Catholics, Are You Ready?: Cyberpunk, Transhumanism, and the Challenge of the Future

[TheAtheist]

So my last thread was a very nuanced and arcane. mea culpa, but i’m hoping some sort of Catholic philosophical virtuoso is going to give it a shot.

This one’s a little more accessible, doesn’t require a vast amount of historical or philosophical knowledge, and most importantly…i hope it will be fun.

So…Catholics, and i say this i’m addressing all my Catholic intellectuals and philosophers out there - are you ready?

“Ready for what?” The Challenge of the Future?

“What’s the Challenge of the Future?”

I’ve chosen to “Icons” to represent that - the Dystopian world view of Cyberpunk and the Posthuman dreams of Transhumanism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

“But those are literary genres, or fanciful things.”

Yeah, but so were machines that fly through the air…and the Cellphone’s direct influence was the Communicator from Star Trek.

I’m using “Cyberpunk” and “Transhumanism” to encapsulate a number of ideas relating to fringe technologies that will eventually be upon us…or more probably our children.

Cloning, Genetic Recombination, the Merging of Bovine and Human DNA (it happened in Britain already). Creating Human Organs inside Pigs (already field tested as well). The growing interface between Man and Machine. Artificial Intelligence (so far the most advanced AI that’s been produced can respond with the intelligence level of a Dog).

This is the wave of the future. And unlike previous technological enhancements, not only does it have the ability to change the way we do things, or our societies are structured…

…the have the ability to change us.

And even as a secular humanist, while i’m excited, the other half of me is going “Ohhhhhhhhh boy…”

Now, a Jesuit friend of mine once expressed to me the notion that the “Vatican thinks in Centuries.” But i have to wonder, has any Catholic, or heck any Christian, thinker engaged these ideas beyond passing an ethical judgment over them.

I mean, for better or worse, we’re getting dangerously close to cloning a human being. I’m not saying its going to happen in a First World nation either, up until recently South Korea was trying to do it.

And there’s an interesting question right off the bat for you folks: Would a clone have a soul?

And let’s just say some really really really unethical folk let those Bovine-Human Chimeras actually grow beyond 7 day statute of limitation. What then?

Should the “thing” be afforded “human rights?” Although a creation of man, would your God still look kindly on it?

Then there’s the sticky AI problem - something that we will probably never see in our lifetimes, for as i said, the best one so far can only simulate a dog.

Its one thing to build a gigantic “thinking” calculative machine. Big deal. On the off chance that the thing gains a level of sentience, and on the really really really off chance that it claims to have emotions (ooooohhh boy, that sinking feeling just occured again).

Well, what would you say that we have? Have we “created life”?

Some of this may never occur, and others are very very very very close to happening.

Are you prepared? Is there a Catholic standpoint?

I mean i can tell you, from my discussions with those of say the Islamic faith, this is all absolutely inconceivable. Frankly, i can say they aren’t even prepared to address these issues (or even current modern ones).

 

[o_o_82]

Dear TheAtheist,

I am a cradle Catholic. I don’t know much about my faith to provide you with specific answers. I am inactive in these forums because I am too busy with school – but since you were not getting any replies I decided to share my 2 cents.

If you have not already done so try reading the Catechism. It certainly would not answer your question – but it would provide you with knowledge about what Catholics believe.

You are right that the Church has not thought about these issues. The Church informally has an unwritten rule that it weighs on issues only after they have been challenged. That is the Church issues teaching on a certain issue only when there is some controversy affecting the faith on that issue.

Both of your issues on “Cloning” and a “Cross between Humans and Animals” fall into this area. Even if these have been attempted – they are not yet open i.e. popular as yet. When they come out in a big way – I am sure the Church would have a stance on it.

“Cloning” i.e. Human Cloning has been a subject that has been bandied about for sometime. Though officially not in the Catechism, I have heard (though I cannot cite) Catholic Teaching in this area.

If the clone results in a completely new human being – then yes that human being would have a different soul distinct from the original. This means that even if we have a clone that is in the form of a fertilized egg – that is a new human being and hence has a soul. (This is the reason why we Catholics make such a fuss about abortion.)

Cloning may also refer to causing a cluster of cells to develop new organs (replacement organs) in a lab for the human being. These clusters of cells do not have the capability of developing into a full human being – and hence would not have a soul.

I have not heard of anyone discussing your second issue on the “Cross between Humans and Animals” – so I cannot even guess. Once these become more popular and this thing is more well defined – I am sure the church would have a stand on the issue. The aspects that the church would look into would be if these resulting beings have “free will” as man does, and if they are still considered to be in the image and likeness of God.

As regards to your thinking machine – I don’t think that it can have “free will” of its own. (Free will in the Catholic sense – free does not mean free to do what it wants.) Anyway even if it does – since it is not created in the image and likeness of God – it would certainly not have a soul.

**TheAtheist **– it is good you are asking questions. As long as you keep an open mind towards the Church – God will reach out to you.

O.O.

 

[Fran65]

I’ve thought a lot about AI. I can’t speak for offical Church teaching as I don’t know it in this area, (but I’m sure its being discussed somewhere) so I will give you my opinion. The clue is in the term ‘Artificial’. The AI system, even if it becomes sentient would not have a soul as it is not created by God.

I don’t know if you are familiar with John Searle’s book, Minds, Brains and Science? He uses an analogy of the Chinese Room. You put someone in a room with two slots in the wall. On a desk is a series of cards with chinese symbols on them and a rule book. Through one of the slots and outside the room a chinese speaker posts cards with questions and messages. The person in the room follows the rule book and selects cards to post back out of the other slot. The person outside the room would conclude, incorrectly, that the person in the room can speak chinese.

That argument (imo) works for programmed behaviour, but what about emergent properties such as sentience for example? Perhaps the system will spontaneously develop ‘consciousness’ - irreftuable consciousness. In my opinion, its not human consciousness, therefore it does not have the same relationship with God that I have. That does not mean that the system should be treated with any less respect or consideration than one would give, for example a higher primate. And I actually think that they should not be treated as they are or used for experimentation as they have an advanced capacity for suffering. That does not mean that I believe they have a soul however. If they can suffer, we should behave accordingly to reduce suffering as far as possible and the rest of it is up to God.

CAF has discussed this before btw:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=106016

 

[ateista]

I don’t know if you are familiar with John Searle’s book, Minds, Brains and Science? He uses an analogy of the Chinese Room. You put someone in a room with two slots in the wall. On a desk is a series of cards with chinese symbols on them and a rule book. Through one of the slots and outside the room a chinese speaker posts cards with questions and messages. The person in the room follows the rule book and selects cards to post back out of the other slot. The person outside the room would conclude, incorrectly, that the person in the room can speak chinese.

Just a short observation. If the person “outside” would request the translation of a sentence like: “grandmother will arrive tomorrow at 9 o’clock”, the translation would be correct. Such a simple proposition does not require understanding.

But just try to have the “black box” translate someting like: “the spirit is strong, though the flesh is weak”, and the result would be something strange, like: “the vodka is potent, but the meat is rotten”.

Not all propositions can be translated verbatim, the complex ones, which may use allegories, would require actual understanding. And if the “black box” can correctly answer such questions, or translate them we would have to deduce that there is true understanding within that “black box”.

 

[yellowbicycle]

At first when I read this, I thought it said Steampunk and became VERY excited, as I am working on building a victorian computer.
No dice.
But that’s ok…as to your questions.
I don’t even take vitamins. That stuff’s scary. I don’t give my kids with with hormones in it. Also scary. Am I going to be holed up in my little house with a tinfoil hat on one day? Maybe…
I think the catholic church was caught…I forget who said it…maybe nathanson…‘sleeping’ when the abortion movement swept through the country. Let’s hope they’re a little more prepared for this nonsense.

 

[HandroZ]

My friends and I had come up with theories about this, though I dare say we didn’t think we’d actually be seeing this in our lifetimes, or at least not in the full sense. I’d weigh this in, human DNA does not make a creature human, nor does it grant it a soul. A chimera with a human heart (literal heart, mind) should be treated like an animal, and should it benefit humans, could be used as a machine for whatever purpose we might have for our improvement. HOWEVER, chimeras with human DNA that would lead them to have the unique human capacity for our level of love would be considered human. This is after all, what gives us meaning. Our souls were given us that we may be like God. God is perfect love, we have a capacity for love no other creature has. If another creature should have it (that applies for any thoughts on extraterrestrials, should someone bring up the subject for some reason) not just to mimic- but to actually have the capacity of love, AS WELL AS the capacity for free will, well, I’d argue it has a soul. We can give chimeras with our DNA physical parts that count for nothing. But when we endow them with the part of us that separates us from the rest of mammilia, they become like us and should deserve equal footing through their lives. HOWEVER, (and actually, this would apply to humans with genetic diseases, I think) They should not be allowed to marry. Passing on what many would consider to be traits of an abomination would be sinful, just as it would be to create chimeras in their present form and procedures. I’d argue by the same token that humans with grave genetic diseases that will certainly pass on in their offspring, should not marry, nor should those who are carriers of a horrible trait marry with other carriers with whom they might pass on the burden to another generation.

That said, I have a question for all of you: should we reach a point where all humans are enhanced genetically, what should we do. If we remain unaffected, we will fall out of the pace of the world, unable to compete, and perhaps have a Godless enhanced half of humanity, with another half that believes unable to think or compete at the same level.

But this raises the question: is it evil to alter the genes of an unborn child in the first place? At the current moment, we see a few possibilities for this: 1) For growing embryos for research. Almost always immoral, following the artificial creation of a human, the abuse of life, and then the bringing on of death. 2) To cure diseases. I’d say this one might be valid, so long as the children are concieved the natural way. Having them growing inside their mother, to be removed at a proper stage, altered, and then reinserted would actually be like any other medical operation, only this time the malady is not a bad kidney or a bad heart, but a bad section of DNA.

1. Here’s the real tricky one. For the purpose of human enhancement. I can see people being really ‘iffy’ and touchy on this. Well, I think it’s safe to say operation on the genes of an adult is acceptable if it doesn’t disable him somehow. It’s like undergoing an operation to stick in an artificial limb. It’s morally neutral. But genetic engineers will easily see the shortcomings: operating on the genes of an adult will never have the same potential as operating on a yet unborn, not yet fully developed child. Such a child could be gifted with extraordinary memory, the innate ability to do basic mathematical operations in fractions of a second, the physical enhancements to run faster than anyone even on steroids has ever been able to run or to hold their breath underwater for hours. (Research on the last one has actually been underway for a while now except as a temporary enhancement to adults) But is it moral to alter an innocent not yet fully-formed unborn child to give him these traits in the first place? Let me know what you think! I should mention, the Church on the moment I thought did issue something on this situation, but what do y’all think off the bat?

 

[Fran65]

if the “black box” can correctly answer such questions, or translate them we would have to deduce that there is true understanding within that “black box”.

But it still would not be ‘human’ understanding in the theological sense of attributing it a human soul and thus a relationship with God.

Great apes appear to function intellectually, including language use at around the level of a 2-3 year old child. That does not make them human, they are still apes, although sentient and intelligent.

In addition, just because a machine ‘appears’ to carry out a process that produces the ‘same’ response as a human, it does not mean either that the machine is human or that this is *how *humans work.

I can travel to work using one of ten or more different routes. Appearing at work does not mean that I took a specific route, only that I got there.

BTW good to hear from you. I hope your visit to europe is going well!

 

[Fran65]

But is it moral to alter an innocent not yet fully-formed unborn child to give him these traits in the first place? … but what do y’all think off the bat?

IMO and without having read any official church teaching I find the idea of treating a child as an object to be enhanced and augmented at will to be repugnant.

The parents of such a child will expect a particular level of performance from the child, the child may not/ will not be accepted unconditionally. It sets a ‘consumer’ mentality into the context of the gift of a child. “We paid for/arranged for/were promised this, this, and this… and look what we got!” It is damaging enough for many when a family have a girl child when they have ‘chosen’ or hoped for a boy. Extrapolate that to IQ, appearance, sports performance and other characteristics that could be manipulated and the picture becomes even more depressing.

In addition it could lead to the creation of children ex utero for specific functions e.g. soldiers or engineers; yet another depressing, nightmare, dystopian scenario.

 

[ateista]

But it still would not be ‘human’ understanding in the theological sense of attributing it a human soul and thus a relationship with God.

Well, they would not be humans in the biological sense either, but they certainly would be humans in the philosophical sense, wouldn’t they?

Great apes appear to function intellectually, including language use at around the level of a 2-3 year old child. That does not make them human, they are still apes, although sentient and intelligent.

Sure. Their powers of conceptualization is too low.

In addition, just because a machine ‘appears’ to carry out a process that produces the ‘same’ response as a human, it does not mean either that the machine is human or that this is *how *humans work.

The second observation is something I fully agree with. The first one is questionable, it depends on the definition of “human”. Should we try to tackle that question? Seems like a very interesting problem.

I can travel to work using one of ten or more different routes. Appearing at work does not mean that I took a specific route, only that I got there.

Exactly. The end result is what counts. If the responses of a “black box” cannot be told apart from those of a human being, then for all practical purposes the “black box” is a human in the philosophical sense.

BTW good to hear from you. I hope your visit to europe is going well!

Thank you! It is simply wonderful in every sense. Most especially the fun we are having with our grandson.

 

[Fran65]

Yes. It is the definition of human and how far that extends that is a critical issue.

From wikipedia:

Human beings, humans or man (Origin: 1590–1600; < L homō man; OL hemō the earthly one; also Homo sapiens — Latin: “wise human” or “knowing human”),are bipedal primates in the family Hominidae.

A biologist and, I would guess most people would agree that a human has the DNA of Homo Sapiens. Anything that is not Homo Sapiens is not therefore human.

Again, according to Wikipedia:

Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and emotion. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species.

Some might argue that as we share characteristics with other species, so it is difficult to establish many physical, behavioural or psychological characteristics as uniquely human; and therefore we might discuss whether AI systems or other species of higher primates are human.

However, my argument, and I believe the teaching of the Catholic Church is that although attributes may be shown, they are not human as they do not have a soul. Humans are unique as we have a soul and are immediately created by God. AI systems however human in appearance and behaviour are not immediate creations and do not have a soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is at the point of conception that a human being is created by God. No conception = not human. Which poses a question for human clones…

That does not mean however that they should not be treated with respect, dignity and compassion. A capacity for suffering means that we, as ‘caretakers’ should take extra care of those for whom we have responsibility. For example, by not allowing sentient AI systems to be treated simply as objects or pieces of technology. That would be inhumane of us

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So my last thread was a very nuanced and arcane. mea culpa, but i’m hoping some sort of Catholic philosophical virtuoso is going to give it a shot.

This one’s a little more accessible, doesn’t require a vast amount of historical or philosophical knowledge, and most importantly…i hope it will be fun.

So…Catholics, and i say this i’m addressing all my Catholic intellectuals and philosophers out there - are you ready?

“Ready for what?” The Challenge of the Future?

“What’s the Challenge of the Future?”

I’ve chosen to “Icons” to represent that - the Dystopian world view of Cyberpunk and the Posthuman dreams of Transhumanism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

“But those are literary genres, or fanciful things.”

Yeah, but so were machines that fly through the air…and the Cellphone’s direct influence was the Communicator from Star Trek.

I’m using “Cyberpunk” and “Transhumanism” to encapsulate a number of ideas relating to fringe technologies that will eventually be upon us…or more probably our children.

Cloning, Genetic Recombination, the Merging of Bovine and Human DNA (it happened in Britain already). Creating Human Organs inside Pigs (already field tested as well). The growing interface between Man and Machine. Artificial Intelligence (so far the most advanced AI that’s been produced can respond with the intelligence level of a Dog).

This is the wave of the future. And unlike previous technological enhancements, not only does it have the ability to change the way we do things, or our societies are structured…

…the have the ability to change us.

And even as a secular humanist, while i’m excited, the other half of me is going “Ohhhhhhhhh boy…”

Now, a Jesuit friend of mine once expressed to me the notion that the “Vatican thinks in Centuries.” But i have to wonder, has any Catholic, or heck any Christian, thinker engaged these ideas beyond passing an ethical judgment over them.

I mean, for better or worse, we’re getting dangerously close to cloning a human being. I’m not saying its going to happen in a First World nation either, up until recently South Korea was trying to do it.

And there’s an interesting question right off the bat for you folks: Would a clone have a soul?

And let’s just say some really really really unethical folk let those Bovine-Human Chimeras actually grow beyond 7 day statute of limitation. What then?

Should the “thing” be afforded “human rights?” Although a creation of man, would your God still look kindly on it?

Then there’s the sticky AI problem - something that we will probably never see in our lifetimes, for as i said, the best one so far can only simulate a dog.

Its one thing to build a gigantic “thinking” calculative machine. Big deal. On the off chance that the thing gains a level of sentience, and on the really really really off chance that it claims to have emotions (ooooohhh boy, that sinking feeling just occured again).

Well, what would you say that we have? Have we “created life”?

Some of this may never occur, and others are very very very very close to happening.

Are you prepared? Is there a Catholic standpoint?

I mean i can tell you, from my discussions with those of say the Islamic faith, this is all absolutely inconceivable. Frankly, i can say they aren’t even prepared to address these issues (or even current modern ones).

not to be flip but i will worry about speculative fiction about the time they invent the warp drive. youre talking theoretical specialty medical ethics, a rather arcane sphere of thought, though the cloning issue may arise, i don’t think that man, can create life, he may well be able to create a nanomeatmachine that is not the same thing as being human a ford truck has all the functionality of a toyota, yet it is not nor can ever be a toyota. there is one natural factory for humans, the womb, nothing born outside can ever be human. though misguided caompassion may lead some to think that it is, but then some people feel that way abou their pets.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I remember reading that a Vatican official-- attached to the Obervatory, I think-- has stated that we ought to assume sentient alien life has a soul, in the event we ever meet them.

Seems to me the same principle would apply to non-human or not completely human sentients.

This was not an official, binding statement because the Church doesn’t make such definitions based on purely hypothetical cases. But it’s still the sort of guidance we’d likely rely on in the event that these things come to pass.

Exciting and comforting that someone out there is actually working on such issues.

 

[Fran65]

That’s a good assumption to make. I’m glad that you posted.

I am right in thinking that the official linked sentience and a soul?
If so, as sentience has been demonstrated in apes, dolphins and elephants in the sense of self awareness (all three species) and language use (apes & dolphins) does that mean that we should accord them human rights? For example killing of them is murder except during a just war …

Or do we go with biblical teaching and Church teaching that animals do not have souls?; but accept the possibility of a soul in an AI system? Or because that has not been immediately created by God does that exclude having a soul?

The aliens may have been immediately created and therefore may have a soul, but AI systems??

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s a good assumption to make. I’m glad that you posted.

I am right in thinking that the official linked sentience and a soul?
If so, as sentience has been demonstrated in apes, dolphins and elephants in the sense of self awareness (all three species) and language use (apes & dolphins) does that mean that we should accord them human rights? For example killing of them is murder except during a just war …

Or do we go with biblical teaching and Church teaching that animals do not have souls?; but accept the possibility of a soul in an AI system? Or because that has not been immediately created by God does that exclude having a soul?

The aliens may have been immediately created and therefore may have a soul, but AI systems??

i fully expect any aliens to hop out of their saucer, with a book in hand saying

screeeeee! scrumpity Scrooooooo! Jesus, frenito fryyyyyyyy’ ddddddrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeno bor Jesus aaaaaaaaaddreeee
dddddoooo ppppppprrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeesd Eternal Sacrifice
sssssccccrrrrrrooooooooo tiiiiii bbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuurf?

loosely translated as "have you heard the Good News that Jesus gave himself in an Eternal Sacrifice for your sins?

but thats just me

 

[edwest2]

Challenge of the Future? In the early 1900s, a man named Hugo Gernsback published a magazine called Science & Invention. Among the things imagined was a device to read human thoughts. The great inventor, Nikola Tesla, wrote that a device could be built to take images from the mind and project them on to a TV picture tube. There were articles about the antigravitation ray and similar things. The science fiction Hugo Award is named after him.

Transhumanism is a bad idea. It suggests that modifying the human body will be possible but to what end? Would humans want wings? Would you enjoy having the extra weight on your back? It would be difficult to get a tailored suit fitted.

Cyberpunk is simply a label that means little to the average person. Limited reading of thoughts by devices has made it possible to control devices. This is not a bad thing.

The strange ideas of Ray Kurzweil envision a synthetic human being that while looking human, would have no human essence aside from simulation programs. If it were preprogrammed to produce free associative thought, it would be little more than a high speed calculator. It would not need to eat or sleep, and would be a preferable replacement for the average human worker who is prone to disease, and varying mental mental states that reduce efficiency and therefore, profits, and it could work 24 hours a day with brief down-time for data transfer, maintenance and upgrades. It would be an ideal slave owned by the corporation.

Currently, there is an attempt being made to implement an Atheist Technocracy. The high priests of science will go beyond experiment and devices and be put to work re-engineering the social order through behavioral modification. People should know that it will retain the same structure as the current order - the rich will be in charge. They decide who lives and who dies. And because they are human, they will be subject to acting on whim and be swayed by various competing groups of human experts that will degenerate into conflicting camps. Group A will advocate one thing, Group B, another, and so on. Each camp will have its own followers. And each camp will be led by an expert who has the latest theory. The problem will be - new theories will be proposed, other experts will appear and the ‘old’ experts will be deposed, sometimes in coups where false and manipulated facts will place a new camp in power.

Money and power will be the goals.

The synthetic human envisioned by Kurzweil will be recognized for what it is, a non-human device that is unable to give or receive love.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Currently, there is an attempt being made to implement an Atheist Technocracy. The high priests of science will go beyond experiment and devices and be put to work re-engineering the social order through behavioral modification.
Money and power will be the goals.

i saw an article yesterday on drudge that was talking about heads of technology companies forming an organization for the advancement of religious tolerance. i couldn’t see it on the archives or i would post the site.

i interpreted that to imply that all faiths are equal in value, that they have some overarching parity which is further beholden to the secular.

or in other words, here they come. in their minds religion is just some old superstition that people fight over. they don’t understand that apart from G-d the universe has no reason to exist. they are in love with the creation, not the Creator.

they think fundamentalism is code for crazy fanatics, they see no G-d on their street so they assume all us theists are off our rockers

indeed it is the opposite, to believe that we popped from nothing is a violation of all that they believe of science, in its power to describe and manipulated the surrounding world, yet it is easier for them to believe that, than to believe we are creations.

we are not dealing with the machinations of mere men, we are dealing with the power of the prince of this world. he doesn’t want fanatics for G-d, he wants pliable materialists, people with no defense against him

yet all things work to the greater Glory of God, we know that in the end we will be a small band of believers at the mercy of the darkness, the faster that darkness comes, the more quickly He comes, so indeed, let the fires fall, let the storms rage. let the technorati do their worst!

 

[Fran65]

i fully expect any aliens to hop out of their saucer, with a book in hand saying

screeeeee! scrumpity Scrooooooo! Jesus, frenito fryyyyyyyy’ ddddddrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeno bor Jesus aaaaaaaaaddreeee
dddddoooo ppppppprrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeesd Eternal Sacrifice
sssssccccrrrrrrooooooooo tiiiiii bbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuurf?

loosely translated as "have you heard the Good News that Jesus gave himself in an Eternal Sacrifice for your sins?

but thats just me

I love that!

 

[Sam_Maloney]

That’s a good assumption to make. I’m glad that you posted.

I am right in thinking that the official linked sentience and a soul?
If so, as sentience has been demonstrated in apes, dolphins and elephants in the sense of self awareness (all three species) and language use (apes & dolphins) does that mean that we should accord them human rights? For example killing of them is murder except during a just war …

Or do we go with biblical teaching and Church teaching that animals do not have souls?; but accept the possibility of a soul in an AI system? Or because that has not been immediately created by God does that exclude having a soul?

The aliens may have been immediately created and therefore may have a soul, but AI systems??

No, I think he just assumed that we weren’t likely to encounter extra-terristial life that isn’t sentient, at least not until are own tech is far advanced from where we are now.

 

[grannymh]

So my last thread was a very nuanced and arcane. mea culpa, but i’m hoping some sort of Catholic philosophical virtuoso is going to give it a shot.

This one’s a little more accessible, doesn’t require a vast amount of historical or philosophical knowledge, and most importantly…i hope it will be fun.

Hi Friend,

Just letting you know that I’ve read your post. Am not going to do anything with it at the moment. For me, your other thread is far more “fun” in that anyone dealing with the dynamics of a relationship has to have a sense of humor. Also relationships are here and now–I prefer that reality.

Fifty years ago when I was hanging out with philosophy students, conventional wisdom said that philosophical virtuosos would debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. [some inside humor which may or may not be valid in these modern times]

Personally, I like the philosophy of my Irish mother who said: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

May blessings and good thoughts come your way,

grannymh

 

[TheAtheist]

Transhumanism is a bad idea. It suggests that modifying the human body will be possible but to what end? Would humans want wings? Would you enjoy having the extra weight on your back? It would be difficult to get a tailored suit fitted.

Ed, now by no means am I advocating this but, well, i’ve met those people.

You know, the ones who want the wings. Or some other modification. Or even something as basic as switching gender.

They exist Ed, bizzarre as that may seem to you and me, but they exist.

The strange ideas of Ray Kurzweil envision a synthetic human being that while looking human, would have no human essence aside from simulation programs. If it were preprogrammed to produce free associative thought, it would be little more than a high speed calculator. It would not need to eat or sleep, and would be a preferable replacement for the average human worker who is prone to disease, and varying mental mental states that reduce efficiency and therefore, profits, and it could work 24 hours a day with brief down-time for data transfer, maintenance and upgrades. It would be an ideal slave owned by the corporation.

Echoes of Blade Runner eh? Machines have already been putting people of jobs already.

Currently, there is an attempt being made to implement an Atheist Technocracy. The high priests of science will go beyond experiment and devices and be put to work re-engineering the social order through behavioral modification.

Obviously i’ve been kept out of the loop on this one, i suppose the fact that i’m more than willing to “covort with the enemy” as i am doing now makes me rather suspicious to the great Hierarchy.

The synthetic human envisioned by Kurzweil will be recognized for what it is, a non-human device that is unable to give or receive love.

I think you misunderestimate man’s capacity to make emotional investments into things that would seem rather counterintuitive to you or I.

For if the thing in question could have the sembelence of giving/receiving love, than it can become an object of love.

Heck - they’re even trying now - www.v-girl.com/

Or dreaming about what the future may bring…

amazon.com/Love-Sex-Robots-Human-Robot-Relationships/dp/0061359750

Now part of me wants to laugh this off - i mean really really just laugh it off. I like to tell myself this is simply the stuff of science fiction.

And then my engineering colleagues tell me about the things they see at the annual Robotics Expo in held in Tokyo…and then i start to wonder.