » |
|
This is Mr. Thomas' second e-mail reply.
This is kind of fun, Matt, so I'll engage in this round. I also thank you for your reply. The insight into transhumanist logic is fascinating. I'm very sorry to hear that you've abandoned your faith...but, you're not dead yet, so there's always hope.
From a Christian worldview, there is no need to introduce the example of a corpse into the discussion. A person's spirit is, after all is said and done, the most obvious way human beings are distinguished from all other living things and from artificial intelligence. When the body dies, a person's spirit leaves. Where it goes is, of course, the subject of great theological and philosophical debate. So, you have no argument from me. A corpse is not a person.
And, since a sperm is just a sperm until it penetrates an egg, then neither would be considered a person. I think it's reasonable to confine the discussion to the point at which the sperm and egg become united (as a starting point) and death as an end point.
I don't know where, if anywhere, transhumanism allows for a spiritual world. I'm just ignorant on that point. If, however, there is an acknowledgement of the human spirit, I'd be interested to know at what point in development an embryo cum fetus cum baby is indwelled by his/her spirit...and how you'd go about proving that point.
I do claim that an infant has full human rights, including the right to "freedom". Parents have duties to teach, protect, and allow the child, depending on the situation. The infant has the freedom to crawl and explore and get himself into dangerous positions. Parents have the duty to teach the boundaries of freedom and to enforce the rules of the house. Freedom and independence are two different things. An infant can be perfectly free to explore and grow, while still being dependant on his parents. Independence comes (hopefully) when you understand how to mindfully exercise your freedom without hands on parenting.
Neither does emotion, reasoning, thinking, et. al. define the value of personhood. Since we cannot define the exact moment an embryo/fetus arrives at those points, we are left with a sliding scale. If an in-womb sliding scale establishes personhood, then the logical extension of that sliding scale would be to define the value of a born person by IQ, or athletic ability, or street smarts. And, if we are willing to destroy life via stem cell research or abortion on the front end, we become numb to ending life on the back end. On both ends, those willing to end life do so without the guidance of an exact, universally recognized, beginning or end point to personhood. Absent that definitive marker, mistakes will be made...WILL not MIGHT. And, from my standpoint, there is no common greater good to justify allowing for the mistakes.
With regard to which Holy book, well that brings us back to the theological. But, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists and many, if not most (excluding far eastern religions like Taoism) world religions acknowledge the Bible (Old Testament) as Scripture, either solely (Jews) or as part of their Holy writings. When David talks about God knowing him from before he was conceived, most world religions would take that to mean that, from the moment of conception, the human spirit comes to dwell in the newly conceived person. So, I believe you can compare all the "holy books" you want. You will find a faith-based consensus for when personhood begins. That would cause most people to believe that, regardless of the gestation-to-date of John and Jesus, they were, at the time of this account, persons inside their mothers. Many would not consider the New Testament as Scripture, but few would debate my point about the story.
And, forgive me, but it's far too Spock-like for me to accept your premise that the only option for interface we have is reasoning. The thought of a totally reasonable, intellect driven world makes me want to weep. Where's the emotion? Based on history, there is no reason to be a Cubs fan, yet I wouldn't deprive anyone the emotions (high or low) of rooting. The Red Sox proved that. Intellect played no role in me falling in love with my wife 23 years ago. Seems to have worked out OK. More seriously, medical science and reasoning told my wife's parents that the 3 month pre-mature baby her mom delivered would never live more than a week. That baby, my wife's younger sister, is now 33 years old, married with a 2 year old son and another on the way. She started her life outside the womb no bigger than the palm of my hand, given no chance to survive.
Science and reason were wrong. Faith and hope and love and emotion were right. Weep for my worldview if you'd like. It is you I feel sorry for.
God's blessings (I hope you'll seek them)
ST
This is my response today.
Mr. Thomas,
I try not to engage in speciesist discrimination when it comes to intelligence and emotional sensitivity such as that found in lovely creatures like dolphins or elephants. However, I agree that humans are qualitatively distinct from anything that exists so far. Although there is not just one distinction of that difference simple enough to be a radio show sound bite, the number of measurable factors are clear. Why do you consider a spirit one of those factors? You ask how I would prove the presence of a spirit. I'm glad you asked! How would anyone? What do you use to empirically measure the presence or absence of a spirit in a living species that another living species lacks? I can detect the presence of mind and volition. But "spirit," as defined by biblical literalists, is a substance that makes no first-hand observable difference so it has to be taken entirely on faith. So I doubt you would use it as a synonym for mentality, or even emotion like "school spirit."
I can't speak for all Transhumanists (may I call it TH for short?), but I have found some advocates of human enhancement technologies who come from a religious or spiritual perspective. However, being a TH tends to correlate strongly with being a secularist, and could be considered an upgrade to Secular Humanism, which recognizes no realm outside of empirical cause-and-effect. That's my position. For me to assert this before I have provided my evidence, is not intended to persuade at this stage, but merely for your information about this demographic.
You gave examples of people who are in danger of being deemed somehow "inferior" by others. But don't they each place a value on their own life? That's where the value of a life comes from, and that's the only opinion that matters about its worth. We should recognize that the value we subjectively place on our own lives is on no different a footing than the value others subjectively place on their own lives. TH in North America tends to be individualist and anti-authoritarian, both on this topic and politically, favoring small government and no coercion in the affairs of an individual. THs in Europe are slightly less so, since they tend to favor the welfare state and universal health care. In either case, we are dead-set against eugenics programs that would force anyone to transition into post-humanity just as much as we oppose restrictions that would force people to remain human. In TH the individual is intended to be the sole arbiter to improve on one's own body by
one's own standard.
They are not the slavish property of a god to grant life and take it away. The top of TH's research agenda is to cure aging and all disease to postpone death indefinitely. This begins with current research into telomeres on the genetic codes with which nature provided you and me. It counts down to cause cells to wear out and cease regenerating, which is mostly why we age. This ticking time-bomb is the result of blind and indifferent nature, but if it were the work of a creator then such a being would be either incompetent or murderous. We hope to take the power of life and death away from the cruelty of nature to place the choice in the hands of each individual to make for one's self. We dream of a world in which no one need ever die an involuntary death again.
Hope is important to a TH. I have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that technology will extend the human health-span in time to save me. So I have to cross my fingers and just contribute to funding the research to improve the odds. You equated hope with faith, but hoping is not claiming to know. If you think you know, you don't need to hope.
I advise you not to offer me reasons as a premise an attempt to discredit reason. You may not realize that in so doing you would be discrediting your own premise. The show you reference, Star Trek, has done a disservice to our culture in its message that reasonability and emotion are mutually exclusive. I have not suggested that anyone disregard or surpress their feelings. Faith and emotion are two different things. Faith and reason are attempts at the truth-finding process. Emotion reacts to that which is found, and serves as motivation. Reason and emotion are very poor at doing each other's jobs in these separate domains. The fact remains that a person of a different religion cannot beam faith waves into your head just like you can't beam it into theirs. Faith is unaccountable to reason, so they can't sit down and reason with you as we are doing now.
The skeptic objects to antagonism toward evidence because it is an outrage. The most important reason that you may not exempt yourself from following evidence wherever it leads is that rational discourse is the only moral means of settling disputes. If A claims "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," and B claims "Allah said something that contradicts A, I believe it, and that settles it," then nothing is settled. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world in the same way that victory in a chess match means petulantly kicking over the table and demanding the prize.
Further, how does playing intentional mind games on oneself advance the holy cause? Will your children grow up to realize you have betrayed them in this way, as I did? Unrepentantly admitting and endorsing rejection of evidence implies "no-contest" not only to followers of contradictory religions, but to every shade of paranormal crackpot. Without that "no contest," faith serves as a double standard rendering your evangelism hypocritical: you are not accountable to evidence but you will hold others to it.
-Matt
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #9 on: 2004-12-09 11:59:19 » |
|
EDITED TO ADD: I skipped an entire round of letters by mistake. Read round three from the following post before you read this post.
I'm aware this goes out on the mailing list. Let me know if you get tired of it. The following is Mr. Thomas' fourth reply.
Matt,
You've blatantly mischaracterized what the Bible teaches. It teaches not to ignore truth, but to embrace it. You know, "The truth shall set you free". But, sadly, you see truth and call it lies. Somehow your intellect trumps God's sovereignty and Satan's deceptions. You and your fellow TH-ers have it figured out...just haven't been able to implement it all yet, is that it?
Although you keep ascribing ownership of the Bible and Christianity to me (YOUR bible, YOUR religion), that gives me far too much power. I am but a humble servant. The Bible is God's Word, not mine. Jesus Christ as Savior is God's truth, not mine. I believe by faith...a faith rooted in truth.
And, so do you. You believe, by faith, that the TH approach is correct. Yet, that is not proven. Nobody, yet, is immortal. Promising biotechnologies fail, or come up short of promise, all the time. You reason. You use your intellect. You examine evidence. And, at the end of the day, you put your faith in a process and technology that simply does not exist. You believe it will some day. That's faith.
The question..."the heart of it"...has nothing to do with faith vs. reason. We all live by faith. It has to do with in what, or in whom, you put your faith.
Faith does not replace hope, it is the reason for hope. I admit to being a party to the bumper sticker that says, "God said it, I believe it, that does it." It's much more comforting than, "The only sure things are death and taxes". Except, the "I believe it" part isn't relevant. What I believe, what you believe, does not change the truth. Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute.
The absolute truth is either God exists or He doesn't. We don't get to choose our gods. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't, then there's no point in trying to deal with Him or what He says. If He does, then it is folly to try to argue with what He wants.
You ask, how can only one religion be correct? In the same way there is only one answer to the equation 2+2. The answer is 4. Not 4, if you add it this way, but 3 if you add it a different way. Not, "You might believe it's 4, but I have the right to believe it's 19". If mathematics does not change, then 2+2 always equals 4. It's absolute. In the same way, if God exists and is unchanging, as He says He is, then there is only one True way to follow Him.
You're free to believe otherwise. But, that does not make you correct.
Nevertheless, if you're right, I'm no further behind in the continuum. I will ignorantly, but joyfully, live my life of faith, only to find that joy was only for this stage of my existence, and I'll go on to whatever's next, and at some point in the future, you and I can argue about something we can't even imagine now. On the other hand, if I'm right...
Your choice. Just keep in mind, the God you don't believe in, created you, loves you, and wants you to be with Him forever. The way to do that is through faith in Jesus Christ. It's the only requirement and it's free. As free as your ability to reject it. It's clear you've chosen to reject God. Unless you change your heart and mind, you better hope that your technology pans out before your heart gives out.
I'm praying for you. It would be kind if you'd hope for me. (I apologize for any sarcasm. It's a coping mechanism because my heart is breaking for
you.)
ST
This was my response.
Mr. Thomas,
several clarifications are in order. Just as with the abortion issue, we have more areas of agreement than you may think. I will assert these things to make clear what my position is, not to argue them satisfactorily, because trying to pin you down only escalates mutual resistance. I'm sure you would prefer I go back to a style of encyclopedia-entry descriptions into someone else's thinking which made our exchange more profitable.
First, I do not "believe" in what the twenty-first century will bring, I hope. I do not claim to know for sure, it just seems likelier on balance than other outcomes if we work for it by human effort. My claim is only that it's desirable to try; then we'll see how it turns out. I already told you that I have, and need, no more assurance than that. Besides, almost any proposed future is more probable than biblical eschatology.
Second, I do not see how contradictory alternatives for looking at the world can simultaneously be true. Here is where you and I are allies of convenience against the postmodernism of too many of my liberal progressive friends. I agree that there exists such a thing as objective reality, outside of our heads. Reality is the set of conditions that exist whether I know it or not, whether I like it or not, whether or not I (or you) decide in advance of observations by faith. This is why faith is so unwise. Where we differ is that I acknowledge that on ivory-tower topics like religious metaphysics it's difficult to perceive reality because we lack empirical access. In the physical world where actions are measurable by their tangible effects on real people, we do not have to choose between world views by faith. If one of them is more reasonable than another, then reason alone has chosen between them, not faith. It cannot bring the level of infallible dogmatic certainty, but that is unnecessary for adults. There's no profit in closing off inquiry into physical world by pretending to have a message from Perfection Personified. I believe in absolute truth in the sense of objective reality, whatever it may turn out to be. But I reject the other definition of absolute truth in the sense of perfect knowledge which is immune to improvement.
Third, the position you take later in your letter is a version of Pascal's wager. If you believe your life on this earth is better for being a Christian even if your beliefs are untrue, this would be contradicted by the Apostle Paul. (I almost said "your" Apostle Paul but I'll respect your request not to do so. I refer to these things because they hold weight with you, which is why I phrase them as pertaining to you.) Paul said that if Christ is not resurrected, we (meaning followers of Christ) are of all men most miserable. Even he acknowledged that it is you to whom I could say, "you had better turn out to be right, for your sake." What does it profit a man, if he gains another world that doesn't exist, and loses his one and only life here and now?
Until the end of your letter, we had run along a tediously well-rehearsed track. In all my encounters with preachers, door-to-door evangelists, and church discussion groups, none have asked me to hope for them before, since none wanted the outcome of my hopes for them. Perhaps it was sarcasm, but it inspires me to think more kindly on you and in so doing to better acheive my highest ideals for discourse. Thank you.
-Matt
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #10 on: 2004-12-09 12:01:38 » |
|
In my last entry, I posted Mr. Thomas' fourth e-mail and my reply. I didn't realized I had skipped an entire round of letters. The following is Mr. Thomas' third e-mail.
Matt,
Please give me the evidence that you were "betrayed", or that by raising my children according to Biblical truth is I'm betraying them. Show me the evidence that God does not exist. Show me the evidence that God has not created this world, me or you. OK, it is probably unfair of me to ask you to prove the negative. Show me the evidence that technology will eventually cause people to cease to die.
What is evidence, anyway. In a court of law, evidence is that which substantiates or contradicts the charge. People far more intelligent than I...C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel come to mind...charged that there is no God, that the Bible is a fairytale, and, similar to your charge, that believers simply play mind games with themselves or, worse, are mindless followers of a hoax. So convinced were they, and thousands of others, that they set out to, once and for all, debunk the Bible and, in turn, this pesky thing called Christianity. The results of their putting the Bible on trial? "Mere Christianity" and "The Case for Christ"...two of the many definitive sources for evidence, empirical and circumstantial, that validates our "mind games"...our faith.
I don't know which person(s) in your life disappointed you so much as to have caused you to reject God because of their failings. I've seen it often, and it saddens me every time. "My father was a pastor and he left my mom for another woman", "I put my faith in my Priest and he took advantage
of me", "I see those hypocrites who are 'Christians' in church and crooks during the week". Pick your reason, but I'm guessing someone, some human being that you looked to for spiritual leadership, at some point let you down. They failed you, so God must be a joke. Their failings are the evidence that God either does not exist or doesn't care.
I allow for the possibility I could be totally wrong in the above supposition, but I've seen it too often to not consider in a discussion where you appear to get angry, or at least resentful, when you harken back to your days as a young believer. If I'm wrong, I apologize for the supposition. But, if I'm right, I can only offer that you can not judge God by man.
As for why God allows things that seem to make him look "incompetent" (apparently your favorite critical word...one that could easily be turned on you, as in being spiritually incompetent), it's simple. God gives us the freedom to follow or not. We are both exercising that freedom. Just know that either direction has eternal consequences. You are right. Technology is not going to develop in time to significantly extend your life here on earth. Your spirit will live on. The question is, where's it gonna live?
And, you're right. How can we measure the onset, or existence, of spirit? You imply we can't. I emphatically agree. We can't. And, that's my point with regard to human life. Since we can not state, with certainty, the exact moment when spirit, or sentience, or reason begin or end, then we risk killing an actual human being (by anyone's definition...even if those definitions differ), regardless of whether the killing procedure is abortion, euthanasia or stem cell harvesting. I don't know of any worldview, religious or secular, that condones killing of innocent human beings.
Show me the evidence of exactly when whatever measure you use to define human life begins, to the second, and I'll reconsider my position. Without the evidence, your argument falls far short of convincing.
ST
This was my response, to which Mr. Thomas replied with the message I posted earlier. Sorry about the chronological confusion.
Mr. Thomas,
Your supposition is understandable based on the large number who leave their roots for such reasons. But it's not correct in this case. Leading and teaching people to practice faith as a means of deciding what is true, especially innocent children, is the only betrayal I'm talking about. I'm very forgiving of faith in hapless followers but not in authority figures who have a responsibility. There has been no adultery, no hypocrisy in the pews, or any abuse of the types you describe. There was the abuse of faith.
Let me illustrate. I was once an avid reader of Christian apologetics including Lee Strobel, Francis Schaefer, C.S. Lewis and Hank Hanegraaf. I read a scene in a book by Charles Colson titled "How Now Shall We Live?" In this scene a daughter asks her father, "If you are wrong, and what we beleve isn't true... would you want to know?" That question struck the father to the heart, as it did to me. He told his daughter that he had the honesty and courage to follow the evidence wherever it led, even if it was uncomfortable or difficult to cope with at first. Needless to say, in a book by Chuck Colson they went on together to be convinced of proof for the truth of Christianity, or the story would not have made it into the book. Nevertheless, through apologetics I began to see reason as an ally, not an enemy. It was from them I first learned the attitude that the truth, whatever it might be, had nothing to fear from a fair fight.
I started spouting about how those secularists need to become objective and see the evidence. But shouting "bias" is a double-edged sword because the bible teaches faith. If I could pull the faith card, then I couldn't complain about anybody from other religions pulling it too. If my feelings of peace, joy and salvation had been given to me by God, what are those of other religions? Just brain activity with no outside source? Or is the source satanic? Why theirs and not mine? If it is intrinsically virtuous to accept faith claims without question, why is it wrong for those with faith claims other than my own?
This shamed me. I had exploited reason only far enough to let me discard it. Since then I've investigated without the help of apologists, and the results were devastating to their arguments. I could provide all the evidence that I have, volume after volume of point-by-point refutations for books by Strobel and Lewis. But you and I would be dodging the point: Why should I waste my time offering it to you when you can call it off, say "nevermind" and deny it all by faith? This is the abuse of faith I was referring to. The fact that your bible tells you to do this is all the evidence anyone should need to reject the notion that it's divine. You would play the game of debating evidence as long as you feel it gives the upper hand, then switch to faith when you start losing. But we have seen through you now, as I hope your children will someday do with our help. There is a growing recognition in the post-911 America that pulling the faith card is cheating in exactly that way.
We've gotten to the heart of it all.
-Matt
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #11 on: 2004-12-10 01:05:39 » |
|
Matt_Arnold
Sent: 09 December 2004 06:59 PM
<snip>I'm aware this goes out on the mailing list. Let me know if you
get tired of it.</snip>
[Blunderov] I'm following this with great interest. I was especially
impressed with the point you made about the 'faith card'.
I would be interested to know whether Mr. Thomas believes in 'hell'. It
seems to me that Christians speak much less of it these days than
formerly.
Tangentially, I'm wondering whether anyone would really want to live
forever. A friend of mine once remarked "I can easily imagine that after
three or four hundred years I might become quite tired of me".
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
Re: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #12 on: 2004-12-10 07:16:50 » |
|
Hello everyone.
It's surely an aside, but the "I can easily imagine that after three or four
hundred years I might become quite tired of me" is worth some elaboration.
It seems there are some massive psychological inconsistencies in Christian
doctrine (oh wonder) - I guess in paradise, negative emotionality is
supposed to have become extinct. It's maybe over-the-top, but just look at
those Jehova's Witness depictions of paradise with lions and wolves all
vegetarian playing with sheep etc., and you know how perverted the idea
actually is. How much it takes away of the interesting and wonderful aspects
of life. I know the Witnesses believe in earthly paradise which not every
doctrine supposes, but the principle remains.
Besides, isn't there a conflict with the supposed free will of humankind? To
eliminate negative emotionality essentially means to eliminate the
possibility to say "no", which requires some sort of somatic-emotional
adverse feeling towards the action one has been asked to perform. How can
you even have interesting conversation without potential adversary/adverse
feelings on one topic or another? A paradise full of smiling, servile
automatons that never get bored sounds pretty much like the first matrix to
me. Inhuman. Rotten dualism - you just can't leave the flesh behind.
My guess is that the idea of paradise was much more appealing when one had
to face death much more often than today, when war, famine, pestilence (oh,
are these the four horsemen? mere coincidence...) were ever-present. Eternal
life was probably an appealing meme only if one did not know how boring life
without struggle had to be.
As a matter of fact, a more modern version of paradise surely is one with
reduced but not eliminated negative emotionality. Take away violence, and
the world would be a better place. For humans, that is. And that's another
big problem...
Weekend-greetings from
Björn
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Blunderov
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Dezember 2004 07:06
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: RE: virus: Attack on transhumanists
Matt_Arnold
Sent: 09 December 2004 06:59 PM
<snip>I'm aware this goes out on the mailing list. Let me know if you
get tired of it.</snip>
[Blunderov] I'm following this with great interest. I was especially
impressed with the point you made about the 'faith card'.
I would be interested to know whether Mr. Thomas believes in 'hell'. It
seems to me that Christians speak much less of it these days than
formerly.
Tangentially, I'm wondering whether anyone would really want to live
forever. A friend of mine once remarked "I can easily imagine that after
three or four hundred years I might become quite tired of me".
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #13 on: 2004-12-10 08:05:18 » |
|
[Blunderov]
> Tangentially, I'm wondering whether anyone would really want to live
> forever. A friend of mine once remarked "I can easily imagine that after
> three or four hundred years I might become quite tired of me".
>
[rhinoceros]
I'll follow this tangent, hoping that I won't disrupt Matt's thread
much. When I was a toddler I asked my father about death and he said:
"It seems horrible now, but remember that when the time comes you won't
mind as much."
I think this is not exactly true -- he died at 52 and I bet he was
feeling he had unfinished business left behind -- but it is a good ideal
situation to live as long as it is fun or as long as you have a good
reason. If that means forever, well... give it your best shot, but price
is an issue. You don't want to make your life miserable going on a
fool's errand.
The guy in Harlan Ellison's "I have no mouth and I must scream" didn't
seem very amused with immortality either.
http://www.enotes.com/have-no/23671
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.10
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:virus: Attack on transhumanists
« Reply #14 on: 2004-12-11 10:06:50 » |
|
Blunderov,
you wondered whether anyone would really want to live forever. Well I'll tell you this much for sure, I want to stick around long enough to find out. I can always change my mind later. But at this point, we just have to work on making the choice available at all. Consider the alternative-- death. I expect that once it's been acheived, people will be astonished that anyone ever did otherwise. The coping skills our species has developed to cope with death are sour grapes.
rhinoceros,
Bad example. Anyone would dislike life of any duration if it were in such circumstances. Harlan could have told a fantasy tale of someone who was born in hell and lived the natural seventy years. Would you conclude from that, that no one in the real world should ever be born at all? A far more plausible prospect is living forever as a decrepit bedridden mummy. This is why advocates of life-extension such as Robert Frietas often stop talking about extending "life span" and switch to using the phrase extending "health span."
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
|
Logged
