|
|
-
The New York Times reports that remembering may be like reliving, from the perspective of the neurons doing the remembering. Remembering neurons appear to behave like they did when first experiencing whatever is being remembered. I wonder, if our brains could quickly store more information in a readily accessible manner, and if our eyes and ears (and the remainder of our body) could reproduce their states from that stored information, perhaps remembering would be no different than reliving for the entire organism? To remember is to simulate the past. At radical degrees, to remember is to recreate the past. In the distant future, perhaps a neohuman remembering our world would, through the act of remembering, reproduce our world. As I've mentioned before, there seems to be little reason to distinguish between a neohuman and a universe.
|
-
Coincident with our recent presentation of the New God Argument, a leading evangelical Christian, Albert Mohler, wrote a blog entry entitled "New God or No God? The Peril of Making God Plausible". In the entry, he reviews a book by Mitchell Silver, who suggests that liberal theologians have been working to replace the "'old God' of biblical theism" with the "'new God' of the secular philosophers". Mohler, identifying with the old God theology, contrasts the two theological perspectives, explicitly or implicitly, as follows:
Old God
1) Biblical
2) Personal
3) Supernatural
4) Theistic
5) Specific
6) Literal
7) Traditional
8) Powerful
New God
1) Secular Philosophy
2) Principle
3) Natural
4) Atheistic
5) Equivocal
6) Metaphoric
7) Popular
8) Impotent
The new God described in Mohler's blog entry is not the God proposed by the New God Argument. Moreover, the New God Argument does not contend to propose a new God. Rather, it contends to be a new argument for a particular kind of God that is not new at all, but rather quite ancient. The new God described in Mohler's blog entry is the God of some liberal protestants. Although I may agree with some aspects of their perspective, as I may agree with some aspects of Mohler's perspective, the liberal protestant perspective is not one I would wholly defend. That aside, I do want to comment on each of the contrasts Mohler identified:
1) If the old God is the God preached by traditional Christianity then it is not only a biblical God, but also a secular philosophical God. Christian theology has been repeatedly reconciled with the popular secular philosophy of its day, beginning with neo-Platonism, through Scholastic Aristotelianism, and on to the various contemporary reconciliations. Mohler's own Southern Baptist Convention is not immune to the interplay between religious and secular philosophy, as evidenced by their basic statement on God: "The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being." While the Bible does teach of the unity of aspects of God, it does not explicitly teach that the aspects are without division in nature, essence or being. The Southern Baptist Convention can thank the Catholics, who in turn can thank Greek philosophy, for that extra-Biblical interpretation.
2) With Mohler, I see less value in an impersonal God. However, one need not look only to traditional or conservative Christianity to find faith in a personal God. For example, the God advocated in the New God Argument is a person -- or persons -- and not merely a principle. This God was perhaps once like you and me, and we may perhaps become like this God. As we get to know and become like this God, we may learn to love him. It doesn't get much more personal than that, but it is hardly a traditional or conservative perspective by contemporary measures.
3) I don't know anything about a supernatural God, and neither does anyone else except to the extent that they label as "supernatural" the God they experience and imagine naturally. The distinction between natural and supernatural seems to be largely nonsensical. If it can affect my experience, it's natural, so far as I'm concerned. I may not understand how it affects my experience, but that doesn't mean I should assume it is immaterial or causeless -- euphemisms for "beyond investigation". Such assumptions are lazy and dangerous, preventing us from growing in knowledge.
4) If rejection of supernaturalism and immaterialism is atheism then I and a whole lot of other Mormons are atheists, despite our professed faith in God. As presented in the New God Argument, a powerful benevolent creator can be quite natural and material. For those of us who are natural and material, and who express our worship through emulation, only such a God is worthy of worship.
5) I do not perceive the God presented by the Bible, as interpreted by the Southern Baptist Convention or any other religion including my own, to be devoid of ambiguities, paradoxes and some outright contradictions. Despite the powerful inspirational power we find in scriptural texts and our exegesis of them, there is not so much precision as Mohler appears to suggest. If God intended the scriptures to be so precise, perhaps he would have written them in mathematics.
6) The scriptures are rich in symbolism, particularly when describing God. How does one decide where the symbol ends and the literal begins? If Mohler's concern is that some liberal theologians are making God wholly symbolic, I share his concern to the extent that we do not reify our symbols.
7) Today's traditional God is yesterday's popular God, and has been through the ages. Whether traditional or popular, God must be more than we have yet learned, or what's the bother? I don't intend to disregard the value of respect for tradition. To the extent tradition is not oppressive, we can all benefit from respecting it, and seeking to integrate its strengths into our learning process.
8) I agree with Mohler that a God that is merely a symbol is far less powerful than such reified into a personal being. Moreover, although Mohler certainly would not agree, an immaterial or supernatural person is far less powerful than a material natural person. The former is, so far as I can tell, indistinguishable from a symbol. Additionally, a God who would limit the education of his creatures to texts written millennia ago seems less powerful than one that would never cease educating.
While Mohler considers it perilous to make God plausible, I consider it perilous to make God implausible. Is it any wonder that religious adherence suffers when we hold dogmatically to ideas that clash with our experience, and our best efforts at rationality and science? Should we be surprised that the spirit of God fails us when we choose to disavow the ongoing flow of knowledge with which God would inspire us? If we seek to embrace all truth, regardless of its source, we probably will get more of it. We need not pretend to a final understanding of God to aspire to an understanding that is sufficiently plausible to help us take the next steps toward a better understanding.
|
-
Will works save you? Some Christians enjoy debating whether good works are necessary for salvation, with responses ranging from the extremes of Calvinism (we can make absolutely no effort, spiritual or physical, toward salvation) to the extremes of Pelagianism (salvation depends almost entirely on our efforts, spiritual and physical). Most Christians situate themselves somewhere between these two extremes. Pentecostals, leaning toward Calvinism, may claim that free-willed faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but that any works beyond that are not necessary. Mormons, leaning toward Pelagianism, may claim that both the grace of God and our works are necessary for salvation, the former as a context of opportunity for the latter.
Underlying the debate are widely varying perspectives on the nature of salvation, grace, faith and works. What is salvation? To what extent is faith a work? How is grace manifest, to whom and for what reason? Toward what should faith be directed? Does missionary work matter? Yet, despite all these questions, our answers and how we might position ourselves along the ideological line between Calvinism and Pelagianism, Christians almost universally agree that good works are evidence of salvation, whether or not they are necessary. In other words, while you may or may not be saved when evidencing good works, you know you're not saved when NOT evidencing good works.
So here's the wager: bet on better works. In any choice between ideologies, you should choose whichever you think will affect you to evidence better works. To the extent Calvinism is accurate, your choice won't matter either way, as you'll be saved or damned according to criteria relative to which you have absolutely no influence. To the extent Pelagianism is accurate, your better works will save you. From the Pentecostal perspective, although the better works would not save you, they would be evidence that you had embraced the better ideology (which faith in Christ must be, definitionally), which will save you. From the Mormon perspective, the better works are the best use of the gifts and talents, inspiration and endowments, that God has given you, and so will save you according to your wise stewardship.
Bet on better works. Regardless of how you are persuaded to define "salvation" or "better works", the wager stands. One may understand salvation in terms of "happiness" and better works in terms of "benevolence" and "power". Another may understand salvation in terms of "utility" and better works in terms of "ethics" and "technology". Can greater benevolence and power make you happier? Can improved ethics and technology provide increased utility? From a secular pseudo-Calvinist perspective, it doesn't matter whether you are benevolent and powerful or not; either way, something utterly beyond your benevolence and power determines your happiness. In other words, to the extent pseudo-Calvinism is accurate, it can't hurt to bet on benevolence and power. From a secular pseudo-Pelagianist perspective, your utility depends on your ethics and technology. To the extent pseudo-Pelagianism is accurate, it's good to bet on ethics and technology. For the secular pseudo-Pentecostal, although greater benevolence and power aren't making you happier, they're evidence of that which is making you happier. For the secular pseudo-Mormon, although the improved ethics and technology are not sufficient in themselves for utility, they are necessary for greater utility.
In summary, there are three ways of looking at the correlation of good works and salvation (or benevolent power and happiness, or ethical technology and utility):
1) They are not correlated.
2) They are positively correlated, whether or not causally related.
3) They are negatively correlated, whether or not causally related.
Common sense rejects #3, whether or not it should. Moreover, I've never heard anyone seriously and persuasively argue that good works correlate with damnation, that benevolent power correlates with misery, or that ethical technology correlates with inutility.
#1 is of no practical consequence, by definition. Practice is limited to works, power and technology. If good works, benevolent power and ethical technology are no more likely to correlate with salvation, happiness and utility than are evil works, malevolent power and unethical technology then it doesn't matter whether we reject #1, even if we're wrong.
That leaves us with #2. We should embrace the idea that good works correlate with salvation, that benevolent power correlates with happiness, and that ethical technology correlates with utility. Whether or not we think the relation is causal, if we desire salvation, happiness or utility, then we should seek out good works, benevolent power or ethical technology. If the relation is causal then we'll cause fulfillment of our desires. If the relation is not causal then they're still evidence that we've done whatever else is causal.
Bet on better works, benevolent power and ethical technology. In any choice between ideologies, you should choose whichever you think will affect you to evidence better works, greater benevolence and power, increased ethics and advanced technology. If there's anything you can do to achieve salvation, happiness or utility, you probably will have done it when you evidence these things. Of course, there is still plenty of room for debate over what constitutes better works, benevolent power or ethical technology, but we should at least bet on them in general terms.
|
-
The Faith Position
Abstract: For practical reasons, we should trust that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization.
F1) we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization [assumption]
To read a discussion of the faith position, see this post.
The Angel Argument
Abstract: If basic life forms are probable then we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable.
A1) EITHER basic life forms are improbable OR we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization OR advanced civilizations are probable [great filter argument]
A2) basic life forms are probable [assumption]
A3) EITHER we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization OR advanced civilizations are probable [from A1 and A2]
A4) advanced civilizations are probable [from A3 and F1]
The stars, as we look at and listen to them, present many of us with a paradox. On the one hand, the universe should be old and large enough to have produced many Earthlike planets. It’s almost fourteen billion years old, and the visible portion alone contains over 100 billion galaxies. If our galaxy, containing over 400 billion stars, is typical then there are over forty sextillion stars in the visible universe (that’s forty billion billions or forty followed by 21 zeros). We’re orbiting one of those stars on a planet that is four and a half billion years old. Unless Earth is extremely improbable, there’s been time and space enough for many other planets like ours. On the other hand, we lack sufficient evidence for the existence of advanced civilizations. The SETI program, an internationally funded search for extraterrestrial intelligence, reports no reproducible messages from Alpha Centauri or anywhere else outside our atmosphere. Claims of UFO sightings and encounters with ET are open to broad interpretation, leaving most of us skeptical. While we cannot say with infallibility that advanced civilizations have not contacted or visited us, we should acknowledge that we lack objective reason to conclude they have. Despite all that time and all those stars, despite our careful looking and listening, we lack evidence for advanced civilizations.
There must be a reason for our lack of evidence of advanced civilizations. One possibility is that they are extremely rare (if they exist at all) because civilizations like ours almost always go extinct before becoming advanced; maybe we’re likely to destroy ourselves with super-weapons or irreversibly exploit our environmental resources. Another possibility is that advanced civilizations are extremely rare because civilizations like ours are already extremely rare; it may be that the initial formation of life, and the subsequent development of complex species and civilizations, is likely to occur on only one in a septillion planets. If advanced civilizations are improbable then candidate civilizations, such as ours, must almost never appear or, if they commonly appear, they must almost never move on to become advanced civilizations before going extinct. In other words, if we are not already extraordinarily lucky and have benefited from very low probability events in our past development, then very high probability events in our future development will almost certainly stop us from becoming an advanced civilization. In the vastness of time and space, across innumerable Earthlike worlds, somewhere along the evolutionary path from inorganic matter to advanced civilizations, something is filtering the many possibilities down to improbabilities. That filter is either in our past or in our future. The only alternative is that advanced civilizations are not as rare as we might suppose. This is the great filter argument, that one of the following propositions must be true: either basic life forms are improbable or we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or advanced civilizations are probable.
Recently, a NASA robot verified the presence of water on Mars, and some speculate that we may soon discover primitive life there. In response to such speculation, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom recently wrote: “I hope that our Mars probes discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit.” He wrote this from the perspective of someone that understands the force of the great filter argument, but also from the perspective of someone who has assumed that the lack of evidence for advanced civilizations implies a probable lack of existence. If a robot discovers primitive life on Mars, or if we otherwise determine that basic life forms are probable, Bostrom would confront the troubling conclusion that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. I wonder how he would live with such a specter overshadowing him. Perhaps it would be sufficient to move him to question his assumption that advanced civilizations are improbable. I don’t know how he would react, but I know how he should react.
If basic life forms are probable then, according to the great filter argument, either we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or advanced civilizations are probable. Faced with such options, our moral responsibility is to invoke the faith position, reaffirm that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, and embrace the consequence: trust that advanced civilizations are probable.
We need not sacrifice rationality to embrace trust that advanced civilizations are probable. We know too little to entertain confidence in our ability to discern them. It is not merely modern UFO and ET claims that contend for recognition as subjective experience of advanced civilizations, but also the ancient and persistent weight of religious tradition, and its purported interactions between the human and the divine. While some find religious claims absurd, appeals to absurdity do not disprove subjective experience. If advanced civilizations exist, why should we suppose they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Why not suppose that their interactions with us would be indiscernible from magic? Why should we suppose that we even have the anatomical capacity to comprehend them fully? One need not embrace a religious tradition to acknowledge the possibility that advanced civilizations are among the causes of experiences that some of us have interpreted into religious traditions.
While we lack evidence for advanced civilizations, a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. In some cases, lack of evidence to the contrary is of little or no practical consequence, but in this case, given the assumption that basic life forms are probable, our probable future correlates with the probable existence of advanced civilizations. In this case, a lack of evidence enables reasonable hope.
|
-
Congratulations, both to Barack Obama and to us collectively, for his nomination as the presidential candidate of the United States Democratic party. This is not an endorsement, either of the candidate or the party, but rather acknowledgement of the historical significance of his nomination, as a person of African ancestry. As implied in the Transhumanist Declaration and Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, we value the diversity of individuals in our community and celebrate the increasing diversity that technology can enable, as we use it charitably with respect and concern for our plurality of wills, desires and laws.
|
-
|
I'm sitting in the Houston airport, returning from a family vacation -- you know, relaxing from all that hard work on the New God Argument. Just a moment ago, a recorded voice stated: "We would like to remind you that any jokes or inappropriate remarks about security may result in your arrest." The persons that recorded this message should be focusing on mitigating greater risks to our future than persons vocalizing inappropriate remarks (whatever those may be). We have just experienced a revolution in information tech, and it looks as if we may be on the cusp of a revolution in biotech. Who knows? After that, we may be worrying about grey goo and evil AGI within a few decades. Yet here we are threatening to arrest persons that vibrate their vocal cords in patterns that we don't like. Does our collective fear of divergent thoughts constitute a crowded theatre? Let's not let it be so.
|
-
Sunstone has announced that Dan Wotherspoon, executive director and editor of Sunstone magazine and symposiums, will be stepping down to pursue a new opportunity. On behalf of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, I would like to thank Dan for the many ways that he has assisted us with sharing our message in the Mormon community. He gave us our first opportunity to present parallels between Mormonism and Transhumanism at the Sunstone 2006 symposium. Subsequently, he worked with us to publish the article, "Transfiguration", as the cover article of the March 2007 edition of the magazine, and thereafter present it on several occasions. Most recently, Dan helped us improve our marketing of the New God Argument. Dan is also a member of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.
On a personal note, I'll add that I've had the opportunity to interact with Dan on many occasions, and have been repeatedly impressed by his character. He has a big heart and a sharp mind -- an inspiring and inspired man. Thanks, Dan, and good luck with your new opportunity!
|
-
We presented the New God Argument to an audience of approximately 60 persons at the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City earlier this morning. The presentation was well received, and many of the attendees asked for access to an electronic copy of the argument outline to provide to friends. We've now made available an electronic copy of the handout, with an outline of the argument, as well as the slides and a transcript of the presentation, at the following location on the MTA web site:
http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/sunstone_2008/default.aspx
Abstract: If basic life forms are probable then we should trust that advanced civilizations are probable. If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity, and if any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past, then we should trust that an advanced civilization more benevolent than us probably created our world. The alternative is that we probably will go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization.
|
-
I am sometimes disturbed by the observation that our religious tradition, Mormonism, is not unified in faith that we can and should become God. Too many of us have capitulated to the violent dogmatism of traditional Christianity, particularly in its evangelical forms. Too many of us only hear whisperings of the doctrine. Too many of us, even, while giving lip service to this core idea on which Mormonism originally relied, yet only talk the talk without walking the walk. Many of us can still quote the prophets, affirming that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become. But our faith so often appears to end in the verbal affirmation, or perhaps goes no further than imagining that the perpetuatuion of self-hypnosis toward greater compassion will, in itself, be sufficient to transform us into gods. Who is walking the walk? Who can see that our future depends not only on thoughts, but also on power and action? Where are the Gods in embryo? Who will rise together in the name of Christ as joint heirs in the glory of God? Who is Mormon enough to declare, without shame, that we have got to learn how to become gods, the same as all other gods before us?
At Sunstone today, one session asked: are we still gods in embryo? The presenter outlined the history of the doctrine of theosis in the LDS Church over the last couple centuries. The respondent, Mormon historian Michael Quinn, stated that if, in our shame and efforts to conform with mainstream Christianity, we give up our doctrine of theosis, we have traded our birthright for a mess of pottage. The audience applauded vigorously. I cheered, "Amen!" Yet I wonder, how many persons in the audience trust in theosis to the point of action? How many even have any idea how we might go about learning to create worlds? How many are content with appeals to magic? I wonder, even in the applause, how many of us are Mormon enough to make use of all the means with which God is now endowing us?
|
-
The New God Argument begins with the assumption that we, our human civilization here on Earth, probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization. This is the faith position, and we will refer back to it a few times as we proceed with the argument.
The faith position does not require any particular perspective regarding the amount of time it might take for us to become an advanced civilization. It could happen within coming decades or across the span of eons. Either possibility, or any of the infinite possibilities between them, is sufficient for the faith position. Moreover, from the outset, the faith position does not require any particular understanding of what we must do to be considered an advanced civilization. Perhaps we’ll cure cancer or end hunger. Maybe we’ll voyage to the stars. Any of these possibilities or any set of many other possibilities is sufficient for the faith position. As we go along, we’ll introduce some assumptions about what we probably would do as an advanced civilization, but your imagination is the best starting point. Consider the future of our civilization as you think it should be. Imagine a future worthy of your trust. Assume we can and probably will eventually become such a civilization, no matter how long it takes, so long as we work at it. That is the faith position.
Of course, while embracing the probability of desirable futures, we should not ignore the possibility of undesirable futures. Complacency may prove quite as dangerous as hopelessness, and both are risks we should seek to mitigate. Thus, we intend our formulation of the faith position, that we probably will not go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization, to convey an optimal balance between trust in desirable futures and recognition of attending risks. Consider, for example, the attitude we should take if we were to discover that a large asteroid is headed directly at Earth and will destroy all life on the planet when it hits us in five years. While some of us may languish in despair and others may passively await a chance or supernatural remedy, most of would naturally take up the faith position and begin planning for and building a means of destroying or displacing the asteroid, even while feeling anxious or simultaneously hoping for a lucky break or supernatural assistance.
Remark that the faith position is valuable beyond the scope of the argument we’re presenting. There is a kind of truth that depends on intentional creation. For example, it may not be true that the materials at your dock are organized into the form of a ship, but with some trust in and work toward such a possibility, you just might make it true. Most of us have a similar perspective regarding the future of our civilization. Maybe it will be horrible, but we’ll trust in and work toward a wonderful future because we think it could make the difference. Some will argue that the optimism of the faith position is not realistic, as demonstrated by the many occasions when our experience differs from our preference. To the extent we lack power, unassisted optimism may not be realistic. However, to the extent we have power, optimism certainly is realistic, as we use our power to create the experience we prefer. Moreover, since we don't infallibly know the full extent of our power, even cautious optimism beyond our certain knowledge is wise. For example, you may or may not have what it takes to persuade someone to love you, but you have a better chance if you're optimistic enough to make the phone call.
. . .
As announced, Joey and I will present the New God Argument at the Sunstone symposium on Saturday. The session has already received attention from bloggers and symposium attendees, as well as Mormon and Christian apologetic web sites. We expect the presentation to be well attended. If you're planning to attend, or trying to decide whether to attend, read up on the following ideas and come prepared to consider the rest of the argument.
Evolution Theory
Fermi Paradox
Great Filter Argument
Simulation Argument
King Follett Discourse
|
|
|
