This is the home page of Giulio Prisco. I am a physicist and computer scientist by training, and a former senior manager in the European space administration. I am now freelancing and based in Budapest.
I am mainly interested in science, new technology, IT, space, and NBIC: the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science with the goal to improve human performance, expanding human cognition and communication, improving human health and physical capabilities.
I am quite serious about improving human performance and take this concept to its logical conclusion: transhumanism. To read more start with the websites of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, KurzweilAI, and H+ Magazine. I am on the Board of Directors of the the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and the Italian Transhumanist Association. In the past I have been on the Board of Directors of Humanity+. I am also a member of the (late lamented) Extropy Institute and the Cryonics Institute - I am signed up for cryonic suspension with the CI.
My own short and hopefully simple definition of transhumanism:
The basic tenet of classical Humanist thinking is that concrete thinking and feeling persons are more important than abstract, "artificial" ethical constructs. Extrapolating from current scientific and technological trends, we can see that our species may soon develop the capability to control its own evolution, including modifying itself in fundamental ways. Such modifications may range from life extension and cognitive enhancement (mid term), to becoming non-mortal radically enhanced software entities (long term). Transhumanists will welcome such changes as long as they result in a better life for all persons directly concerned, where "person" is defined as "thinking and feeling entity".
That's it. Not the will of --insert your favorite supreme being here-- ? Against --insert your favorite abstract principle here-- ? Too bad. Concrete thinking and feeling persons are more important than abstract, "artificial" ethical constructs.
My worldview in a nutshell: I appreciate that our world is complex, and I am very suspicious of simple black-and-white truths, magic formulas and one-size-fits-all solutions. An engineer at heart, I believe we should carry both a hammer and a screwdriver to deal with a complex reality which contains both nails and screws. Hard thinking and hard working on a case by case basis is much better than following a pre-packaged simplified worldview and, sometimes, may permit achieving goals that seem mutually exclusive at a first glance.
I think that many libertarians and many socialists have valuable ideas, and I think that many believers and many atheists have valuable ideas. In politics, I wish to see some kind of smart combination of libertarian and socialist approaches. Some will say that this is impossible, but I am comforted by the fact that many thinkers whom I respect thought otherwise. I tend to be in favor of "glocalized" governance systems where decisions on issues that have a global impact are taken at a global level, and decisions on issues that only have a local impact are taken at local level. Of course, the devil is in the details. However, I am firmly for "live and let live" and I believe restrictions of personal freedom can only be accepted in very extreme cases. I am very close to the radical social-libertarian positions of the Pirate Party.
In religion, I understand the position of atheists, but I sympathize
with the "spiritual" approach to reality and values of many believers. In other words, I can live with most combinations of moderate [socialism, libertarianism, atheism, spirituality]. At the same time, I find fundamentalism, bigotry and intolerance VERY annoying, regardless of where they come from.
I am also interested in many other things, including what unkind people would call fringe - weird science. Having been trained as a scientist, I can usually distinguish a good weird idea from a bad weird idea.
I try to follow the impact of new technologies on culture, politics, and everyday life, and I think that we have not even started using the Internet as enabling technology for radical change. Things may become much more interesting in a few years, for example with the deployment and widespread adoption of the mobile web and massively multiuser online virtual worlds.
In 2006, 2007 and 2008 I have established a transhumanist presence in Second Life. In 2010 I have launched teleXLR8, a telepresence community for cultural acceleration.
See also my Wordpress site giulioprisco.com , mainly dedicated to my consulting work.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Mind Uploading: Save Wikipedia From Bigotry Doom
Wired Science has an article on Save Mind Uploading From Wikipedia Doom: "The entry for mind uploading -- one of the cooler concepts of modern life -- may be deleted from Wikipedia if it's not improved. Involving the transference of a mind from biological brain to computer hardware -- or, for that matter, any other substrate... It's been postulated by such artificial intelligence luminaries as Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec... In addition to its cultural role, mind uploading also reflects a fundamental assumption of modern neuroscience and cognitive theory: that consciousness does not require some mysterious, immaterial energizing force, but is contained in the physical interactions of a brain and its structure, and can thus be quantified and described."
The Wired blog has an invitation to participate in the Wikipedia discussion on the fate of the article and vote against its deletion. The same invitation has appeared on transhumanist websites, blogs and mailing lists, and it appears that the article will be kept. The Wired blog has popularized the concept of mind uploading, and I am sure some readers will explore transhumanist writings on mind uploading in more detail.
I agree that the Wikipedia article on Mind Uploading should be improved -- I will try to find some time next week, once the proposed deletion notice has been removed, to participate. But a Wikipedia reader who think an article should be improved should give the good example and begin improving it, not propose it for deletion. So i wonder why the article was immediately proposed for deletion instead of being edited to clarify the concepts, improve the wording, and add some of the hundreds of valid references to the work of creative and respected scientists, which is easy to find on the web. But then, it is not the first time that Wikipedia articles on transhumanism are removed or vandalized.
If I had more time I would contribute to Wikipedia much more -- I am very fond of Wikipedia and consider it as a proof that the Web is really beginning to change our lives in a very significant way. If you think of it, it is truly amazing that a repository of knowledge like Wikipedia is one click away, and I am developing the habit of looking into Wikipedia first whenever I want to know something about something new. And the fact that Wikipedia is open in a P2P crowdsourcing mode -- everyone can contribute to it -- is its main strength. It shows what real democracy can be.
But what is democracy? I think democracy at its best protects minority points of view. But democracy at its worst becomes a dictatorship of a moral majority of bigots and assholes, where minorities are oppressed and their ideas are suppressed. Democracy can become two wolves and a lamb discussing, of course democratically and by majority vote, what to have for dinner. I want to live in a democracy where hundreds of flowers can bloom, not in a dictatorship where only flowers of the approved party line are allowed to exist. I wish to do something to save Wikipedia from bigots.
One of the Most Idiotic People Alive on The Holy Squishy Body
You may have noticed a recent series of anti-transhumanist rants on Dale Carrico's blog, triggered by a post on Michael Anissimov's blog. In one post Carrico informs us that Giulio Prisco May Be One of the Most Idiotic People Alive and portrays me with the nice image above, which I absolutely love and will adopt as one of my icons.
I, the mad scientist in the image, am guilty of reminding Carrico that everything under the stars, including biological systems like ourselves, is a physical system composed by atoms, molecules and fields which move around and do their things in accordance with physical laws. Some physical laws are already understood well enough for engineering applications, while others are not yet understood well enough for engineering applications. Science advances, and sooner or later it will understand even today's poorly understood parts of nature well enough for engineering applications. Including, why not, "personal techno-immortalization via either the superlongevity medicine presently aborning in the super-secret Robot Cult labs in the asteroid belt or through an "uploading" process whereby one's squishy en-brained mind manages to "migrate" without loss into that ethereal eternality that is cyberspace;".
This must be filthy reductionism, no doubts, mad scientists' unPC dreams, and of course fringe science and crankery... but wait a minute. This is not fringe science but the very scientific worldview, since Galileo. Galileo was forced by the Church to denounce his heretic notion that planets are just physical systems which move around and do their things in accordance with physical laws (other scientists have been less realpolitikally savvy and have been burned by the Church for saying exactly the same things). Since Galileo we think that the universe and everything in it, with no exceptions, are understandable by science and can be tweaked and modified by engineering once the underlying science is understood well enough. Not crankery, but the scientific method. Not mad scientists' reductionist and unPC dreams, but what actual scientists and engineers do.
When he is hard pressed, Carrico grudgingly concedes that "I am a materialist in matters of mind and that means, among other things, that I don’t discount the logical possibility that something enough akin to intelligence to deserve the description might be materialized on a different substrate.". So strong AI and mind uploading are at least logically possible, how interesting... But then, between one personal insult and another, he goes back to his usual attitude, which is a form of vitalism: "A doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining. Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark," "energy" or "élan vital," which some equate with the "soul."".
What does Carrico have to offer in place of life extension, mind uploading and other transhumanist dreams? Well, one higher value that he frequently proposes is... shit (see here, here and here). Some transhumanists refer to him as "poop-hugger". Now he has a new vitalist slogan: "Intelligence isn't math, it's a squishy sloppy-wet mess, like a kiss.".
Well, better kisses than shit if you ask me. But the post is about the feasibility of AI and Mr. C. considers squishy sloppy-wet messes as the only possible substrate for intelligence. We are, of course, reductionists who discount "many dimensions associated with the actual exhibition of intelligence in the world (which include more than just cognitive reckoning with consequences but also sensitivity, imagination, empathy, emotionality, expressivity, savvy, instinct, improvisation, and a conscience that cannot be reduced only to calculation).". This is twice bullshit: once because all these nice things also originate from computation, and twice because he knows perfectly well that we don't discount them. Of course Mr. C. tries to hide his vitalism behind "I'm not positing any kind of mysterious supernatural force in the way that the vitalists did... You can discount this objection as woo-woo mysticism if you like, but it looks to me like pointing out errors, one materialist to another...". Hold on. Sorry Dale, this IS woo-woo mysticism, pure and simple.
Carrico likes to call transhumanists "Robot Cultists" but his own words when he worships The Holy Squishy Mortal and Vulnerable Body that has to Poop, for example "it is true that life is lived in bodies, and that bodies are various and vulnerable and mortal and hungry for connection, and that embracing embodied life demands an embrace of all this about bodies. To deny their variation, their vulnerability, their mortality, their sociability is to deny the body." sounds to me like mystic woo-woo cultism of the worst kind. Yes, I deny the body. So what?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Kurzweil on Rolling Stone: When Man & Machine Merge
Found via the mailing list of the Society for Universal Immortalism and Cryonet. KurzweilAI.net: Rolling Stone contributor David Kushner's interview with "the world's scariest techno prophet," Ray Kurzweil, "When Man & Machine Merge," appears in the February 19 issue, now on newsstands. See the Cryonet link above for a PDF.
The article is a high level summary of The Singularity is Near, with some very interesting ideas about the universe coming alive with intelligence embodied in computronium, and the possibility to bring back the dead via personality reconstruction based on known information and other people's memories of them. I think the published predictions of Kurzweil, for example a Singularity in 2045 (see below) may be overoptimistic, but I find his bold attitude a welcome and refreshing change from the cautious, timid, watered down, and at times defeatist contemporary "mainstream" transhumanist literature. A Singularity may come a few decades after 2045, or many decades, or never. So what? Mind uploading may not be developed in the 21st century, but only in the 22nd or 23rd. So what? Kurzweil is indicating the road to the future, and a beautiful future it is. Let’s go! Even if we may go slower than Ray hopes.
Some excerpts:
In our lifetime, Kurzweil believes, machines will not only surpass humans in intelligence - they will irrevocably alter what it means to be human. Cell-size robots will zap disease from our bloodstream. Superintelligent nanotechnology, operating on a molecular scale, will scrub pollution from our atmosphere. Our minds, our skills, our memories, our very consciousness will be backed up on computers -- allowing us, in essence, to live forever, all our data saved by supersmart machines.
Kurzweil is very specific about when this epic shift will take place. By 2045, he predicts, machines and humans will merge, redefining life as we know it. The moment is known as the Singularity, referring to the term used in astrophysics to describe the point inside a black hole wherethe ordinary laws of physics cease to apply. To prepare himself and the rest of the world for the era of conscious machines, Kurzweil has turned himself into the chief prophet of the coming Techno Rapture. "Maybe the Singularity takes a few years longer to get here," he finally replies. "But I cant really imagine that I'm significantly off."
The takeoff starts with computers embedding themselves -- from GPS systems to iPhones -- into the fabric ofour lives. Then, 10 years from now, computing power will finally catch up with our brains. For $ 1000 you'll be able to store as much memory on a chip as you can in your head. Virtual realities -- projected directly onto your retinas -- will become indistinguishable from your own. Kurzweil compares this leap to when humans learned how to fly.
"We will be able to redesign all the systems in our bodies and brains to be far more capable and durable." A person is a mind file. A person is a software program -- a very profound one, and we have no backup. So when our hardware dies, our software dies with it. By scanning ihe contents of your brain, nanobots will be able to transfer everything you know, everything you have ever experienced, into a robot or a virtual reality program. If something happens to your physical body, no problem. Your mind will live on -- forever.
Nanobots will replicate and spread throughout the tiniest recesses of matter, transformingthe host -- say, a tree or a stone -- into a computational device. He calls this intelligence-infested matter "computronium, which is matter and energy organized at optimum level for computation. Using nanotechnology, we're going to turn a rock into a computer." As the nanobots spread computer intelligence beyond our planet, the universe itself will awaken as if a giant switch is finaliy being turned on. "The universe is not conscious -- yet," Kurzweil has written. "But it will be."
Kurzweil slips outhis cellphone and holds it up. "It's now in your pockets, and it will make its way into our bodies and brain," he concludes. All of human progress, he suggests, has been moving toward the moment when we merge with technology, when all of our BlackBerries and Facebook pages and instant messages and Wiis become fully integrated with humanity.
Kurzweil's most ambitious plan for life after the Singularity, however, is also his most personal: Using technology, he plans to bring his dead father back to life. "We can find some of his DNA around his grave site -- that's a lot of information right there," he says. "The AI will send down some nanobots and get some bone or teeth and extract some DNA and put it all together. Then they'Il get some information from my brain and anyone else who still remembers him." When I ask how exactly they'Il extract the knowledge from his brain, Kurzweil bristles, as if the answer should be obvious: "Just send nanobots into mybrain and reconstruct my recollections and memories." The machines will capture everything: the piggyback ride to agrocery store, the bedtime reading of Tom Swift, the moment he and his father rejoiced when the letter of acceptance from MIT arrived. To provide the nanobots with even more information, Kurzweil is safeguarding the boxes of his dad's mementos, so the artificial intelligence has as much data as possibie from which to reconstruct him. Father 2.0 could take many forms, he says, from a virtual reality avatar to fully functioning robot.
The article is a high level summary of The Singularity is Near, with some very interesting ideas about the universe coming alive with intelligence embodied in computronium, and the possibility to bring back the dead via personality reconstruction based on known information and other people's memories of them. I think the published predictions of Kurzweil, for example a Singularity in 2045 (see below) may be overoptimistic, but I find his bold attitude a welcome and refreshing change from the cautious, timid, watered down, and at times defeatist contemporary "mainstream" transhumanist literature. A Singularity may come a few decades after 2045, or many decades, or never. So what? Mind uploading may not be developed in the 21st century, but only in the 22nd or 23rd. So what? Kurzweil is indicating the road to the future, and a beautiful future it is. Let’s go! Even if we may go slower than Ray hopes.
Some excerpts:
In our lifetime, Kurzweil believes, machines will not only surpass humans in intelligence - they will irrevocably alter what it means to be human. Cell-size robots will zap disease from our bloodstream. Superintelligent nanotechnology, operating on a molecular scale, will scrub pollution from our atmosphere. Our minds, our skills, our memories, our very consciousness will be backed up on computers -- allowing us, in essence, to live forever, all our data saved by supersmart machines.
Kurzweil is very specific about when this epic shift will take place. By 2045, he predicts, machines and humans will merge, redefining life as we know it. The moment is known as the Singularity, referring to the term used in astrophysics to describe the point inside a black hole wherethe ordinary laws of physics cease to apply. To prepare himself and the rest of the world for the era of conscious machines, Kurzweil has turned himself into the chief prophet of the coming Techno Rapture. "Maybe the Singularity takes a few years longer to get here," he finally replies. "But I cant really imagine that I'm significantly off."
The takeoff starts with computers embedding themselves -- from GPS systems to iPhones -- into the fabric ofour lives. Then, 10 years from now, computing power will finally catch up with our brains. For $ 1000 you'll be able to store as much memory on a chip as you can in your head. Virtual realities -- projected directly onto your retinas -- will become indistinguishable from your own. Kurzweil compares this leap to when humans learned how to fly.
"We will be able to redesign all the systems in our bodies and brains to be far more capable and durable." A person is a mind file. A person is a software program -- a very profound one, and we have no backup. So when our hardware dies, our software dies with it. By scanning ihe contents of your brain, nanobots will be able to transfer everything you know, everything you have ever experienced, into a robot or a virtual reality program. If something happens to your physical body, no problem. Your mind will live on -- forever.
Nanobots will replicate and spread throughout the tiniest recesses of matter, transformingthe host -- say, a tree or a stone -- into a computational device. He calls this intelligence-infested matter "computronium, which is matter and energy organized at optimum level for computation. Using nanotechnology, we're going to turn a rock into a computer." As the nanobots spread computer intelligence beyond our planet, the universe itself will awaken as if a giant switch is finaliy being turned on. "The universe is not conscious -- yet," Kurzweil has written. "But it will be."
Kurzweil slips outhis cellphone and holds it up. "It's now in your pockets, and it will make its way into our bodies and brain," he concludes. All of human progress, he suggests, has been moving toward the moment when we merge with technology, when all of our BlackBerries and Facebook pages and instant messages and Wiis become fully integrated with humanity.
Kurzweil's most ambitious plan for life after the Singularity, however, is also his most personal: Using technology, he plans to bring his dead father back to life. "We can find some of his DNA around his grave site -- that's a lot of information right there," he says. "The AI will send down some nanobots and get some bone or teeth and extract some DNA and put it all together. Then they'Il get some information from my brain and anyone else who still remembers him." When I ask how exactly they'Il extract the knowledge from his brain, Kurzweil bristles, as if the answer should be obvious: "Just send nanobots into mybrain and reconstruct my recollections and memories." The machines will capture everything: the piggyback ride to agrocery store, the bedtime reading of Tom Swift, the moment he and his father rejoiced when the letter of acceptance from MIT arrived. To provide the nanobots with even more information, Kurzweil is safeguarding the boxes of his dad's mementos, so the artificial intelligence has as much data as possibie from which to reconstruct him. Father 2.0 could take many forms, he says, from a virtual reality avatar to fully functioning robot.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Max More's surprise birthday party in Second Life
So the "special event" in Second Life that had been announced was Max More's surprise birthday party, which Natasha and I had been organizing in secret. Max had been asked to come to SL to say a few words of introduction for a undisclosed "European thinker, rather well known in the transhumanist community." Even if this description does fit Max, he was indeed surprised. I said a few words about finding his writings online in the mid 90s and how his ideas put my and so many other person's minds on permanent fire, and thanked him. I had asked for volunteers to sing a birthday song but nobody dared, so I sang myself "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" and wish to apologize to all those whose hearing was permanently damaged. About 55 people came to the party, I am sure many more would have come if we had announced what the event was. Well, I had written "What I can say is this: you should attend! Don't tell me later that I did not warn you!", hadn't I.
See Stephen's Flickr page for many other pictures and the cosmeng.org wiki for the full chat log. This was a surprise social event so don't expect a lecture, but the chat log has many interesting bits on the relationship between Extropy and Transhumanism, the Principles of Extropy (BEST DO IT SO!), the early history of the Extropy Institute, the Bean Dip Catastrophe, religion, Max' forthcoming book and, of course, the future. Bill summarized everyone's feelings: "We want more Max! More Max!"
Sunday, January 18, 2009
More poop
My favorite opponent has commented on my In space nobody will have to poop post, both here and on his own blog. In his post Cyborg Angels Live Forever and Never Ever Have to Poop he has awarded me the title of High Pristine Yes!Tronic Pontifex of the Order of Cosmic Engineers, which I graciously accept (more on Yes!Tronism later). Another post with a long, boring and meaningless title includes a letter of insults personally addressed to me in the comments, with all the straw-man "arguments" and false accusations that I expected (the author has grudgingly corrected some of his most evidently false statements).
A more recent post on WingnutTrons Demand Their Place in the Futurological Sun is, as much as I hate having to admit it, a masterpiece of comic writing. I have been laughing ten minutes non stop, and sometimes I still laugh. Dale, why must you waste your talent on hate pieces? According to this piece,Transhumanism Robot Cultism is divided in three main camps: The HumanityPlusTron sect, represented by the late lamented WTA now renamed Humanity+; the Yes!Tron sect, represented by the Order of Cosmic Engineers "and comparable kooks who say "oh my YES!" to full-throated Rapture of the Nerds superlativity and who are having no truck at all with the moderation and political correctness of the HumanityPlusTronic sect"; and the WingnutTron sect, represented by "unapologetic retro-futurists and libertopians in full on movement-conservative Obama-epoch panic". I think I will try to persuade Dale to join our Robot Cult: his talent should really be used for something worthy.
In the comment thread of one of these articles a reader has suggested that, perhaps, he should make a little effort every now and then to formulate his "superlativity critique" in a less jerky and more constructive way. But he disagrees: "To adapt the critique to ameliorate the distress of these readers makes less sense than it might seem to do, since I think the necessary adaptations (pitching the critique at a different level of generality, approving their preferred frames, including within the sphere of the non-problematic a host of actually quite marginal and "speculative" claims which fail to pass muster in consensus discourses but which they declare to be straightforwardly "factual" and "technical" and so on) would blunt the force of the critique on its own terms into near irrelevance."
Translating this in early 21st century English: he will not start offering serious arguments instead of personal insults, and he thinks the necessary adaptations (discussing engineering issues in engineering terms, acknowledging scientific facts and the opinions of many respected scientists defined by The Times as "some of the world’s finest minds", and so on) would blunt the force of the critique on its own terms into near irrelevance. Well, I can certainly agree on this last point.
In another post he expresses astonishment and indignation at the outrageous fact that others may dare to disagree with him. Well, I can only reply by quoting his own last statement: "I guess, "okay," will have to suffice for now.".
A more recent post on WingnutTrons Demand Their Place in the Futurological Sun is, as much as I hate having to admit it, a masterpiece of comic writing. I have been laughing ten minutes non stop, and sometimes I still laugh. Dale, why must you waste your talent on hate pieces? According to this piece,
In the comment thread of one of these articles a reader has suggested that, perhaps, he should make a little effort every now and then to formulate his "superlativity critique" in a less jerky and more constructive way. But he disagrees: "To adapt the critique to ameliorate the distress of these readers makes less sense than it might seem to do, since I think the necessary adaptations (pitching the critique at a different level of generality, approving their preferred frames, including within the sphere of the non-problematic a host of actually quite marginal and "speculative" claims which fail to pass muster in consensus discourses but which they declare to be straightforwardly "factual" and "technical" and so on) would blunt the force of the critique on its own terms into near irrelevance."
Translating this in early 21st century English: he will not start offering serious arguments instead of personal insults, and he thinks the necessary adaptations (discussing engineering issues in engineering terms, acknowledging scientific facts and the opinions of many respected scientists defined by The Times as "some of the world’s finest minds", and so on) would blunt the force of the critique on its own terms into near irrelevance. Well, I can certainly agree on this last point.
In another post he expresses astonishment and indignation at the outrageous fact that others may dare to disagree with him. Well, I can only reply by quoting his own last statement: "I guess, "okay," will have to suffice for now.".
Teilhard and Transhumanism
The Journal of Evolution and Technology of the IEET has a very interesting and thoughtful article by Eric Steinhart on Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism.
Teilhard is almost surely the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence. He discusses the spread of human intelligence into the universe and its amplification into a cosmic intelligence. More recently, his work has been taken up by transhumanist authors including Moravec and Kurzweil. Wikipedia: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest... In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way. To Teilhard, evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and whole-universe (see Gaia theory). Such theories are generally termed teleological views of evolution. Teilhard attempts to make sense of the universe by its evolutionary process. He interprets mankind as the axis of evolution into higher consciousness, and postulates that a supreme consciousness, God, must be drawing the universe towards him. Human beings, Teilhard argued, represent the layer of consciousness which has "folded back in upon itself", and has become self-conscious. Julian Huxley, Teilhard's scientific colleague, described it like this: "evolution is nothing but matter become conscious of itself. So in addition to the geosphere and the biosphere, Teilhard posited another sphere, which is the realm of human beings, the realm of reflective thought: the noosphere.
While the author is hardly the first to explore the relations between Teilhard's thinking and contemporary transhumanism, the article is a good and accessible summary of Teilhard's ideas written for transhumanist readers with some knowledge of the work of more modern thinkers like Moravec, Tipler and Kurzweil, whose ideas are used as entry points. Following Moravec, many transhumanists imagine our post-human mind children and Exes leaving the Earth and biology behind and spreading into the universe as pure information processors running on post-biological computational supports. In Teilhard's language, this is entering the pleroma: the critical point [where] future human intelligence will no longer be realized by any network of material particles and forces. We will cease to be realized by matter. This does not contradict the naturalistic thesis that we are entirely physical. It simply implies that not every physical thing is a material thing -- physics has deeper levels. The pleroma is physical, but its physicality is deeper than material... For Teilhard, spirit looks very much like energetic information. Spirit is software in action. As humanity becomes super-intelligent, it will cease to be material and will become purely informational. Future intelligence will cease to be materially realized. Evolution will pass into the pleroma. Steinhart explains Teilhard's pleroma with examples from the computational physics of Fredkin, Zuse and other scientists who consider information and computation as the basic fabric of physical reality at a fundamental level.
The resurrection of the dead is the religious concept that most transhumanist find harder to swallow. Perhaps because they had to make significant efforts to break free from religious upbringings, and are afraid of falling back into blind faith. As a religious person, Teilhard did not have any problems with the concepts of resurrection and afterlife: "For Teilhard, faith in Christ is the conviction that the cosmic process is tending to a final state in which all persons are saved. Salvation is the recovery and perfection of what is most personal in every human. Teilhard often writes about this salvation in psychological terms (e.g., in terms of consciousness)." The possibility of resurrection as re-instantiation of consciousness has also been discussed by more modern authors like Tipler and Moravec, who consider the resurrection of the dead of past ages as something that science and engineering may permit achieving in the far future.
Both Tipler and Moravec think that we may find ourselves resurrected in the far future as computational emulations of our current selves, and "copied to the future". I have illustrated this concept with the short video clip CA Resurrection, made with a Game of Life program. The protagonist pattern is doomed to certain death by interaction with an environment that, except in very carefully controlled conditions, is very unfriendly to the stability of patterns (sounds familiar?), but is copied before death and restored to life in a friendlier environment.
Universal Immortalists do not propose any specific engineering approach to resurrection, but consider it as an objective that future technology may be able to achieve, someday, based on future scientific advances. In his book ”Forever for All”, R. Michael Perry writes: “To that end, we dedicate ourselves to finding a way one day to bring back all persons who have ever lived, so they can join in our eternal adventure”. Perry considers resurrection as something that may one day be achieved by engineering, rather than by "supernatural" means, but I think Teilhard would not disagree. As I mentioned, most transhumanist don't like the concept of resurrection at all, and most religious people don't like the idea of resurrection as something that will be achieved by engineering, but I think this meme has a very strong potential to bridge the gap between transhumanism and religion.
Steinhart argues that transhumanists should study Teilhard's writings, not only as part of the history of transhumanist philosophy, but also because of their relevance to the memetic war between religion and transhumanism, which is beginning to develop and can only become much more intense. The conclusions of the article: Transhumanism and Christianity share common themes and are likely to meet soon in a fateful way. Conservative Christians stand ready to condemn transhumanism as a heretical sect and to politically suppress the use of technology for human enhancement. A study of Teilhard can help in this defense... As the cultural profile of transhumanism rises, conservative Christian groups are beginning to notice it. There are two ways this encounter can go. On the one hand, the encounter can involve mutual hostility. The transhumanists and conservative Christians will denounce one another as enemies. Each side will attack a cartoon version of the other. Such hostility could be fatal for transhumanism in the West. On the other hand, the encounter can be more diplomatic. If transhumanists learn more about the similarities between Christianity and transhumanism, they can respond carefully and successfully to attacks. Since Teilhard is clearly in favor of the use of technology for human enhancement, and since his arguments for human enhancement are developed within a Christian framework, a study of Teilhard can help transhumanists defend against religious conservatives.
Teilhard is almost surely the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence. He discusses the spread of human intelligence into the universe and its amplification into a cosmic intelligence. More recently, his work has been taken up by transhumanist authors including Moravec and Kurzweil. Wikipedia: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest... In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way. To Teilhard, evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and whole-universe (see Gaia theory). Such theories are generally termed teleological views of evolution. Teilhard attempts to make sense of the universe by its evolutionary process. He interprets mankind as the axis of evolution into higher consciousness, and postulates that a supreme consciousness, God, must be drawing the universe towards him. Human beings, Teilhard argued, represent the layer of consciousness which has "folded back in upon itself", and has become self-conscious. Julian Huxley, Teilhard's scientific colleague, described it like this: "evolution is nothing but matter become conscious of itself. So in addition to the geosphere and the biosphere, Teilhard posited another sphere, which is the realm of human beings, the realm of reflective thought: the noosphere.
While the author is hardly the first to explore the relations between Teilhard's thinking and contemporary transhumanism, the article is a good and accessible summary of Teilhard's ideas written for transhumanist readers with some knowledge of the work of more modern thinkers like Moravec, Tipler and Kurzweil, whose ideas are used as entry points. Following Moravec, many transhumanists imagine our post-human mind children and Exes leaving the Earth and biology behind and spreading into the universe as pure information processors running on post-biological computational supports. In Teilhard's language, this is entering the pleroma: the critical point [where] future human intelligence will no longer be realized by any network of material particles and forces. We will cease to be realized by matter. This does not contradict the naturalistic thesis that we are entirely physical. It simply implies that not every physical thing is a material thing -- physics has deeper levels. The pleroma is physical, but its physicality is deeper than material... For Teilhard, spirit looks very much like energetic information. Spirit is software in action. As humanity becomes super-intelligent, it will cease to be material and will become purely informational. Future intelligence will cease to be materially realized. Evolution will pass into the pleroma. Steinhart explains Teilhard's pleroma with examples from the computational physics of Fredkin, Zuse and other scientists who consider information and computation as the basic fabric of physical reality at a fundamental level.
The resurrection of the dead is the religious concept that most transhumanist find harder to swallow. Perhaps because they had to make significant efforts to break free from religious upbringings, and are afraid of falling back into blind faith. As a religious person, Teilhard did not have any problems with the concepts of resurrection and afterlife: "For Teilhard, faith in Christ is the conviction that the cosmic process is tending to a final state in which all persons are saved. Salvation is the recovery and perfection of what is most personal in every human. Teilhard often writes about this salvation in psychological terms (e.g., in terms of consciousness)." The possibility of resurrection as re-instantiation of consciousness has also been discussed by more modern authors like Tipler and Moravec, who consider the resurrection of the dead of past ages as something that science and engineering may permit achieving in the far future.
Both Tipler and Moravec think that we may find ourselves resurrected in the far future as computational emulations of our current selves, and "copied to the future". I have illustrated this concept with the short video clip CA Resurrection, made with a Game of Life program. The protagonist pattern is doomed to certain death by interaction with an environment that, except in very carefully controlled conditions, is very unfriendly to the stability of patterns (sounds familiar?), but is copied before death and restored to life in a friendlier environment.
Universal Immortalists do not propose any specific engineering approach to resurrection, but consider it as an objective that future technology may be able to achieve, someday, based on future scientific advances. In his book ”Forever for All”, R. Michael Perry writes: “To that end, we dedicate ourselves to finding a way one day to bring back all persons who have ever lived, so they can join in our eternal adventure”. Perry considers resurrection as something that may one day be achieved by engineering, rather than by "supernatural" means, but I think Teilhard would not disagree. As I mentioned, most transhumanist don't like the concept of resurrection at all, and most religious people don't like the idea of resurrection as something that will be achieved by engineering, but I think this meme has a very strong potential to bridge the gap between transhumanism and religion.
Steinhart argues that transhumanists should study Teilhard's writings, not only as part of the history of transhumanist philosophy, but also because of their relevance to the memetic war between religion and transhumanism, which is beginning to develop and can only become much more intense. The conclusions of the article: Transhumanism and Christianity share common themes and are likely to meet soon in a fateful way. Conservative Christians stand ready to condemn transhumanism as a heretical sect and to politically suppress the use of technology for human enhancement. A study of Teilhard can help in this defense... As the cultural profile of transhumanism rises, conservative Christian groups are beginning to notice it. There are two ways this encounter can go. On the one hand, the encounter can involve mutual hostility. The transhumanists and conservative Christians will denounce one another as enemies. Each side will attack a cartoon version of the other. Such hostility could be fatal for transhumanism in the West. On the other hand, the encounter can be more diplomatic. If transhumanists learn more about the similarities between Christianity and transhumanism, they can respond carefully and successfully to attacks. Since Teilhard is clearly in favor of the use of technology for human enhancement, and since his arguments for human enhancement are developed within a Christian framework, a study of Teilhard can help transhumanists defend against religious conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)