Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon

If you know of other Mormon web sites that focus on science or technology, let us know! If you're thinking of starting one yourself, tell us about it!

4) Deseret Book Publishes "Mormon Scientist"

Deseret Book published a biography of reknowned Mormon chemist, Henry Eyring, written by his grandson, Henry J Eyring. Here is the official web site for the book:

http://mormonscientist.org/

You can buy the book through the Mormon Transhumanist Association book store.

3) LDS Tech Awards Begin

The technology division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced a program whose purpose is to publicly and formally celebrate the technical achievements of those who are sharing their skills with the Church. They want to ensure that those individuals who use their technical talents as a tremendous expression of their faith are acknowledged and encouraged. For more information about the LDS Tech Awards, visit the official site:

http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=5

The winner of the 2008 LDS Tech Award was Brad Oldham for his exceptional volunteer effort in creating the "Return and Report" tool:

http://returnandreport.org

2) LDS Church Apostle Ballard Invites Mormons to Engage Technology

Elder Ballard, an Apostle of the LDS Church urged Mormons to use technological tools to further the work of God. The Ensign, an official magazine of the LDS Church, featured the article, "Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet".

The article was adapted from Ballard's commencement address at BYU-Hawaii:

1) Claremont Graduate University Announces Conference on Parallels and Convergences between Mormon Thought and Engineering Vision

Richard Bushman, the Howard W Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies in the School of Religion at Claremont Graduate University is interested in expanding the discussion of Latter-day Saint (LDS) perspectives on the attributes of God and the potential of man through a variety of innovative directions. One of the directions to be explored is whether there is a possible resonance between Mormon and engineering thought. An assumption can be made that, according to LDS understanding, God is the architect of the Creation and the engineer of our bodies and spirits. Man, on the other hand, is believed to be capable of growing to become like God. The theological question is: where does engineering fit in the convergence of these two realms? For more information, visit the official conference web site:

http://mormonism-engineering.org

Claus in You

Lincoln Cannon — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:29:00 GMT

I am Santa Claus. Yes. Whether you believe it or not, and whether you like it or not, I am. Some snort apathetically or with mild amusement. Some insist I'm changing the definitions of words. Most, though, get it. We understand: Santa Claus does exist and always has. Maybe we haven't yet figured out how to make the traditional reindeer fly, and certainly we're still missing presents for too many good girls and boys. But we're committed to doing better. Those reindeer will fly. Oh, they'll fly. So, Scrooge, while you wallow in your nihilism, I'll be working with some friends to build whatever needs finishing at the North Pole. You're welcome to join us when the angst passes . . . when you, too, learn the great secret: Claus in you.

Millennial Vegetarians or Improved Meat Producing Technology?

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:45:00 GMT

Mormon prophetic tradition includes the idea that humans (and perhaps other animals) will no longer eat other animals when the Earth attains its millennial or terrestrial glory. For example, see this recent post at the Mormon blog, Times and Seasons. Although some have interpreted these prophecies to support vegetarianism, others may be happy to learn that the techology to produce meat that has never been part of a sentient animal is already available. Would widespread use of such technology satisfy the prophecy?

Reproductive Technology and Gay Marriage

Lincoln Cannon — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:28:00 GMT

I recently came across a document by Margaret A Somerville, which presents "The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'". This is, to date, the best argument I've read from opponents of gay marriage. It accounts for the importance of religious perspectives, but does not argue from them, and instead appeals to secular ethics. Somerville's summary of her argument follows:

"Society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society's capacity, to protect the inherently procreative relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children's' future sexual orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual."

Essential to Somerville's argument is her position on the use of reproductive technologies, which she states as follows:

"I believe that a child has a right not to be created from the genetic patrimony of two men or two women, or by cloning, or from multiple genetic parents."

I agree with many of Somerville's concerns and arguments, with the important exception of her perspective on reproductive technologies. Indeed, my perspective on gay marriage arises in no small part from my high esteem for reproductive technologies as endowments from God, enabling a broader set of humanity to participate in the most intimate aspects of the creative process. I have many heterosexual friends that have benefitted from these technologies, and expect this will become increasingly the case, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I agree with Somerville that procreation is worthy of deep respect and concern, both individually and communally, and that it does indeed merit special protections. However, I extend this perspective not only to natural procreation, but also to technological procreation. This is not to say that I think there should be no limits to technological procreation; to the contrary, there should certainly be limits, which we need to consider and debate vigorously. However, I see no justification for rejecting the ethical use of procreative technologies based simply on the creators' gender combinations.

In closing, I'll mention a related reflection on Mormon theology. Our scriptures imply that there are at least a couple different procreative methods, one of which is spiritual procreation. If, as I do, you associate things spiritual with information technology, it seems reasonable to consider our advances in reproductive technology to be advances toward spiritual procreation, in emulation of God.

How did the first God create a universe?

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:40:00 GMT

Now we know how the first God created a universe. Thanks to Chris Bradford for directing me to the answer:

http://xkcd.com/505/

Enjoy! :-)

Convergence 08 Sunday Unconference

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:49:00 GMT

Like yesterday afternoon, I participated in unconference sessions this afternoon. First, I attended a session with PJ Manney on empathy and technology. The session began by focusing primarily on how to promote empathy through video games, by encouraging persons to take on roles that require action other than violence. Then we discussed differences between how film and books promote empathy; the lack of differing details (internal dialog for film or visual stimuli for film) results in differing pathways to empathy. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make any comments, but had hoped to discuss the importance of creating pathways for empathy. Many of us find it easy to have empathy for experiences that can be viewed, but find ideological empathy much more difficult. Because of that, it is important that those of us who understand competing ideologies work to formulate syncretizations which enable persons of the two sides to empathize with each other. Second, I attended a session entitled "winning the meme wars", anticipating an attack on religion. As it turned out, although some participants implied attacks on religion, we instead turned the focus to winning by not fighting. This meant different things to different persons. Some took the perspective that we should avoid telling the general population about advances in tech. While that may be appropriate in some cases, I think the more practical path is to seek to create mutual understanding and emphasis of shared values. Divisions lead to disputes, which can become wars, or worse: in a world with increasingly empowered individuals, each one of us could become significant variables in the effort to avoid global catastrophe. We must educate and promote growth and communal respect. The alternatives appear deadly. After the second session, I ran to the taxi, and I'm now sitting in the San Jose airport finishing up this post. Before closing, I'll add that I had an opportunity to share a hotel room with John Grigg, an MTA member, during my stay in San Jose. I learned a lot about his background, and found yet again a kindred spirit with deep love for life and an optimisitic attitude toward our shared future. It's a pleasure to work with persons like John to advocate for a positive and mutually beneficial relation between religion, science, spirituality and technology.

Convergence 08 Synthetic Biology Panel

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:01:00 GMT

This morning, the Convergence 08 conference continued with a panel of experts on synthetic life. One of the panel members observed that genetic engineering is almost as accessible as computer programming in the early 80s, when teenagers were able to become involved inexpensively. Another panel member responded skeptically that there are serious risks associated with synthetic life, particularly when introduced to natural environments, and more evidence should be gathered in favor of benefits before proceeding further. On the subject of benefits, other panelists agreed there are risks, but that risk management techniques will come with time. The most immediate benefit of synthetic life will probably be biofuels. Benefits for cardiovascular health, alzheimers and diabetes may arise from products entering human trials soon. The panelists debated the degree of risk associated with use of artificially selected insects, and emphasized the importance of rigorous research and precaution. The panelists were asked whether persons from non-biology backgrounds could make a difference in the biotech industry. They agreed that there are an increasing number of opportunities for engineers and infotech experts to become involved. However, the field is not yet ready for most persons that require education on the basics of biochemistry. As things become more automated, the wet lab may become less necessary, and access will expand to persons of more diverse backgrounds. This is an area where I have a lot to learn. Thanks to good teachers, some of my favorite subjects in school were chemistry and biology. I enjoyed the lab experiments, unit conversion exercises and the artificial selection of fruit flies. However, the fields are broad and complex, presenting mind-boggling opportunity and risk.

Convergence 08 Today and Tomorrow

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:02:00 GMT

I'm at Convergence 08, sponsored by Humanity+ (formerly the World Transhumanist Association), which is the affiliate of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. We're discussing infotech, biotech, nanotech and various related areas, with an eye on opportunities and risks associated with the rapid technological advance we're now experiencing. I'll be posting my thoughts about the conference throughout the day today and tomorrow.

Convergence 08 Paul Saffo Key Note

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:22:00 GMT

Paul Saffo was the key note speaker on Saturday, and he endeavored to share some principles of forecasting. He began by distinguishing between futurists and forecasters, defining the former as active advocates and the latter as passive observors. He observed that persons looking to the future have a tendency to compress all the exciting things together, but history illustrates that times tend to produce long stretches of dullness. He encouraged questioning of all assumptions. For example, is tech actually converging, or rather is it diverging and producing greater complexity and diversity? Things may turn out other than we think. He brought up the idea that change trends occur in S curves. There are persons who are surprised by the initial upward inflection point, and there are persons who are surprised by the downward inflection point on the other end of rapid change. He urged cherishing failure. Repeatedly failures may be the flat part of the S curve leading up to the inflection. He also recommended looking back twice as far as we want to predict forward. Rear view mirrors are great forecasting tools if we use them right. Don't look at specifics. Look for patterns. As examples, he pointed to S curves of processing in 80s (personal computers), connectivity through lasers in 90s (world wide wed and dvds), and a presently emerging revolution in sensors (cameras and others coming together to enable robotic automation). To conclude, he commented that they who think the longest win. He asked the audience whether they took pride in thinking ahead much further than most persons. Many persons raised their hands. In response, he claimed this audience would be wrong to think ourselves the best long term thinkers. Then, in what turned out to be a controversial matter, he claimed that religious fundamentalists are the best long term thinkers. The race today is among those who would think farthest. Religious fundamentalists are winning the race. Persons like Jesus and Buddha set in motion long term sustainable changes. Of course, the non-religious in the audience didn't like this idea.

Convergence 08 Saturday Unconference

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:14:00 GMT

This afternoon, I've been bouncing around among unconference sessions. First, I attended a session on balancing spirituality with technology. It had a lot of potential and several interesting persons attended, but the discussion was turned too often to the discussion leader's marketing of a device intended to stimulate meditative states. One interesting matter I'll note was one person's suggestion that we need not attempt to persuade each other to various spiritual perspectives. I disagrred with him, and expained that our individual spiritual perspectives have far reaching effects in our community and environment. Many of the challenges faced in the world today have arisen from lack of attention to the practical consequence of spiritual and religious world views. Second, I attended a session on an open source artificial intelligence project: opencog (a google search will probably bring up the project web site). The discussion leader, Ben G, stated that the project is not making an attempt to reproduce human intelligence. Yet, of course, we're not able to make much sense of AI without constant reference to human intelligence. It is revealing that Ben off-handedly described AI as human equivalent or greater intelligence. I see no justification for such a linear perspective on intelligence, and suspect Ben doesn't necessarily subscribe to it when speaking more carefully. Toward the end of the session, Ben demonstrated the code in action, hooked up to a virtual dog learning to fetch and dance in Second Life. Third, I attended a session with James Hughes and Mike Latorra on the subject of ideas related to their Cyborg Buddha project. They discussed a hypothetical future in which labor is not required as widely as today, and individuals would have they opportunity to dedcidate more time and resources to spiritual pursuits. Attendees made interesting comments about esthetic choices and hedonism. One of the thought provoking questions came from George Dvorsky, who asked why we should not pursue perfect hedonism through neurotech. The problem, in my estimation, is defining hedonism and assessing the extent to which any person will ever be capable of pursuing desire fulfillment without allotting significant time and resources to risk mitigation.