GregBurch
Addon Developer
I've started a new thread because this subject is quite far afield from the one out of which it sprang, and I thought I'd leave the "Patriot Act" thread for those who want to continue to discuss the theocratic fascist regime that took over in the US eight years ago -- just kidding.
So I've moved a couple of the last responses over here to continue the discussion if anyone's interested. For what it's worth, I'll point out that in the 1990s I was personally very active in the transhumanist "movement," having been a regular speaker at conferences dealing with the subject, and participating in the then-very-active organizations that had formed around the issues.
It's interesting that you should come to this metaphor, because it's one that I find very apt. In fact, in my own personal philosophical vocabulary, I describe the traditional Western and Semitic monotheistic religions as advocating what I call "the videogame universe" in which we are characters in the game that has been written by God, the latter being able to use "cheat codes," change the underlying code entirely or simply grow tired of the game and switch it off to go do something more interesting.
I would say that your willingness to embrace this metaphor actually fully supports my assertion that traditonal notions of spirituality are premised on philosophical dualism. With respect, that is precisely what philosophers have meant for thousand of years when they use the term, so it seems to me that it's just as well if you go ahead and embrace the term: If it doesn't mean what you've described, then it doesn't mean anything.
BTW, the spate of "virtuality" movies from around the millenium (The Matrix, The 13th Floor, Existenz, etc.) were all struggling with the implications of this metaphor and, despite some gross failures to remain true to the premises in many instances, were some of the most thoughtful movies that have ever been made in terms of actually addressing deep philosophical issues. Interestingly, Hollywood's moved on -- apparently vampires and cheating housewives are now more profitable ...
Yes -- this is the more thoughtful and open-minded view I've heard expressed by some religious people. But I think you'll find it realtively rare among those who have letters after their name from academies of theology, or who hold positions in church hierarchies.
For what it's worth, Back in the 1990s, I thought that germ line engineering was somewhat of a red herring, since the period in which it would be relevant would be relatively brief -- or so I thought. More potent technologies would quickly supersede it, I felt. Now I'm not so sure we can avoid the issue by simply "blowing past it," since I'm pretty sure that the speed of technological progress has been slowed dramatically in the interim.
Addressing the larger question, though, the ultimate issue is how much weight we put on values of caution versus values of progress. The ultimate rhetorical weapon shared by almost all of the enemies of progress is to place greater weight on the caution aspect -- thus the infamous "Precautionary Principle." Herein lies a huge ground of discussion. Let me simply preview it by saying that humans are extremely poor at "gut" risk assessment for things that were not part of their pre-modern evolved environment (but are very good at assessing the risks of things like predator attacks or the immediate threat of falling out of tree, for instance). Much of the Precautionary Principle is based on rhetorically plugging into evolved human risk assessment for things to which it is ill-suited.
No -- my view on this is purely anecdotal and personal. But I do know that the Vatican has explicitly come out against application of some of the basic tenets of transhumanism. I would expect that your typical urban Episcopalian would be pretty open to the basic ideas, again based on personal experience, while fundamentalist Protestants would more likely have a visceral reaction of blasphemy.
So I've moved a couple of the last responses over here to continue the discussion if anyone's interested. For what it's worth, I'll point out that in the 1990s I was personally very active in the transhumanist "movement," having been a regular speaker at conferences dealing with the subject, and participating in the then-very-active organizations that had formed around the issues.
It's interesting that you should come to this metaphor, because it's one that I find very apt. In fact, in my own personal philosophical vocabulary, I describe the traditional Western and Semitic monotheistic religions as advocating what I call "the videogame universe" in which we are characters in the game that has been written by God, the latter being able to use "cheat codes," change the underlying code entirely or simply grow tired of the game and switch it off to go do something more interesting.
I would say that your willingness to embrace this metaphor actually fully supports my assertion that traditonal notions of spirituality are premised on philosophical dualism. With respect, that is precisely what philosophers have meant for thousand of years when they use the term, so it seems to me that it's just as well if you go ahead and embrace the term: If it doesn't mean what you've described, then it doesn't mean anything.
BTW, the spate of "virtuality" movies from around the millenium (The Matrix, The 13th Floor, Existenz, etc.) were all struggling with the implications of this metaphor and, despite some gross failures to remain true to the premises in many instances, were some of the most thoughtful movies that have ever been made in terms of actually addressing deep philosophical issues. Interestingly, Hollywood's moved on -- apparently vampires and cheating housewives are now more profitable ...
Yes -- this is the more thoughtful and open-minded view I've heard expressed by some religious people. But I think you'll find it realtively rare among those who have letters after their name from academies of theology, or who hold positions in church hierarchies.
For what it's worth, Back in the 1990s, I thought that germ line engineering was somewhat of a red herring, since the period in which it would be relevant would be relatively brief -- or so I thought. More potent technologies would quickly supersede it, I felt. Now I'm not so sure we can avoid the issue by simply "blowing past it," since I'm pretty sure that the speed of technological progress has been slowed dramatically in the interim.
Addressing the larger question, though, the ultimate issue is how much weight we put on values of caution versus values of progress. The ultimate rhetorical weapon shared by almost all of the enemies of progress is to place greater weight on the caution aspect -- thus the infamous "Precautionary Principle." Herein lies a huge ground of discussion. Let me simply preview it by saying that humans are extremely poor at "gut" risk assessment for things that were not part of their pre-modern evolved environment (but are very good at assessing the risks of things like predator attacks or the immediate threat of falling out of tree, for instance). Much of the Precautionary Principle is based on rhetorically plugging into evolved human risk assessment for things to which it is ill-suited.
No -- my view on this is purely anecdotal and personal. But I do know that the Vatican has explicitly come out against application of some of the basic tenets of transhumanism. I would expect that your typical urban Episcopalian would be pretty open to the basic ideas, again based on personal experience, while fundamentalist Protestants would more likely have a visceral reaction of blasphemy.
Last edited:
