tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post7003203109315725344..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Greg Egan on the TranshumanistsDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-64393757638245281272008-05-16T17:38:00.000-07:002008-05-16T17:38:00.000-07:00If you think contraception should be banned, then ...<I>If you think contraception should be banned, then it will be evident that all your expressed concerns about the "carbon footprint" of GE research and "non-natural" babymaking are pure BS.</I><BR/><BR/>With all due respect Anne, that was evident many moons ago from the sheer absurdity of his arguments on these things. I pointed out repeatedly what the real causes of those things were and Howie just rolled on. He's a classic single issue fanatic and lunatic who will shape his arguments to fit the biases of whoever he's trying to hump the leg of. I'm sure when he goes on fundy message boards he makes a good case for how Jebus hates the germline babies. He probably showed up here originally because some of Dale's comments are "anti-transhumanist" and he thought that might make us receptive to his idiotic and authoritarian message of Teh-Ban.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-44208049255004904192008-05-05T12:12:00.000-07:002008-05-05T12:12:00.000-07:00Dale wrote:> Don't feed the troll.OK. ;->Instead,...Dale wrote:<BR/><BR/>> Don't feed the troll.<BR/><BR/>OK. ;-><BR/><BR/>Instead, I'll return to the original point of this thread by<BR/>transplanting another choice Greg Egan quote from Russell<BR/>Blackford's ever-expanding blog conversation:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"While I share the belief that scientific understanding will<BR/>continue to encompass all manner of things, what turns so many<BR/>Transhumanists into comical parodies of scientific rationalists<BR/>is an inability to distinguish their hunches and intuitions,<BR/>their opinions and preferences, and their political agendas<BR/>(all things which they are perfectly entitled to hold), from<BR/>actual deductive reasoning. They also seem to be especially prone<BR/>to inflating the importance of carefully selected but marginally<BR/>relevant examples and analogies. . .<BR/><BR/>People are entitled to their conjectures; other people are entitled<BR/>to remain unpersuaded by them. My only objection is when speculative<BR/>discussions cease to acknowledge how many assumptions and opinions<BR/>are being drawn on, and try to pass themselves off as iron-clad<BR/>reasoning. I don't consider anyone a crackpot for **discussing**<BR/>super-intelligent AIs that will dispense God-like wisdom and<BR/>shepherd us into a celestial utopia. What makes someone a crackpot<BR/>is asserting -- or acting as if -- there are no untested assumptions<BR/>underlying the claims that such an outcome is possible, imminent<BR/>or desirable."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let me add to this that when groupthink turns these "untested<BR/>assumptions" into unquestionable sacred writ, and when a few guru-wannabes<BR/>come along asserting that only they're smart enough to appreciate<BR/>the blinding obviousness of these assumptions (with an entourage<BR/>of fan-boys and -girls who similarly maintain the unchallengeability<BR/>of the geniushood of the guru-wannabes), and when you've got<BR/>"institutes" and PR folks in place to spread the word, collect<BR/>the dough, and shout down the naysayers, then you've got a cult in the works.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-91959186540374760652008-05-05T07:10:00.000-07:002008-05-05T07:10:00.000-07:00Don't feed the troll.Don't feed the troll.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-63318697287807261312008-05-05T04:29:00.000-07:002008-05-05T04:29:00.000-07:00> Either transhumanism is a cult and its 'meetings...<I>> Either transhumanism is a cult and its 'meetings' are actually<BR/>> cult services, or it's not a cult and holds 'public conferences'<BR/>> on educational topics.<BR/><BR/>Gee, have you ever heard of "black and white thinking"?</I><BR/><BR/>Good, that's a start. Transhumanism need not be one or the other. You are implying there might be some trajectory from amorphous congregation to mature cult organization and that transhumanism, at neither extreme, is probably somewhere along this trajectory. <BR/><BR/>I have suspected all along that you see some germinal units of a future, potential cultism in transhumanism and have been exaggerating through categorical accusations for rhetorical effect. I read your latest effort as additional confirmation of this suspicion. Am I wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-73746254127131860132008-05-04T11:26:00.000-07:002008-05-04T11:26:00.000-07:00Dale usually takes on "transhumanists", not "Singu...<I>Dale usually takes on "transhumanists", not "Singularitarians".</I><BR/><BR/>That's really not true -- I take on what I call technocentric <A HREF="http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2007/10/superlative-summary.html" REL="nofollow">Superlativity</A>, under which, it is true, I subsume trasnhumanisms, singularitarianisms, corporate-militarist futurologies, "liberal" eugenicisms, and various other techno-utopianisms.<BR/><BR/>Depending on when you dip your toe into the water, it will sometimes seem that one particular variation of superlativity or other gets the brunt of my critical energies, but I don't think it's right to say that trasnhumanism is really my central concern. <BR/><BR/>This is a blog and the shape of the conversation is articulated in no small part by the objections and concerns raised by its conversational partners. In the larger context of my writing and teaching it is quite easy to see that my critique of superlativity and focus on technodevelopmental social struggle is scarcely reducible to lambasting transhumanists. <BR/><BR/>No small part of the problem here is the way that transhumanist-identified people themselves seem eagerly to assume the mantle of a "movement" and a general "we" when it suits them, and then to disdain any number of particular positions that get expressed by exemplars of the movement when it suits them as well, rising and descending to levels of generality, "technicality," inclusivity, exclusivity all incredibly opportunistically but hardly in a way that is compelling or even coherent to those of us who are not already sympathetic to their general take on things but observing the spectacle critically. <BR/><BR/>To be blunt, transhumanism doesn't have enough of a history, a wide enough membership, nor an archive of adequate accomplishments to demand respect in the face of these shenanigans. It isn't "terminological imperialism" to demand you guys put your money where your mouth is. I just try to make sense of what you are saying and connect what you are doing to its larger contexts in a critical way, and you freak out nine ways till Sunday.<BR/><BR/>A marginal movement with a hundred members and a hundred "versions" (yes, I exaggerate a tad to make a point) is an incoherent mess, and it is plain to see that all these deep "variations" are no barrier to general identification once the critics turn their heads again and the "movement" flies its freak flag in the club house (I speak as someone with more than one freak flag to fly of his own, so don't mistake the actual target of my criticism here). <BR/><BR/>Transhumanism just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as an autonomous "viewpoint" -- and as a sub(cult)ural tendency it is mostly just an extreme and symptomatic expression of more prevailing hyperbolic technocratic reductionist eugenic techno-utopian strains in neoliberal and neoconservative developmental discourse.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, that's the way it looks to me. I've said why in countless well-reasoned arguments elsewhere that you can take or leave as you will. I never expected Robot Cultists themselves to take these interventions particularly to heart, obviously.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-64160842753270424972008-05-04T10:24:00.000-07:002008-05-04T10:24:00.000-07:00And yet your voice gets drowned out in the drum-be...<I>And yet your voice gets drowned out in the drum-beating.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think it got drowned out at all. Xuenay stepped in to defend Michael but otherwise people were going "man what".<BR/><BR/><I>The claims by the Singularitarians that only they know how to "save the world" **aren't** "self-important"?</I><BR/><BR/>They are. But Dale usually takes on "transhumanists", not "Singularitarians". As a transhumanist who's been skeptical of hard takeoff Singularity for years, if not from the beginning (weaseling because I don't remember what I thought as an 18 year old) I reject the terminological imperialism going on here. "transhumanist" to me always meant a positive interest in life extension and self-improvement technologies. Singularity was one part, one version, of that -- an attention getting version -- but never the only one.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-62609375564492400152008-05-04T10:03:00.000-07:002008-05-04T10:03:00.000-07:00Damien Sullivan wrote:> [W]hile Egan is skeptical ...Damien Sullivan wrote:<BR/><BR/>> [W]hile Egan is skeptical of the transhumanist label and<BR/>> those who claim it. . . he goes on to explicitly defend<BR/>> the content. . . [by] reacting against Robin's "I consider<BR/>> anyone who believes uploading is possible to be a crackpot",<BR/>> and endorsing the Strong AI hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Well, if you consider Egan's remark "While there are thought experiments<BR/>in [Strong AI's] favour that I find persuasive, there is no actual<BR/>evidence either for it or against it -- and I'm not even sure what<BR/>would **comprise** evidence" an endorsement. It's certainly a<BR/>more qualified endorsement than the assumptions made by the more,<BR/>shall we say, "enthusiastic" worriers/hankers-after The Singularity.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Robin can defend herself perfectly adequately here, but the<BR/>problem with the on-line >Hists vis-a-vis AI has always seemed to me,<BR/>since I figured out what was going on 8 years ago (and I am<BR/>**not** a credentialled AI scholar, as Ms. Zebrowski **is**, and<BR/>as the most vocal Transhumanists and Singularitarians, even the<BR/>self-styled "experts", are **not**) is that they cling to a<BR/>shockingly naive view of AI, inherited from a 1965 incarnation<BR/>of Marvin Minsky via the Objectivists, that most serious scholars<BR/>in the field (including Ms. Zebrowski) would simply laugh at.<BR/>And they shrilly defend this view as "rational" (in a manner<BR/>that most serious scholars of the mind would also laugh at).<BR/><BR/>> As for preferring Egan to Wright, well, I haven't read Wright's<BR/>> fiction. I've heard about the Golden Age books, and what I heard<BR/>> wasn't tantalizing. Stuff about Objectivism and AIs which crash due<BR/>> to Star Trek logic problems. Whereas with Egan I can taste the science.<BR/><BR/>OK, fine. You like Egan. I like Egan. Dale likes Egan.<BR/><BR/>The Golden Age books are indeed atrocious (but still worth reading<BR/>if you don't take them straight and just enjoy the camp),<BR/>though there was precious little mention of that fact, over on the<BR/>Extropians' list, when they came out. Some of the folks on that list<BR/>thought they were the greatest thing since, well, _Atlas Shrugged_ I suppose.<BR/>Perhaps it was all the "stuff about Objectivism". :-/<BR/><BR/>> Michael A. shows up to say things that I, a self-styled transhumanist,<BR/>> criticize as silly in their certainty, or even just silly. . .<BR/><BR/>And yet your voice gets drowned out in the drum-beating.<BR/>Mr. A. has been beating that drum (not for himself, he will<BR/>cheerfully tell you, but for his gurus) ever since he was the<BR/>publicity honcho for SIAI. Nobody criticizes Mr. A. for being<BR/>"silly" when the bad guys aren't around (i.e., when it's a cozy<BR/>forum of "just us Transhumanists").<BR/><BR/>> John Howard. . . defines transhumanism as human genetic engineering,<BR/>> Dale defines it as a Robot Cult. . . Dale's not as far off the mark --<BR/>> there are Singularity types that "Robot Cultist" seems to fit. . .<BR/><BR/>Yes, well, the Singularity types have been providing most of the juicy-juice<BR/>for the movement since the late 90's. Cryonics (and Objectivism I guess)<BR/>had sort of pooped out on their own, so along came AI as the deus-ex-machina<BR/>(and soon! soon! as the culmination of Moore's Law) to get everybody's<BR/>hard-on waving once again and provide a new platform for eternal youth<BR/>(and Dynamic Hair Management).<BR/><BR/>> the worldview here seems. . . rigid and self-importantly assertive. . .<BR/>> the obsession, and the insistence on tarring any transhumanist, is. . .<BR/>> bizarre.<BR/><BR/>And yet the spin-meistering lavished by certain >Hist "advocates"<BR/>on any whiff of criticism (e.g., the skeptical remarks made by blogger<BR/>John Bruce when he made the acquaintance of >Hism via Glenn Reynolds,<BR/>and whose resulting snark resulted in indignant letters from<BR/>Michael Anissimov and James Hughes) **isn't** an "obsession"?<BR/><BR/>The claims by the Singularitarians that only they know how to<BR/>"save the world" **aren't** "self-important"?jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-39420010994753097222008-05-04T09:11:00.000-07:002008-05-04T09:11:00.000-07:00Queen Smartypants wrote:> Either transhumanism is ...Queen Smartypants wrote:<BR/><BR/>> Either transhumanism is a cult and its 'meetings' are actually<BR/>> cult services, or it's not a cult and holds 'public conferences'<BR/>> on educational topics.<BR/><BR/>Gee, have you ever heard of "black and white thinking"?<BR/>This isn't a physics experiment we're talking about.<BR/><BR/>"Either A. Bearded Genius's 'Giga-Happiness for Billionaires'<BR/>program is a cult and its 'meetings' are actually cult services, or<BR/>it's not a cult and holds 'large-group awareness training<BR/>courses' on educational topics."<BR/><BR/>Who gets to say? Well, if Ticked Boss starts a Web site<BR/>revealing the unsavory cultic overtones of the Giga-Happiness<BR/>program (especially how A. Bearded and his sidekicks get off<BR/>on having the billionaire students call him 'Lord of the<BR/>Universe' and making the billionaires all formally kiss their asses as<BR/>they file into the lecture hall), and box-office sensation<BR/>Starlet O'Hara witholds her endorsement of the program as a<BR/>result of the negative publicity, then A. Bearded can sue Ticked<BR/>Boss for libel and interfering with his business and the<BR/>case might go all the way to the Supreme Court. So who **does**<BR/>get to say?<BR/><BR/>Is it to the public's benefit to have these things discussed<BR/>openly (as they **were not**, for decades, when Scientology<BR/>had so many authors and magazine editors running scared),<BR/>despite the costs and risks to particular individuals?<BR/>Yes, on balance, I'd say so.<BR/><BR/>> When you and your friends are implicated, a transhumanist event<BR/>> is just a public conference. When your enemies are implicated, it's<BR/>> all evidence of cultism.<BR/><BR/>Gee, Dale, let's organize a non-cultic 'transhumanist event'.<BR/>We can invite Anne Corwin and Robin Zebrowski too. What shall<BR/>we do? Eat pizza, and watch DVDs?jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-79262372242670542912008-05-04T00:03:00.000-07:002008-05-04T00:03:00.000-07:00The small Robot Cult groups nattering on the inter...The small Robot Cult groups nattering on the internet deserve exposure -- once upon a time Neoconservatives were comparably fringe, after all -- but as a <I>reductio</I> of the superlativity that prevails in many more mainstream neoliberal, technocratic, eugenic, and reductionist discourses transhumanism is a usefully clarifying target of critique as well. <BR/><BR/>The claim lodged at the heart of the reasonable things you say here, though, namely that there is something "bizarre" about tarring every self-identified transhumanist with the cultism of the bad cra-a-a-a-a-azy transhumanists seems absurd to me, however. One wonders why the good reasonable transhumanists -- whoever they're supposed to be -- are so pleased to identify through shared ascription with the cra-a-a-a-a-azy ones, after all. <BR/><BR/>One doesn't need to join a Robot Cult to advocate democratization of technodevelopmental social struggle nor champion consensual lifeway diversity. That even the "good" transhumanists do anyway is a problem for them, and a source of comedy gold for others.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-856420116193615482008-05-03T23:32:00.000-07:002008-05-03T23:32:00.000-07:00...the worldview here seems as rigid and self-impo......the worldview here seems as rigid and self-importantly assertive as John Howard's. He defines transhumanism as human genetic engineering, Dale defines it as a Robot Cult at worst or "undercritical" and "anti-democratizing" at best. Dale's not as far off the mark -- there are Singularity types that "Robot Cultist" seems to fit -- but the obsession, and the insistence on tarring any transhumanist, is about as bizarre. You're not taking on the Church of Scientology, people, just some small groups nattering on the Internet.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-15711433860693108322008-05-03T20:41:00.000-07:002008-05-03T20:41:00.000-07:00I'm shocked to discover that you find me not credi...I'm shocked to discover that you find me not credible on the question whether your cult is a cult! Who knows what conclusions you'll draw from the fact that every anonymous snipe like this in the future gets deleted as a troll just like peco's idiocies do. Despotism is teh awesome!Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-83095621263391597952008-05-03T20:29:00.000-07:002008-05-03T20:29:00.000-07:00I still think calling Robin a transhumanist "celeb...<I>I still think calling Robin a transhumanist "celebrant" for giving a paper on embodied AI at a public conference in which one would find many people who were quite skeptical to ignorant about "transhumanism" (especially in its sub(cult)ural sense) is very curious indeed</I><BR/><BR/>Either transhumanism is a cult and its 'meetings' are actually cult services, or it's not a cult and holds 'public conferences' on educational topics. <BR/><BR/>But why does the answer change depending on who's implicated?<BR/><BR/>When you and your friends are implicated, a transhumanist event is just a public conference. When your enemies are implicated, it's all evidence of cultism.<BR/><BR/>You have no credibility left on the issue of transhumanist cultism, in my view. <BR/><BR/>Your personal preferences and alliances seem to affect the way you spin this issue, and while many signs of dissembling are much more subtle, this -- I'm afraid -- is the most obvious one there is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35255795054839744662008-05-03T18:02:00.000-07:002008-05-03T18:02:00.000-07:00As you see, anonymous coward and Robot Cult shill ...As you see, anonymous coward and Robot Cult shill Maxine triumphantly would blackmail those who see transhumanist cultism for what it is into the "corner" that those duped by cultists into legitimating their cult (for making the mistake of trying to engage with the cultists as serious conversational partners whatever their limitations) either are to be tarred as cultists themselves or must take the blade to the hilt and deny the palpable cultism at hand. Oh, but I'm not a transhumanist meself blushing bridelike Maxine blinks! Gecher own blog, Blanche, and sell it there.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-60304860261933835332008-05-03T17:53:00.000-07:002008-05-03T17:53:00.000-07:00There are two different things one can be by calli...There are two different things one can be by calling someone "transhumanist": <BR/><BR/>[1] One could mean to designate a rather undercritically technophilic attitude that deranges sensible technodevelopmental deliberation and feeds corporatist and neoliberal rhetoric by whomping up endless distracting hype and "naturalizing" anti-democratizing notions of innovation, competition, hyper-individualist self-responsibility, and consumerist self-satisfaction, conjoined to normalizing attitudes (usually connected to these very notions) toward optimal and suboptimal lifeways that play out with eugenic consequences in complex biomedical societies.<BR/><BR/>[2] One could mean to refer to the self-identified members of any of a number of archipelago organizations of techno-utopian organizations or discursive/sub(cult)ural spaces that depend on these organizations while feeding them, members who regularly explicitly identify as such, who imagine themselves to belong to a unique subculture and/or political movement that will sweep the world and implement a vision of "the future."<BR/><BR/>Transhumanists in group [2] are also, for the most part, providing a rather intense exemple of the more generally attributable under-critical utopianism of group [1], which confuses matters somewhat. I introduced the term "Superlative" precisely to clarify such relations. Sub(cult)ural "transhumanists," so self-identified are subsumed under superlativity together with other kinds of technocentric discourses, and one can distinguish different kinds of superlative discourse and get a better handle on such of the sub(cult)ural currents within the organizational life of transhumanist-identification, too, if one cares to do so.<BR/><BR/>Notice that the term "bioconservative" is attributable in the sense of [1] but not as easily in the sense of [2], since I know of few people whose ideas seem to me to be sensibly subsumable under the notion of "bioconservative" who would actually affirm the term as a personal identity, and I don't think there are really any bioconservative movement organizations. Most bioconservatives seem to be social conservatives or to be indulging in a rather confused anti-modernism that throws the civilizational baby out with the corporatist/toxic bathwater and throws in with reactionaries while still hoping to be mistaken for progressive.<BR/><BR/>What's tricky is that bioconseervative folks seem quite eager to tar those who are not comparably sweeping in their denuncuations of technoscientific progress with the brush of transhumanism in the Robot Cult sense of [2] to distract attention from their incoherence and the transhumanists themselves (the ones so identified in the sense of [2]) are very eager to abet the bioconservatives in this misattribution. <BR/><BR/>As I've pointed out regularly, both bioconservativism and transhumanism (in both senses) are discourses that seek to frame technodevelopmental social struggle in hyperbolic terms that are deeply inter-implicated, they feed on one another, always to the cost of complexity, proximity, reasonableness, and actual stakeholder contestation in the present.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you Anne that people are acquiring enormously rich and contradictory public traces that render it less easy to reduce anyone to singular positions to their cost, and public attitudes toward such exposure and its costs to our dignity and reputations are quickly changing into a new common sense about what privacy is good for and consists of.<BR/><BR/>I still think calling Robin a transhumanist "celebrant" for giving a paper on embodied AI at a public conference in which one would find many people who were quite skeptical to ignorant about "transhumanism" (especially in its sub(cult)ural sense) is very curious indeed, especially coming from a person who has become one of the most frequent and vitriolic snipers at Amor Mundi where Robin posts comments that often support my own strong criticisms of transhumanist Robot Cultism. <BR/><BR/>If Maxine were an officer in one of the transhumanist organizations or a public figure in the sub(cult)ure I criticize, a person whose reputation and livelihood depends on these organizations achieving greater mainstream respectability in part by stealthily shunting aside their most extreme and cult-like characteristics, wouldn't his anonymous, immoderate, highly personal, and scarcely professional attacks acquire a different implication and interest? <BR/><BR/>I could care less who Maxine actually is -- it's clear he's a tool and hence of little interest -- but until I know better I will assume he is a troll and a provocateur in the service of his Robot Cult flinging anonymous poop at a critic of transhumanism and hoping something, anything, will stick. And that's how I read his latest among endlessly many other efforts. It's delightful that you were able to draw some actual substance and interesting conversation from Maxine's brickbat, and I thank you for that, but I know enough of the context to know that the substance is all from you, Anne, and none from him, so actual credit where credit's due, I say.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-39295780390653105342008-05-03T17:39:00.000-07:002008-05-03T17:39:00.000-07:00Cool, I guess all those bioconservatives that spok...Cool, I guess all those bioconservatives that spoke at the IEET's Human Enhancement and Human Rights conference at Stanford last year or the year before are transhumanists, too. <BR/><BR/>Some of them are gonna be <I>pissed</I>!Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830094293166211231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-73724243569395164202008-05-03T17:13:00.000-07:002008-05-03T17:13:00.000-07:00this point is that if you write a lot of snark abo...<I>this point is that if you write a lot of snark about a particular group that happens to be very loosely defined in the first place (not to mention rife with internal disagreement over aims and ideology), then what you write COULD have some potential effect on the "public identity" of persons who might have gotten near that group without actually "joining" it, and of persons who might have joined the group naively and gotten their names associated with it even if they later dis-identified with it.</I><BR/><BR/>Transhumanism is not a cult and you'll probably never need to give another thought to this the embarrassing skeleton in your closet, but one never knows. The more successful Dale is at pinning the label -- 'cultifying' -- transhumanism, the more you become a former High Priestess. The brush he's painting with is broad and does not distinguish between friend or foe. <BR/><BR/>But, like I said, if transhumanism was or showed signs of turning into a cult, you would have more to be concerned about. However, I'm just a troll. Ask jfehlinger just how much you have to worry about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-49201373101329756952008-05-03T15:43:00.000-07:002008-05-03T15:43:00.000-07:00It's weird how "Internet culture" seems to have th...It's weird how "Internet culture" seems to have the capacity to turn even the lives of non-celebrities into something like tabloid collages. I really have to wonder what it's going to be like for all those people who started public blogs at age 14 or something -- are people going to be tracking down their opinions from way-back-then when they're 30 or 40 and judging them on the basis of their adolescent opinions and/or associations? <BR/><BR/>Methinks eventually there's just going to be too much data to sort through in that regard, which will mean -- gasp -- people actually have to get to know other people and look at what they say/write in the context of their lives-right-now as opposed to just being able to take Googly shortcuts to assessing a person's character.<BR/><BR/>At the risk of being called out as a troll-feeder (a risk I'm willing to take, as this is actually an interesting discussion point and one that I've been thinking about for a while now), I think I can sort of see what Maxine is getting at, regardless of why s/he might be doing so. <BR/><BR/>And...this point is that if you write a lot of snark about a particular group that happens to be very loosely defined in the first place (not to mention rife with internal disagreement over aims and ideology), then what you write COULD have some potential effect on the "public identity" of persons who might have gotten near that group without actually "joining" it, and of persons who might have joined the group naively and gotten their names associated with it even if they later dis-identified with it.<BR/><BR/>Personally I'm not too worried about this, and I accept it as a perfectly valid consequence of associating with <I>anything</I>. I also think everyone else should accept this consequence. I am not "owed" friends or even allies by the universe, nor is anyone obligated to hang out with me, publish my comments on their blog, or work with me on any project. If someone decides that I'm too "tainted" by past associations with the transhumanist subculture or anything else, then that's their prerogative. <BR/><BR/>I figure anyone really worth knowing or working with is going to be willing to look at the content of what I actually write/say, as well as how I've changed my mind about various things over time, as opposed to what groups I do or don't belong to. And I'd actually much rather have people speak their true impressions of something than pander to that something's preferred PR strategies (and yes, there's a difference between sincere, if acerbic, criticism and deliberate/ignorant attempts to discredit someone out of fear or plain old nastiness -- it would be nice to see more people becoming cognizant of this difference but I'm not counting my chickens yet, so to speak).Anne Corwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35562688626928926062008-05-03T15:23:00.000-07:002008-05-03T15:23:00.000-07:00Let every mainstream academic be on notice -- to a...Let every mainstream academic be on notice -- to attend a conference connected with so-called transhumanists is to risk attribution to one of membership in their cult. Not that I haven't long suspected as much, but it's good to see it out there in black and white, as it were. That should help the Robot Cultists in their stealth outreach and legitimation PR efforts enormously.<BR/><BR/>As for you, Maxine Smartypants, who can say who or what you are, forever smugly throwing darts anonymously from the sidelines, as you do? Troll, I dub ye.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-84147235772695368752008-05-03T14:07:00.000-07:002008-05-03T14:07:00.000-07:00Robin wrote:I've never been a transhumanist - I'm ...Robin wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I've never been a transhumanist - I'm just someone who works in AI and who loves her some science fiction, but has never confused the one for the other.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, google seems to disagree. I have no idea who you are, but it certainly appeared that a certain Robin Zebrowski moved in transhumanist circles at one time. At the very least you were a celebrant at a transhumanist cult vigil in 2004.<BR/><BR/>I feel your pain, though. I'm also not a transhumanist, but that doesn't keep Dale from calling me a Robot Cultist, does it? The content of your belief can be quite different from your public identity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-66199314315910907992008-05-03T10:49:00.000-07:002008-05-03T10:49:00.000-07:00Robin said:It's sort of cool to be an ex-something...<B>Robin</B> said:<BR/><I>It's sort of cool to be an ex-something without having to pass through the pesky stage of being the something first!</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed! That's a nifty super-power you've got there. :)Anne Corwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-62157859747928403182008-05-03T02:06:00.000-07:002008-05-03T02:06:00.000-07:00Damn, I've been slandered in my absence!Someone wr...Damn, I've been slandered in my absence!<BR/><BR/>Someone wrote:<BR/><I>it might include even a snarky group of ex-transhumanist Mundists, a group which seems to include some of your favorite commenters jfehlinger, AnneC, De Thezier, Robin, and a couple more I forget.</I><BR/><BR/>It's sort of cool to be an ex-something without having to pass through the pesky stage of being the something first! I've never been a transhumanist - I'm just someone who works in AI and who loves her some science fiction, but has never confused the one for the other. I keep company with people who chat about either and both of those though, so I can see the obvious confusion to someone who sees no distinction.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830094293166211231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-91039792637131843802008-05-02T22:26:00.000-07:002008-05-02T22:26:00.000-07:00someone who sticks their neck out and is suitably ...<I>someone who sticks their neck out and is suitably ridiculous</I><BR/><BR/>uh, Marc...?Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-65918471928149004522008-05-02T22:11:00.000-07:002008-05-02T22:11:00.000-07:00Age is no excuse for crack-pottery.We need a scape...Age is no excuse for crack-pottery.<BR/><BR/>We need a scape-goat, someone to dump all the problems of transhumanism on, someone who sticks their neck out and is suitably ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>What about Michael Anissimov then? Can we just blame him for it all?ZARZUELAZENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742429508206464486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-59017447051601039022008-05-02T12:57:00.000-07:002008-05-02T12:57:00.000-07:00Jim:"Ten years ago, I sent a link to Eliezer Yudko...Jim:<BR/><BR/>"Ten years ago, I sent a link to Eliezer Yudkowsky's 'Staring into<BR/>the Singularity' to a co-worker..."<BR/><BR/>What also needs to be mentioned when talking about what Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote 10 years ago is that he was 18 or 19 at that time. This is not unimportant, I think.<BR/><BR/>FrFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-48716503332394493942008-05-01T17:33:00.000-07:002008-05-01T17:33:00.000-07:00> Their last post. . ."Their"? Who are we dealing...> Their last post. . .<BR/><BR/>"Their"? Who are we dealing with here, Duo Damsel?<BR/>(or perhaps Triplicate Girl?)jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com