Ben Goertzel ha scritto un Manifesto Cosmista che considero un documento molto importante, e raccomando a tutti. Ben ha incluso un sommario con Dieci Convinzioni Cosmiste basato su un mio testo precedente e la relativa discussone sulla lista Cosmic Engineers. Non c' è neanche bisogno di dire che il lavoro di Ben, con la revisione dei punti 1-7 e i nuovi punti 8-10, ha migliorato moltissimo il mio testo originale. Grazie Ben! Ecco una traduzione in Italiano delle Dieci Convinzioni:
1) L' umanità si fonderà con la tecnologia, rapidamente ed in modo sempre più esteso e profondo. Questa è una nuova fase dell' evoluzione della nostra specie, che sta cominciando ad essere evidente ai nostri giorni. La divisione fra il naturale e l' artificiale sarè prima sfumata, e poi sparirà. Alcuni di noi continueranno ad essere umani, ma con un' espansione radicale e crescente delle opzioni disponibili, ed una diversità e complessità radicalmente aumentate. Altri cresceranno fino a divenire nuove forme di intelligenza, molto al di là del dominio umano.
2) Svilupperemo tecnologie di intelligenza artificiale cosciente e mind uploading. Il mind uploading permetterà di estendere indefinitamente la vita di quelli che sceglieranno di lasciarsi la biologia alle spalle (uploads). Alcuni uploads sceglieranno di fondersi con altri uploads e con intelligenze artificiali. Questo richiederà un ripensamento e una riformulazione della nozione di identità personale, ma saremo capaci di farvi fronte.
3) Raggiungeremo le stelle, e ci espanderemo nell' universo. Incontreremo altre specie nel cosmo, e ci fonderemo con loro. Potremmo anche raggiongere altre dimensioni dell' esistenza, oltre quelle di cui siamo attualmente consapevoli.
4) Svilupperemo realtà sintetiche interoperabili (mondi virtuali) capaci di contenere esseri coscienti. Alcuni uploads sceglieranno di vivere in mondi virtuali. La divisione fra realtà fisiche e sintetiche sarè prima sfumata, e poi sparirà.
5) Svilupperemo tecnologie di ingegneria spazio-temporale ed una "magia futura" basata sulla scienza, molto al di là delle nostre attuali comprensione ed immaginazione.
6) L' ingegneria spazio-temporale e la magia futura permetteranno di realizzare, attraverso la scienza, molte delel promesse delle religioni -- e molte cose meravigliose che nessuna religione ha mai sognato. Un giorno saremo capaci di resuscitare i morti "copiandoli al futuro".
7) La vita intelligente diverrà il fattore principale nell' evoluzione del cosmo, e guiderà questo nelle direzioni volute.
8) Radicali progressi tecnologici ridurranno drasticamente la scarsezza delle risorse materiali, in modo da rendere possibile un' abbondanza di ricchezza, crescita ed esperienza, per tutte le menti che così desiderano. Nuovi sistemi di auto-regolazione emergeranno per mitigare la possibilità che la mente esaurisca, oltre ogni controllo, le vaste risorse del cosmo.
9) Nuovi sistemi etici emergeranno, basati su principi che includeranno la diffusione di gioia, crescita e libertà nell' universo, e anche su nuovi principi che non possiamo ancora immaginare.
10) Questi cambiamenti miglioreranno in modo fondamentale l' esperienza soggettiva e sociale degli esseri umani, delle nostre creazioni e dei nostri successori, portando a stati di consapevolezza personale e condivisa le cui meravigliose vastità e profondità andranno molto al di là dell' esperienza dei "vecchi umani".
Un chiarimento: nel mio testo il futuro (svilupperemo, raggiungeremo etc.) è usato non nel senso di inevitabilità, ma in quello di intenzione: vogliamo fare questo, pensiamo di poterlo fare, e siamo intenzionati a fare del nostro meglio per raggiungere i nostri obiettivi.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bill Bainbridge’s “Religion for a Galactic Civilization 2.0"
Religions for a Galactic Civilization is an old (1981) article by William Sims Bainbridge.
One of my first impressions after reading "Religions for a Galactic Civilization" for the first time was that it is dated (well, it was written 26 years ago). I wrote: "If Bill were to write the same article today, he would probably mention NBIC technologies (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences) besides space travel and colonization. I hope he would give less space to Scientology, and I am sure he would discuss the works of transhumanist thinkers in great detail. I think the first sentence quoted below could be written, today, as "We need a new transhumanist social movement capable of giving a sense of transcendent purpose to dominant sectors of the society"".
I asked Bill to write a revised and updated version of the paper, to be published (translated into Italian) on the print journal Divenire of the Italian Transhumanist Association and discussed at the TransVision 2010 conference. A first draft of the revised and updated version has just been posted to the IEET blog.
Religion for a Galactic Civilization 2.0 is one of those seminal articles which some readers love, other readers hate, but all readers find interesting and mind changing. I loved the strong statement at the beginning of the article, "we need a new definition of spaceflight that will energize investment and innovation. I suggest a return to the traditional view: The heavens are a sacred realm, that we should enter in order to transcend death.". As I hoped, the revised and updated version of the article is informed by current science and technology, and the work of transhumanist thinkers. Bainbrodge understands that the current stagnation of spaceflight is, basically, a motivational problem, and proposes a solution: "creation of a galactic civilization may depend upon the emergence of a galactic religion capable of motivating society for the centuries required to accomplish that great project. This religion would be a very demanding social movement, and will require extreme discipline from its members, so for purposes of this essay I will call it The Cosmic Order.". The first version of the Religion for a Galactic Civilization text has inspired the founders of the Order of Cosmic Engineers, and I look forward to the impact of the second version on the evolution of this organization. Let's build the Cosmic Order!
Bill is not afraid to present grand Stapledonian cosmic visions of galactic civilizations of godlike ex-humans roaming the universe as immortal uploads. Galactic civilizations and mind uploading were also discussed by Martine Rothblatt recently, in a great Second Life talk where she said "the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 reminds us of the imperative to move outwards--we must get religiously fanatic about galactic colonization", and discussed mind uploading in the context of galactic colonization--the presence of uploaded minds in self-replicating probes to colonize the galaxy--and invited the audience to start a gradual, non destructive mind upload process by building a mindfile via her CyBeRev project to upload to self replicating spacecraft take part in the future cosmic adventures of our species.
Bill's favorite approach to mind uploading is very similar to Martine's: "Actual everlasting life will be possible in the near future, using a combination of advanced technologies that have been developed for other purposes (Moravec 1988; Kurzweil 1999; Bainbridge 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007c). The process will be complex, but in outline form it consists of four stages. First, you will be recorded: all your memories, personality, skills, physical characteristics and genetic inheritance. Second, this information will be entered into a vast computerized data base, so that future generations can draw upon your experiences and you can continue to be part of this world after your death. Third, your data will be transported by robot spacecraft or radio transmission to the solar system of a distant star, where a new colony is to be established. Fourth, you will be reconstituted from the recording and begin a new life in a fresh, young body as a colonist of the new world.". I think this approach to uploading is basically correct, but I also think it can only work in practice with neural BCI (Brain-Computer Interfaces) order of magnitude faster than current person-computer interfaces. However, such interfaces are being slowly but steadily developed in research and commercial labs around the world, and we may see some relevant advances soon. One of the first application fields for fast BCI is the development of better user interfaces for VR worlds, also discussed in depth in Bainbrodge's article.
Summary: the article is excellent, refreshingly irreverent and unPC, and important. Go read Bill's article now!
One PS comment: it may seem that the wildly transhumanist, cosmic approach of Bainbridge's Religion for a Galactic Civilization 2.0 is very different from the technoprogressive, down-to-earth approach of Treder's Meanwhile, People Are Dying, published on the IEET site a few days ago. But I think the two approaches are compatible, complementary and mutually reinforcing. Achieving Bill's vision will require working pragmatically in today's world in order to make it better day-by-day, while the prospect of Bill's Galactic Civilization can provide us, here and now, with the required energy, motivation and drive.
One of my first impressions after reading "Religions for a Galactic Civilization" for the first time was that it is dated (well, it was written 26 years ago). I wrote: "If Bill were to write the same article today, he would probably mention NBIC technologies (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences) besides space travel and colonization. I hope he would give less space to Scientology, and I am sure he would discuss the works of transhumanist thinkers in great detail. I think the first sentence quoted below could be written, today, as "We need a new transhumanist social movement capable of giving a sense of transcendent purpose to dominant sectors of the society"".
I asked Bill to write a revised and updated version of the paper, to be published (translated into Italian) on the print journal Divenire of the Italian Transhumanist Association and discussed at the TransVision 2010 conference. A first draft of the revised and updated version has just been posted to the IEET blog.
Religion for a Galactic Civilization 2.0 is one of those seminal articles which some readers love, other readers hate, but all readers find interesting and mind changing. I loved the strong statement at the beginning of the article, "we need a new definition of spaceflight that will energize investment and innovation. I suggest a return to the traditional view: The heavens are a sacred realm, that we should enter in order to transcend death.". As I hoped, the revised and updated version of the article is informed by current science and technology, and the work of transhumanist thinkers. Bainbrodge understands that the current stagnation of spaceflight is, basically, a motivational problem, and proposes a solution: "creation of a galactic civilization may depend upon the emergence of a galactic religion capable of motivating society for the centuries required to accomplish that great project. This religion would be a very demanding social movement, and will require extreme discipline from its members, so for purposes of this essay I will call it The Cosmic Order.". The first version of the Religion for a Galactic Civilization text has inspired the founders of the Order of Cosmic Engineers, and I look forward to the impact of the second version on the evolution of this organization. Let's build the Cosmic Order!
Bill is not afraid to present grand Stapledonian cosmic visions of galactic civilizations of godlike ex-humans roaming the universe as immortal uploads. Galactic civilizations and mind uploading were also discussed by Martine Rothblatt recently, in a great Second Life talk where she said "the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 reminds us of the imperative to move outwards--we must get religiously fanatic about galactic colonization", and discussed mind uploading in the context of galactic colonization--the presence of uploaded minds in self-replicating probes to colonize the galaxy--and invited the audience to start a gradual, non destructive mind upload process by building a mindfile via her CyBeRev project to upload to self replicating spacecraft take part in the future cosmic adventures of our species.
Bill's favorite approach to mind uploading is very similar to Martine's: "Actual everlasting life will be possible in the near future, using a combination of advanced technologies that have been developed for other purposes (Moravec 1988; Kurzweil 1999; Bainbridge 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2007a, 2007c). The process will be complex, but in outline form it consists of four stages. First, you will be recorded: all your memories, personality, skills, physical characteristics and genetic inheritance. Second, this information will be entered into a vast computerized data base, so that future generations can draw upon your experiences and you can continue to be part of this world after your death. Third, your data will be transported by robot spacecraft or radio transmission to the solar system of a distant star, where a new colony is to be established. Fourth, you will be reconstituted from the recording and begin a new life in a fresh, young body as a colonist of the new world.". I think this approach to uploading is basically correct, but I also think it can only work in practice with neural BCI (Brain-Computer Interfaces) order of magnitude faster than current person-computer interfaces. However, such interfaces are being slowly but steadily developed in research and commercial labs around the world, and we may see some relevant advances soon. One of the first application fields for fast BCI is the development of better user interfaces for VR worlds, also discussed in depth in Bainbrodge's article.
Summary: the article is excellent, refreshingly irreverent and unPC, and important. Go read Bill's article now!
One PS comment: it may seem that the wildly transhumanist, cosmic approach of Bainbridge's Religion for a Galactic Civilization 2.0 is very different from the technoprogressive, down-to-earth approach of Treder's Meanwhile, People Are Dying, published on the IEET site a few days ago. But I think the two approaches are compatible, complementary and mutually reinforcing. Achieving Bill's vision will require working pragmatically in today's world in order to make it better day-by-day, while the prospect of Bill's Galactic Civilization can provide us, here and now, with the required energy, motivation and drive.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Treder: Meanwhile, People Are Dying
Mike Treder has posted tot he IEET blog an article on Meanwhile, People Are Dying. He writes:
"In assessing the possibilities of a world more greatly enabled and impacted by emerging technologies, it’s tempting to consider all the various visionary dreams as equally likely. Reading a lot of science fiction (which I do, and which I heartily encourage) can lead a person to think that if something has been imagined, then it must be possible. This is one of the risks of enjoying speculative fiction, and it’s made more acute by engaging uncritically in a community of like-minded believers... It’s useful, then, to think about emerging technologies on two axes: feasibility, and impact. “Feasibility” means how likely something is to be achieved, “Impact” describes how much a particular emerging technology (or result of a technology) is likely to change the world... Beyond assessing the feasibility and the effects of emerging technologies, it’s imperative that we also stay firmly footed in the real world if we hope to play a role in bringing about positive change. In the real world, people are dying... We need to have an overlay on our thinking, a recognition that while it can be fun and valuable to spend time thinking about or working on futuristic possibilities, in the real world life goes on... Technoprogressives are in a unique position to bridge the gap between understanding the potential power of emerging technologies--modulated by a sober and realistic assessment of feasibility--and finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow."
These quotes give a sense of the article, but you should read the original, which has also some diagrams to categorize emerging technologies, from robotics to mind uploading, in terms of their feasibility and impact.
I think using the term "feasibility" is ambiguous. It is not clear whether Mike refers to feasibility with current technologies and financial resources, feasibility in the short term, or feasibility in principle. For example I certainly agree with Mike that AGI and mind uploading are hardly feasible with today's resources, or in a few years, and perhaps not within our lifetimes, but I am persuaded they are feasible in principle: this is the only assumption compatible with the scientific worldview. To claim otherwise, is to fall into vitalist and mystical positions. No, there is nothing "sacred" or "forbidden" in biology and cognition. Our bodies, brains and minds are machines, and it is within the capabilities of our species to engineer better ones.
Having said this, I mostly agree with the letter of Mike's article, and I mostly disagree with (my interpretation of) its spirit.
Yes, beyond assessing the feasibility and the effects of emerging technologies, it’s imperative that we also stay firmly footed in the real world if we hope to play a role in bringing about positive change. Yes, if something has high potential impact but almost no chance of being achieved in the short term, it should be assigned a lower priority (as far as the allocation of public resources is concerned) than other work of possibly lesser impact but greater likelihood of success in the short term. Yes, I think when we allocate public resources we should give top priority to finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow. Yes, in today's world, people are dying. I agree with Mike on these points, and this is why I call myself a technoprogressive.
But I think also those who choose to spend time thinking about or working on futuristic possibilities play a very important role. The world is big and complex, and different people with different skills, interests, inclinations, sensibilities and personalities, can give a useful contribution to making the world a better place. Don't demonize those who choose to focus on far future speculations and cosmic visions: these are not incompatible with finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow, and these two different attitudes can co-exist in the same person and mutually reinforce. This is why, besides calling myself a technoprogressive, I also call myself a transhumanist. If the intended spirit of Mike's article is to demonize transhumanist dreamers, I most certainly disagree. Focus on what is more important to you, let other focus on what is more important to them, and let's try to work together for what is important to all.
"In assessing the possibilities of a world more greatly enabled and impacted by emerging technologies, it’s tempting to consider all the various visionary dreams as equally likely. Reading a lot of science fiction (which I do, and which I heartily encourage) can lead a person to think that if something has been imagined, then it must be possible. This is one of the risks of enjoying speculative fiction, and it’s made more acute by engaging uncritically in a community of like-minded believers... It’s useful, then, to think about emerging technologies on two axes: feasibility, and impact. “Feasibility” means how likely something is to be achieved, “Impact” describes how much a particular emerging technology (or result of a technology) is likely to change the world... Beyond assessing the feasibility and the effects of emerging technologies, it’s imperative that we also stay firmly footed in the real world if we hope to play a role in bringing about positive change. In the real world, people are dying... We need to have an overlay on our thinking, a recognition that while it can be fun and valuable to spend time thinking about or working on futuristic possibilities, in the real world life goes on... Technoprogressives are in a unique position to bridge the gap between understanding the potential power of emerging technologies--modulated by a sober and realistic assessment of feasibility--and finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow."
These quotes give a sense of the article, but you should read the original, which has also some diagrams to categorize emerging technologies, from robotics to mind uploading, in terms of their feasibility and impact.
I think using the term "feasibility" is ambiguous. It is not clear whether Mike refers to feasibility with current technologies and financial resources, feasibility in the short term, or feasibility in principle. For example I certainly agree with Mike that AGI and mind uploading are hardly feasible with today's resources, or in a few years, and perhaps not within our lifetimes, but I am persuaded they are feasible in principle: this is the only assumption compatible with the scientific worldview. To claim otherwise, is to fall into vitalist and mystical positions. No, there is nothing "sacred" or "forbidden" in biology and cognition. Our bodies, brains and minds are machines, and it is within the capabilities of our species to engineer better ones.
Having said this, I mostly agree with the letter of Mike's article, and I mostly disagree with (my interpretation of) its spirit.
Yes, beyond assessing the feasibility and the effects of emerging technologies, it’s imperative that we also stay firmly footed in the real world if we hope to play a role in bringing about positive change. Yes, if something has high potential impact but almost no chance of being achieved in the short term, it should be assigned a lower priority (as far as the allocation of public resources is concerned) than other work of possibly lesser impact but greater likelihood of success in the short term. Yes, I think when we allocate public resources we should give top priority to finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow. Yes, in today's world, people are dying. I agree with Mike on these points, and this is why I call myself a technoprogressive.
But I think also those who choose to spend time thinking about or working on futuristic possibilities play a very important role. The world is big and complex, and different people with different skills, interests, inclinations, sensibilities and personalities, can give a useful contribution to making the world a better place. Don't demonize those who choose to focus on far future speculations and cosmic visions: these are not incompatible with finding workable solutions to the real problems we face today and will face tomorrow, and these two different attitudes can co-exist in the same person and mutually reinforce. This is why, besides calling myself a technoprogressive, I also call myself a transhumanist. If the intended spirit of Mike's article is to demonize transhumanist dreamers, I most certainly disagree. Focus on what is more important to you, let other focus on what is more important to them, and let's try to work together for what is important to all.
Monday, August 17, 2009
An excellent article on software consciousness, and an idiotic reply
Martine Rothblatt has written an article on Can Consciousness be Created in Software? The article is published on her blog and the IEET blog.
Martine understands that consciousness is produced by physical processes in physical brains, by material atoms and molecules doing their things in accordance with the laws of physics, without any vitalism or supernatural nonsense, and anticipates that, once things are well understood, it will be possible to engineer consciousness in software: "If human consciousness is to arise in software we must do three things: first explain how the easy problem is solved in neurons; second, explain how the hard problem is solved in neurons; and third, explain how the solution in neurons is replicable in information technology.". By "hard problem" she refers to "qualia": "how do the web of molecules we call neurons give rise to subjective feelings or qualia (the “redness of red”)?".
I agree with Martine's "The “hard problem” of consciousness is not so hard.". We don't understand yet how the web of molecules we call neurons give rise to subjectively feeling the redness of red, but our neurons are doing it anyway regardless of our lack of understanding. And, once we understand the process well, we will be able to replicate it in information technology.
Of course bioluddites are already screaming with their usual hysterical and idiotic defense of vitalist mysticism against reason and science. Carrico does not want to hear that biologically incarnated consciousness can be coded. I am particularly puzzled by his statement "I certainly don't find myself inclined particularly to think of "memory chips, processors and peripherals" when I contemplate what we know about the "exquisite micro-mechanical" and electro-chemical processes that take place in biological brains and which seem to us to correlate indicatively to conscious thought processes.". But he is saying it himself: micro-mechanical and electro-chemical processes, of course exquisite, but also physical, understandable and reverse-engineerable. No vitalist mysticism in our bodies, brains and minds. Carrico also takes issue with Martine's quoting Robert Kennedy: "Some men see things as they are and wonder why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not?” and says "There are a few things to say about these cynical appropriations of heroes of mine and other progressives.". Why "cynical"? Do Kenendy and Lennon belong to him? Did they write only for him? Is he the only person qualified to quote them? Give me a break.
Martine understands that consciousness is produced by physical processes in physical brains, by material atoms and molecules doing their things in accordance with the laws of physics, without any vitalism or supernatural nonsense, and anticipates that, once things are well understood, it will be possible to engineer consciousness in software: "If human consciousness is to arise in software we must do three things: first explain how the easy problem is solved in neurons; second, explain how the hard problem is solved in neurons; and third, explain how the solution in neurons is replicable in information technology.". By "hard problem" she refers to "qualia": "how do the web of molecules we call neurons give rise to subjective feelings or qualia (the “redness of red”)?".
I agree with Martine's "The “hard problem” of consciousness is not so hard.". We don't understand yet how the web of molecules we call neurons give rise to subjectively feeling the redness of red, but our neurons are doing it anyway regardless of our lack of understanding. And, once we understand the process well, we will be able to replicate it in information technology.
Of course bioluddites are already screaming with their usual hysterical and idiotic defense of vitalist mysticism against reason and science. Carrico does not want to hear that biologically incarnated consciousness can be coded. I am particularly puzzled by his statement "I certainly don't find myself inclined particularly to think of "memory chips, processors and peripherals" when I contemplate what we know about the "exquisite micro-mechanical" and electro-chemical processes that take place in biological brains and which seem to us to correlate indicatively to conscious thought processes.". But he is saying it himself: micro-mechanical and electro-chemical processes, of course exquisite, but also physical, understandable and reverse-engineerable. No vitalist mysticism in our bodies, brains and minds. Carrico also takes issue with Martine's quoting Robert Kennedy: "Some men see things as they are and wonder why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not?” and says "There are a few things to say about these cynical appropriations of heroes of mine and other progressives.". Why "cynical"? Do Kenendy and Lennon belong to him? Did they write only for him? Is he the only person qualified to quote them? Give me a break.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Transhumanists and Technoprogressives
Wikipedia definitions:
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities... Many Transhumanists believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as mind uploading.
Technoprogressivism is a stance of active support for the convergence of technological change and social change. Techno-progressives argue that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments.
From these basically compatible definition one would think that Transhumanism and Technoprogressivism are two different flavors of the same base meme --that using technology to radically improve the human condition is both feasible and desirable-- with Transhumanists more focused on very speculative issues like space migration, immortality and mind uploading, and Technoprogressives more focused on proximate technodevelopmental and social issues. This is my own view: I am both a Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive. Others who define themselves as both Transhumanists and Technoprogressives, like James Hughes, can wear either hat depending on the topic at hand and say very intelligent things in both contexts. This is to say that Transhumanism and Technoprogressivism are not at all incompatible, and in many cases can be mutually reinforcing.
Yet there is a strong debate between the two Ts, with many Technoprogressives adopting a unnecessary aggressive and often rude stance against Transhumanists. From the Wikipedia article: "Carrico, an academic known for using term "techno-progressive" as a shorthand to describe progressive politics that emphasize technoscientific issues, has expressed concern that some transhumanist ideologues are using the term to describe themselves, with the consequence of possibly misleading the public regarding their actual cultural, social and political views, which may or may not be compatible with critical techno-progressivism.". The rabid anti-Transhumanism of Carrico is well known to most readers, but several other persons previously (or still) associated with the Transhumanist community, have echoed his arguments. The blog of the IEET, a Technoprogressive organization with many Transhumanist members and associated, has recently hosted many flame wars, with a uni-directional flow of rudeness and ad-hominem insults (uni-directional insults: from Technoprogressives to Transhumanists, and please correct me if I am mistaken).
Mike Treder, one of the participants in the recent flame wars, has written a piece at IEET on Technoprogressives and Transhumanists: What’s the difference?. He concludes with "there is plenty of room for various views within both the transhumanist and technoprogressive communities, and that’s a good thing. Healthy, respectful, open-minded debate can help all of us better understand our own positions and those of others.", which I can certainly agree with. But then, why the aggressive rudeness, why the unnecessary insults and the personal attacks?
One reason may be that some of the more aggressive Technoprogressives are afraid that openly associating with Transhumanists can decrease the appeal of their arguments to their intended audience. Many of them work in academy, which is a very conservative intellectual environment: you are supposed to be a bit radical and controversial, else you will not be noticed, but only a bit, never too much, and in a fashionable politically correct way. To be a good PC Technoprogressive academician you are supposed to take a distance from wild-eyed real Transhumanist radicals. Also, today's fashionable academic PCness requires you to believe, for example, in global climate change (which may or not be a scientific fact, but this is not the point here), in gender wars and the superiority of wet biologists over dry physicists and computer scientists, which may put one at odds with many Transhumanists. The Californian Ideology of many Transhumanists, "a bizarre fusion of the cultural bohemianism of San Francisco with the hi-tech industries of Silicon Valley. Promoted in magazines, books, tv programmes, Web sites, newsgroups and Net conferences, the Californian Ideology promiscuously combines the free-wheeling spirit of the hippies and the entrepreneurial zeal of the yuppies. This amalgamation of opposites has been achieved through a profound faith in the emancipatory potential of the new information technologies." is also, sadly, considered unPC.
Another reasons is, of course, politics. While many (not all) early Transhumanists were Libertarians, and there is still a (wrong, but widely held) perception that "Transhumanists are Libertarians", many Technoprogressives are Leftwingers or Socialists. There have always been tense debates and flame wars between Libertarians and Socialists in Transhumanist discussion groups and mailing lists, and I have mostly stopped following them. I have often taken a distance from both camps, but in many ways I sympathize with both.
I am a Libertarian in the sense that I believe in live-and-let-live, personal freedom and autonomy, and self-ownership. I often describe my politics as "Libertarian Left", which some find difficult to understand. I am a Left winger, not _though_ I am a Libertarian, but on the contrary _because_ i am a Libertarian: I value autonomy and freedom but recognize that, in our world, the freedom to do all that does not cost money is not of great practical value. So, I support social safety networks and BIG (Basic Income), and (some degree of) taxation and regulation. But I only support taxation and regulation as necessary evils, not as primary values.
Libertarianism at its best is all about freedom and self-ownership for everyone. But Libertarianism at its worse is about the freedom of the powerful to harm the powerless, or even one's own freedom to harm everyone else. Analogously, Socialism at its best is all about social fairness and giving everyone a chance, but Socialism at his worse is about control-freak bureaucracies, mind-control, interference in the life of citizens, and oppression of all minorities. Democracy is, I think, the best form of government that we have found so far, but as Michael Anissimov says, "democracy can have negative effects on freedom. Look at the recent passing of the homophobic Prop 8 in California. Minority rights should not be contingent on majority opinion.". Democracy is not necessarily, but in the hands of control-freak bureaucracies it can become, "two wolves and a lamb deciding, by majority vote, what to have for dinner.". I support regulations if and when when they are really necessary, but I am really annoyed by unnecessary interference in others' choices when these have no concretely harmful impact on others (there is no such a thing as a victimless crime).
I think Libertarian-Left politics makes a lot of sense, and I am persuaded that it is perfectly possible for reasonable Libertarians and reasonable Leftwingers within a group to collaborate at advancing the objectives of the group without abandoning the respective politics. Similarly, I am persuaded that it is perfectly possible for Transhumanists and Technoprogressives to collaborate, and saddened by seeing that it is so difficult in practice. I wish to repeat Mike Treder's conclusion, with which I agree: "there is plenty of room for various views within both the transhumanist and technoprogressive communities, and that’s a good thing. Healthy, respectful, open-minded debate can help all of us better understand our own positions and those of others.". I wish to continue considering myself as both a Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive but, if I am forced to make a choice between the two "camps", I will stay in the Transhumanist camp. I hope, though, that Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive will be able to work together in organizations like the IEET, which is and must continue to be, in my opinion, open to both Transhumanist and non-Transhumanist Technoprogressives, and a place where these two different but overlapping mindsets can have a constructive dialogue.
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities... Many Transhumanists believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as mind uploading.
Technoprogressivism is a stance of active support for the convergence of technological change and social change. Techno-progressives argue that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments.
From these basically compatible definition one would think that Transhumanism and Technoprogressivism are two different flavors of the same base meme --that using technology to radically improve the human condition is both feasible and desirable-- with Transhumanists more focused on very speculative issues like space migration, immortality and mind uploading, and Technoprogressives more focused on proximate technodevelopmental and social issues. This is my own view: I am both a Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive. Others who define themselves as both Transhumanists and Technoprogressives, like James Hughes, can wear either hat depending on the topic at hand and say very intelligent things in both contexts. This is to say that Transhumanism and Technoprogressivism are not at all incompatible, and in many cases can be mutually reinforcing.
Yet there is a strong debate between the two Ts, with many Technoprogressives adopting a unnecessary aggressive and often rude stance against Transhumanists. From the Wikipedia article: "Carrico, an academic known for using term "techno-progressive" as a shorthand to describe progressive politics that emphasize technoscientific issues, has expressed concern that some transhumanist ideologues are using the term to describe themselves, with the consequence of possibly misleading the public regarding their actual cultural, social and political views, which may or may not be compatible with critical techno-progressivism.". The rabid anti-Transhumanism of Carrico is well known to most readers, but several other persons previously (or still) associated with the Transhumanist community, have echoed his arguments. The blog of the IEET, a Technoprogressive organization with many Transhumanist members and associated, has recently hosted many flame wars, with a uni-directional flow of rudeness and ad-hominem insults (uni-directional insults: from Technoprogressives to Transhumanists, and please correct me if I am mistaken).
Mike Treder, one of the participants in the recent flame wars, has written a piece at IEET on Technoprogressives and Transhumanists: What’s the difference?. He concludes with "there is plenty of room for various views within both the transhumanist and technoprogressive communities, and that’s a good thing. Healthy, respectful, open-minded debate can help all of us better understand our own positions and those of others.", which I can certainly agree with. But then, why the aggressive rudeness, why the unnecessary insults and the personal attacks?
One reason may be that some of the more aggressive Technoprogressives are afraid that openly associating with Transhumanists can decrease the appeal of their arguments to their intended audience. Many of them work in academy, which is a very conservative intellectual environment: you are supposed to be a bit radical and controversial, else you will not be noticed, but only a bit, never too much, and in a fashionable politically correct way. To be a good PC Technoprogressive academician you are supposed to take a distance from wild-eyed real Transhumanist radicals. Also, today's fashionable academic PCness requires you to believe, for example, in global climate change (which may or not be a scientific fact, but this is not the point here), in gender wars and the superiority of wet biologists over dry physicists and computer scientists, which may put one at odds with many Transhumanists. The Californian Ideology of many Transhumanists, "a bizarre fusion of the cultural bohemianism of San Francisco with the hi-tech industries of Silicon Valley. Promoted in magazines, books, tv programmes, Web sites, newsgroups and Net conferences, the Californian Ideology promiscuously combines the free-wheeling spirit of the hippies and the entrepreneurial zeal of the yuppies. This amalgamation of opposites has been achieved through a profound faith in the emancipatory potential of the new information technologies." is also, sadly, considered unPC.
Another reasons is, of course, politics. While many (not all) early Transhumanists were Libertarians, and there is still a (wrong, but widely held) perception that "Transhumanists are Libertarians", many Technoprogressives are Leftwingers or Socialists. There have always been tense debates and flame wars between Libertarians and Socialists in Transhumanist discussion groups and mailing lists, and I have mostly stopped following them. I have often taken a distance from both camps, but in many ways I sympathize with both.
I am a Libertarian in the sense that I believe in live-and-let-live, personal freedom and autonomy, and self-ownership. I often describe my politics as "Libertarian Left", which some find difficult to understand. I am a Left winger, not _though_ I am a Libertarian, but on the contrary _because_ i am a Libertarian: I value autonomy and freedom but recognize that, in our world, the freedom to do all that does not cost money is not of great practical value. So, I support social safety networks and BIG (Basic Income), and (some degree of) taxation and regulation. But I only support taxation and regulation as necessary evils, not as primary values.
Libertarianism at its best is all about freedom and self-ownership for everyone. But Libertarianism at its worse is about the freedom of the powerful to harm the powerless, or even one's own freedom to harm everyone else. Analogously, Socialism at its best is all about social fairness and giving everyone a chance, but Socialism at his worse is about control-freak bureaucracies, mind-control, interference in the life of citizens, and oppression of all minorities. Democracy is, I think, the best form of government that we have found so far, but as Michael Anissimov says, "democracy can have negative effects on freedom. Look at the recent passing of the homophobic Prop 8 in California. Minority rights should not be contingent on majority opinion.". Democracy is not necessarily, but in the hands of control-freak bureaucracies it can become, "two wolves and a lamb deciding, by majority vote, what to have for dinner.". I support regulations if and when when they are really necessary, but I am really annoyed by unnecessary interference in others' choices when these have no concretely harmful impact on others (there is no such a thing as a victimless crime).
I think Libertarian-Left politics makes a lot of sense, and I am persuaded that it is perfectly possible for reasonable Libertarians and reasonable Leftwingers within a group to collaborate at advancing the objectives of the group without abandoning the respective politics. Similarly, I am persuaded that it is perfectly possible for Transhumanists and Technoprogressives to collaborate, and saddened by seeing that it is so difficult in practice. I wish to repeat Mike Treder's conclusion, with which I agree: "there is plenty of room for various views within both the transhumanist and technoprogressive communities, and that’s a good thing. Healthy, respectful, open-minded debate can help all of us better understand our own positions and those of others.". I wish to continue considering myself as both a Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive but, if I am forced to make a choice between the two "camps", I will stay in the Transhumanist camp. I hope, though, that Transhumanist and a Technoprogressive will be able to work together in organizations like the IEET, which is and must continue to be, in my opinion, open to both Transhumanist and non-Transhumanist Technoprogressives, and a place where these two different but overlapping mindsets can have a constructive dialogue.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Carrico's mysticism exposed
Carrico, in a Futurological Brickbat(shit): " To profess the dream of making an intelligent robot is always to confess the nightmare that one imagines oneself already merely a mineral."
Later, in a post called No Need to Call the Priest, he complains about "the Anonymous wag who has already e-mailed me triumphantly to declare me exposed as a mystic because of a recent Futurological Brickbat".
Contrary to Carrico, I have no problem with those who, for various reasons, prefer to be anonymous on the net. If, however, he prefers signed comments, then I wish to second and sign the anonymous comment. If this is not mysticism or vitalism, can someone explain to me what it is.
Later, in a post called No Need to Call the Priest, he complains about "the Anonymous wag who has already e-mailed me triumphantly to declare me exposed as a mystic because of a recent Futurological Brickbat".
Contrary to Carrico, I have no problem with those who, for various reasons, prefer to be anonymous on the net. If, however, he prefers signed comments, then I wish to second and sign the anonymous comment. If this is not mysticism or vitalism, can someone explain to me what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)