Mormon Transhumanist Association

Hi There,

My name is Ayelet and I'm a member of the MTA, though not an active one.  Actually, my name is Cyndi, but Ayelet is the name I've used elsewhere, and a couple of you may "know" me by the name "Ayelet."

Twice I received the emailed invitation to complete the 2008 survey that went out to members, and twice I chose not to complete it.  Then, Lincoln sent it to me for the third and, I'm sure, last time, and I decided to do it and send it back.  (As I told him, I am a "peripheral" member, so didn't feel I should be completing such a survey.  In fact, as I completed it, I discovered I'm so peripheral, I didn't know what the heck some of those questions were talking about!  lol.  And I also seem to be a somewhat peripheral Mormon these days, so didn't know how I fit into that mesh "MTA.")

Anyway, the movie, Iron Man, is a much more interesting subject.  My family and I saw it yesterday because it was Mother's Day and I got to choose.  We all liked it a lot.  But, as I watched,  I couldn't help but be reminded of the questions on the survey and why I found some of them so difficult to answer as "yes" or "no."  May sound wimpy, but I gave a lot of "undecideds."   Have any of you seen the movie?  The technology behind the "iron man" was cool and a lot fun.  He started out as a selfish, immoral, brilliant guy who turned into a moral, still brilliant, avenging "good guy."  Problem was, the really bad guy in the movie made his own version of an "iron man" that was bigger and badder, and if it had been real life instead of a movie, well, the big, bad iron man would have blown the little, good Iron May away. 

So, back to the questions on the survey and the general question of technology-enhanced humans: the concepts of transhumanism are quite compelling, but how do you keep the bad guys from doing their bad guy routines?  Does the concept of the bad guy even exist within the framework of transhumanism?  Bottom line is I just don't trust most humans to do the right thing when money and power become part of the equation. 

And if you've already addressed this somewhere else, just point me in the right direction and I'll go read.  Because, like I said, I am a peripheral member of your association.

Thanks for your comments Ayelet. I think it would be good to point out that transhumanists are not merely technology advocates. Many of them point out the dangers of the improper use of technologies. Even more than trying to promote technology, I see transhumanism as trying to become more aware of the challenges and opportunities that technology presents, and trying to do our best to take advantage of the good sides while mitigating against the downsides. Transhumanists point out that technology is having dramatic effects on society whether we want it to or not, and that there are some things we can do to be more prepared for these changes. So I believe that a transhumanist's response to your question about malicious use of technology would say that, yes, these are real potential problems, but we're not going to get around them by banning technology. Rather, we should do our best to do good with these technologies and prepare humane defenses against these evil threats.

I forgot to also mention that I felt many of the same frustrations with the survey that you did and felt like it was too specific in some cases. If you want to become more familiar with some of the terms used in the survey, I would suggest reading the Sunstone article that is linked on our front page.

I think part of the idea of the survery was to intentionally ask questions that don't necessarily rub you quite right so that we can all get a better idea of where we are coming from and how we approach the MTA. You may feel like you're on the periphery, but you probably fit in quite well with everyone else in the MTA.

Hi Cyndi.

As Carl mentioned, consideration of risks associated with advancing technology is an important aspect of Transhumanism. Here is a Transhumanist group that illustrates the effort of risk mitigation:

http://lifeboat.com

Additionally, here is an article on existential risks from Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom, of Oxford:

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Hello Cyndi,

Hey, there are no "peripheral" people around here!  : )  Welcome!  I hope to see more posts from you, I certainly enjoyed this one.

I share your concern about the bad guys of the world (small and large) using the coming super-technologies to hurt, kill, exploit and enslave others (both biological and artificial sentients).  Yes, in the real world, often the bad guys end up triumphing in the end.  I had a very painful experience with this in my own personal life.  I see your issue being a larger and larger problem as time and technology progress.  But on the other hand I think due to AI and the probable "transparent society" of the future, we will see the "evil deeds done in the dark" much more brought to the light of public indignation and successful media/court/law enforcement/military intervention.  The Gadianton Robbers of the future may have a much harder time getting away with their evil deeds!  I sure hope so, anyway. 

I am going to have to go see Iron Man!

John Grigg     

CarlYoungblood:

Thanks for your comments Ayelet. I think it would be good to point out that transhumanists are not merely technology advocates. Many of them point out the dangers of the improper use of technologies. Even more than trying to promote technology, I see transhumanism as trying to become more aware of the challenges and opportunities that technology presents, and trying to do our best to take advantage of the good sides while mitigating against the downsides. Transhumanists point out that technology is having dramatic effects on society whether we want it to or not, and that there are some things we can do to be more prepared for these changes. So I believe that a transhumanist's response to your question about malicious use of technology would say that, yes, these are real potential problems, but we're not going to get around them by banning technology. Rather, we should do our best to do good with these technologies and prepare humane defenses against these evil threats.

Yes, I agree the promotion of technology should not be inhibited because of potentially negative consequences.  I'm wondering if there is an "official" position of either the MTA or the broader TA   that specifically addresses how to plan for and ameliorate such possibilities.  I haven't yet had time to read the links provided, and know there may be pertinent comments contained within that material.  My daugher unexpectedly went into preterm labor yesterday and, well, we've been busy (thankfully, her contractions have been controlled and the baby has a few more days/weeks to develop), but I plan to look that stuff over when things have settled down in a day or two.  I hope.

Thank you for making me feel welcome and not too foolish or "peripheral."  ;)   I'll be back.

 

 

. 

However, I was taken aback by the notion that our lives and reality could very well be the work of neohuman computer simulations.  That's when my idle thinking stopped, and the hard thinking (and feeling) began.  To be honest, I don't like the idea that my family and me and all that I hold dear could be only computer simulations.

Have you read Lincoln's blog post "The Creation Argument"?  I think Bostrom came up with the Simulation Argument because simulation is easier for us to imagine happening, relative to some other ways to create, and also because it may seem more likely (probably because it's easier for us to imagine) than other ways to create.  But the argument is essentially the same when "creating a new universe for people" is substituted for "simulating a universe of people".

Is there really a way for us to tell the difference between living in a physically created universe vs living in a computer simulation?  And if the answer is "no", is there really a difference, then, between the two?  I know I exist, and that I think and feel, and for that I am glad.

buraianto:

However, I was taken aback by the notion that our lives
and reality could very well be the work of neohuman computer
simulations.  That's when my idle thinking stopped, and the hard
thinking (and feeling) began.  To be honest, I don't like the idea that
my family and me and all that I hold dear could be only computer
simulations.

Have you read Lincoln's blog post "The Creation Argument"?  I think Bostrom came up with the Simulation Argument because simulation is easier for us to imagine happening, relative to some other ways to create, and also because it may seem more likely (probably because it's easier for us to imagine) than other ways to create.  But the argument is essentially the same when "creating a new universe for people" is substituted for "simulating a universe of people".

Is there really a way for us to tell the difference between living in a physically created universe vs living in a computer simulation?  And if the answer is "no", is there really a difference, then, between the two?  I know I exist, and that I think and feel, and for that I am glad.

I agree with buraianto. There is much about the workings of the universe that we don't understand. Whether it is being "simulated" by a computer or whether there is some other type of clockworks behind everything really doesn't matter to us. Our challenges and trials, our joys and disappointments, our relationships with our loved ones, all continue to matter and be "real" in every important sense.

As to your question about whether or not simulations have souls, what if the act of granting a body to an intelligence is essentially what is happening when we are placed inside the simulation?

Wow.....sorry about the huge print that looked like I was shouting at you all.  Thought the cut and paste would come through in the same font as everything else.

Do computer simulations have agency (free will)? 

Do computer simulations have agency (free will)?

(Making the assumption I am not a computer simulation,) Do you think I do?

buraianto:

Do computer simulations have agency (free will)?

(Making the assumption I am not a computer simulation,) Do you think I do?

Great way to answer that question.

I'm definitely in the yes camp.  Everything has free will, and extrtopically chooses / selects that which is moral / better (like more survivable) until it becomes as close to all good, all powerful, all knowing... all everything as soon possible

Anything that cause anyone to deviate from the best choice, whether it be randomness, cross wired temptations, ignorance... destroys free will, or our ability to get what we truly want and everything seeks to overcome all such.

We will only be free like Gods to the degree we can reliably know, and absolutely, deterministically, reliably, always make the right choice and get what we truly want.

Is anyone not in the robots can have free will camp?

Brent Allsop

"Is anyone not in the robots can have free will camp?"

I am not, at least not right now. I don't know of a single robot who does have free will. That doesn't mean that we might not be able to create truly intelligent beings in the future, but as of right now, we (and animals, to a lesser extent) are the only beings I know of that have free will.