Cosmic Transhumanism
This is a continuation of my articles on Manifest Destiny: To the stars and beyond and Soft Tiplerianism. After discussing them at length with friends on a mailing list, I have started using the label “Cosmic Transhumanism” to indicate a very broad and not precisely defined brand of transhumanism inspired by (among others) Ray Kurzweil‘s radical optimism, the cosmic visions of Frank Tipler and James Gardner, Sir Arthur C. Clarke‘s “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, and Shakespeare’s “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
Image adapted from Orion’s Arm
I am persuaded that Cosmic Transhumanism as proposed by Kurzweil and Gardner, the idea that consciousness and intelligent life may become key factors in the future evolution of the physical universe (transcending biology, filling the universe, steering spacetime topology, spawning baby universes, “becoming gods” etc.), once developed and communicated as a strong memetic package, can provide an alternative to religion suitable for the forthcoming phase of our evolution as a species. The main point of my proposal is an explicit acknowledgment that the current scientific thinking, and some reasonable extrapolations from today’s engineering, *may* provide *some degree of* hope, grounded in technology and sciences, in some of the promises of traditional religions. Without, of course, the irrational faith, rigid dogmatism and intolerance that have plagued traditional religions.
The term “Tiplerianism”, be it hard or soft, does not summarize well this cosmic transhumanist sensibility. In addition, it is perhaps too compromised by negative associations to be acceptable by most transhumanists: even after I “renounced” Tipler explicitly on transhumanist lists, most replies were still focused on Tipler alone. In his book Tipler has proposed some valuable insighs (not always original), but mixed them with too many overstretched analogies with classic religions.
One difficulty is Tipler’s (and others’, e.g. Fedorov and Perry) resurrection idea: Future technology may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of “copying them to the future”. I think this idea makes perfect sense and leave it to future engineers to find a way to implement it, but most hard rationalists find it outrageous. Perhaps because they had to make a big effort to free themselves from the old religious superstition, and are afraid of falling back into irrational belief. But technology-enabled resurrection is not irrational belief: it is a wild speculation, in the sense of Shakespeare’s and Clarke’s quotes above, on possibilities that may, or may not, be achieved at some point by science and technology. I have found that, while people converted from religious believers to rationalist believers immediately dismiss technology-enabled resurrection as unscientific, those who never cared too much about religion are basically open to considering it.
Universal Immortalism (resurrection of the dead by means of future technology) is not explicitly affirmed by Cosmic Transhumanism but is not incompatible with it: Kurzweil and Gardner would probably say “let’s wait and see”. I planned to ask them the question explicitly at Transvision 2007 in Chicago, but I did not go to Chicago. I hope next time.
However, even leaving the resurrection part aside, Cosmic Transhumanism makes perfect sense as a worldview. Thinking to be part of one of many intelligent species that will spread to the stars and beyond, leave biological and mental constraints behind, and participate in the cosmic destiny of a universe waking up to life and superhuman sentience, gives a certain nice feeling and a certain sense of wonder, permits seeing clearly one’s place in the universe, and provides a drive to try giving a small contribution to the cosmic adventure. Whitout, of course, forgetting the practical reality of today’s world.
Posted by G.P. on 07/28 at 07:16 AM
The former Executive Director of the WTA is not going to Transvision 2007
I will not be able to attend Transvision 2007 in Chicago due to a combination of time and financial pressure. As founder and director of a growing but still struggling company, I really need to dedicate all my time and resources to the business.
Moreover, I have recently resigned as Executive Director of the World Transhumanist Association. This decision was partly motivated by the reason stated above. Another reason is that I do have opinions, and at times strong opinions, about some of the issues frequently discussed on the public lists. It has been suggested that the Executive Director should be above the parts and refrain from supporting one or the other side in a public debate, since his words could be constructed as official positions of the WTA. I basically agree with this interpretation, and I do not intend to refrain from expressing my ideas and opinions. So I remain a Board member of the WTA, but am no longer its ED. I have some concerns about how the transhumanist movement is developing, and will take some thinking, reading and writing time before resuming my previous level of involvement in organized transhumanism.
I feel closer and closer to the radical “lunatic fringe” of transhumanists who take wild ideas like immortality and uploading seriously, and do not wish to see transhumanism becoming a lukewarm, spiceless soup of boredom and political correctness.
I think that Fukuyama’s:
“For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gayrights advocates. They want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints. As “transhumanists” see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution’s blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species”
is the best short description of transhumanism that I have ever seen. If I had never heard of transhumanism before, I would start a google search immediately after reading these words, find one or another transhumanist network and join it.
Some bioluddites have a quite good understanding of what transhumanism is ultimately about. They say, with clear plain simple and understandable words, things similar to Fukuyama’s definition above. And I have known people whose reaction was “but wait a minute, this is something good. Let’s learn more...”.
I believe we have become far too much concerned with acceptability and political correctness. Let’s take example from our critics and state, in the simplest possible way and without any ambiguity, that transhumanism is about leaving all limits behind, including mortality and biological constrains, and move on to a cosmic destiny. Some people will hate it, and some people will love it.
Anyway. I will be writing more than enough on this in the next few months. Back to Transvision 2007.
I am very sorry not to go to Chicago, because this promises to be the most interesting Transvision ever. Besides seeing many old friends and making many new ones, I wanted to meet in person, for the first time, three exceptional thinkers and doers.
Ray Kurzweil‘s writings and books, e.g. The Singularity is Near, offer a very optimistic vision of our mid and long term future. Is he over-optimistic? Probably. Do I believe that his visions of boundless empowerment, immortality and merging with ultra technologies will come true before the end of the century? Not really. Does this matter? Not at all. Ray’s vision is a roadmap for something that will not happen spontaneously, but that we must achieve. Of course there will be interruptions and roadblocks, and we will have to find suitable workarounds. I find Ray’s optimism very refreshing compared to the endless hair-splitting, caveats and “ethical” qualifications that have become so common in transhumanist literature.
Philip Rosedale is the creator of Second Life. I have helped persuading him to come to Transvision, and I believe Second Life is very relevant for transhumanism. Why? For three reasons. One is that the routine magic of teleporting, flying, IMing, changing gender and body shape, etc., that we have in Second Life may well become part of our everyday reality according to the vision of Kurzweil. Another is that Second Life is a very good community building, outreach and recruiting platform for transhumanists. Last year we organized a mixed-reality Transvision 2006 event in Second Life, and I really hope another will be organized this year. The third (and most important) reason is that once mind uploading technology becomes an operational reality many persons may choose to be based in virtual reality, perhaps taking up a physical body on occasions, so what we are doing in Second Life can be seen as building our future home.
I have recently received my Amazon order of The Intelligent Universe and Biocosm by James Gardner, and read them cover to cover. You should also read these books: they will put your mind on fire. James’ cosmic vision is that intelligent life may become the force that steers the development of the Cosmos towards its destiny, acquiring awesome powers and eventually spawning new universes where conscious life may continue its endless journey. This is a vision that permits finding some meaning in our everyday lives on our little blue planet, even more so if it were to include some hint at a possibility of indefinite preservation of an individual consciousness stream (yes, you). I really wanted to discuss this with James.
Posted by G.P. on 07/15 at 07:41 AM
The open distributed Metaverse
Beware Second Life and other proprietary virtual worlds, the open distributed metaverse is coming fast! Some of the most interesting initiatives are outlined below.
Yesterday I found some time to check what is going on at openmetaverse.org. OpenMetaverse hosts projects related to Open Source Metaverse development based on OS emulation of the Second Life platform. The OpenMetaverse project started with a Second Life reverse engineering initiative known as LibSecondLife and now has a server component known as OpenSim (see also the new website OpenSimulator). Last time I checked I was too lazy to install and test the OpenSim server, but yesterday I found out that there is a directory of public access servers run by the DeepGrid project.
I created a DeepGrid account and used the standard Second Life client to connect according to the instructions given here. It is very important that the standard Second Life client can be used to connect to the DeepGrid: no new software to install and no learning curve. Most of the regions available on DeepGrid did not respond, which is not too surprising since I believe most of them are hosted on home computers. The default region for a DeepGrid user is changed as a DeepGrid account option. I logged on the OpenSim IRC channel and asked which regions were up and running. I immediately received a reply, changed my home region, launched the Second Life client directed to DeepGrid, and my brand new avatar Giulio Beta appeared in the Open Metaverse (picture above) and had a chat with the server operator who was also there.
I could chat, walk and explore this almost desert world, but I could not (yet) dress my avatar properly: Poor Giulio Beta is still naked and freezing in the wild Open Second Life. I could not (yet) upload textures. I could build simple objects with the standard wood material and texture, but when I tried to edit them I found that a copy of the previous iteration of the object was left in-world. I built the green O of Open in the picture. Compared to the large and growing list of features of the Second Life built and operated by Linden Lab, this is really (still) a toy.
But, it is a start!
The development of commercial software development projects is linear and predictable (well...), but the development of OS software development projects is _exponential_! OS software development projects start with a few initially very committed developers on a volunteer, part-time basis. Most projects fail in the first few months and are forgotten, but a few projects manage to achieve a critical mass of developers, early users, motivating results and media visibility, and enter a phase of exponentially increasing growth. From that point on, a well managed OS project will produce better and more robust software than any commercial project, and much faster. Based on what I have seen and reasonable (even conservative) projections, I think the OpenSim project will produce a usable metaverse in a few months, say in Q1 2008, and break even with Second Life in Q1 2009. At that point, there will be a solid OS server and client platform that everyone on the planet can use to build and deploy Second Life -like virtual worlds that can be interconnected in a global grid like in the DeepGrid project. This global grid may then leverage the Second Life user base (tens or even hundreds of millions by 2009 according to current projections, already familiar with the Second Life system and with client software already installed) and become the main open distributed metaverse platform.
Linden Lab, creator of the proprietary Second Life, placed their client code in the OS domain a few months ago and are considering following up with OSing also the server code. This is, I believe, the smartest thing they could do. As soon as their OS counterpart grows beyond critical mass, there will be nothing a single company can do to compete with thousands of smart and motivated programmers and operators all over the world. Better if they take the lead in the development of the OS distributed metaverse.
I will install the OpenSim software on our metaxlr8 streaming media and game server, and start experimenting. Once the Second Life metaverse is based on OS software and runs on a distributed network of independent servers, I am sure there will be a market for professional independent hosting services, with a choice of different server-side features for different clients. For example, banks will certainly be interested an a strong encryption and authentication layer, and operators of popular SL worlds will certainly be interested in powerful hardware and optimization to increase the number of avatars that may use their server simultaneously.
Open Croquet is another example of emerging distributed metaverse development platform based on the OS language Squeak (a popular implementation of Smalltalk also used as development platform for other important initiatives such as e-learning systems for children). The picture above is a souvenir of my first visit to a remote Croquet virtual world a couple of months ago, showing how you can write on a whiteboard. Open Croquet itself is not a finished and usable virtual world, but a development kit for virtual worlds, entirely based on OS technology and with built-in P2P features. Open Croquet is a “swiss knife” that will permit building a distributed P2P metaverse of VR words, from MMOGs to e-learning systems. Open Croquet, that has been described as a “metaverse operating system” is certainly another very serious candidate development platform for the open distributed metaverse. Its native P2P features permit running a virtual world without central servers or, more realistically, with central servers only used to perform certain management tasks like directory services, access control and caching while the virtual worlds themselves live on their creator’s home systems.
The power of the Open Croquet development environment is demonstrated by Qwaq Forums, a commercial value added layer aimed at professional collaboration and productivity. It has integrated VoIP, collaborative document editing and web browsing. A minimalist avatar is browsing this website in the image above. Qwaq Forums is specifically aimed at corporate users as a virtual office / intranet infrastructure, but it demonstrates how very powerful end user applications can be built on top of the Open Croquet development platform.
Posted by G.P. on 07/07 at 09:30 AM
THE $20,000 QUESTION: AN ESSAY BY EXTROPIA DaSILVA
Another excellent essay by Extropia DaSilva. Does the name Mitch Kapor sound familiar? If you are interested in the history of SL, the answer may well be yes, because he was one if LL’s earliest investors. “Mitch Kapor was the only person who got it”, said Rosedale in an interview with Inc. Magazine. Personally, Mitch Kapor first came to my attention through an essay of his, published in 2002 on Kurzweilai.net. As with LL and SL, Kapor was putting money forward in anticipation of a future outcome, but this time the money was riding on a failure, not success. The bet centred on a question: Will the Turing Test be passed by a machine by 2029? Ray Kurzweil said ‘yes’, Kapor said ‘No’ and whoever loses will donate $20,000 to a charity selected by the winner. In his essay, Kapor explained why he was sceptical of the possibility that a machine will ever pass the test. ‘To pass the test, a computer would have to be able of communicating via this medium (text) at least as competently as a person. There is no restriction on the subject matter…It is such a broad canvas, in my view, that it is impossible to forsee when, or even if, a machine intelligence will be able to paint a picture which can fool a human judge’. Kapor further elaborated on why a computer can never mimic a person, but what struck me as I reread this essay recently was this: Just possibly, SL may prove to be a crucial link in the enabling technologies of human-like intelligence…
Posted by G.P. on 06/21 at 11:42 AM
Soft Tiplerianism
This is a summary of my recent arguments on some transhumanist mailing lists in support of the idea that transhumanism might be, or become, a suitable alternative to religion. For lack of a better term, I am using “Soft Tiplerianism” to indicate a general, high level, conceptual appreciation of some ideas proposed by Fedorov, Teilhard, Tipler, Kurzweil, Perry and Clarke, without any specific proposal for their actual implementation.
In The Physics of Immortality, Frank J. Tipler proposed a high level concept:
Future technology may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of “copying them to the future”
He also proposed a specific resurrection mechanism based on:
Intelligent beings of a far future epoch close to the gravitational collapse of the universe (the so called Big Crunch) may develop the capability to steer the collapse along a specific mode (Taub collapse) with unlimited subjective time, energy, and computational power available to them before reaching the final singularity. Having done so, they may wish to restore to consciousness all sentient beings of the past, perhaps through a “brute force” computational emulation of the past history of the universe. So after death we may wake up in a simulated environment with many of the features assigned to the afterlife world by the major religions. (from my Interview with Frank J. Tipler of November 2002).
Actually I liked David Deutsch‘s account of Tipler’s vision (described in his popular book The Fabric of Reality) more than Tipler’s own account. While I found some parts of The Physics of Immortality *very* interesting, I was not impressed with the overall conceptual clarity and felt that he was stretching some interesting analogies far too much.
Tipler’s mechanism for resurrection is often criticized on the basis of its cosmological assumptions, that are not supported by current observations. Even if this is the case (that is, even if the Universe “left to itself” would not spontaneously evolve an Omega Point ´like cosmology), Tipler thinks that we may be able to do something about it: “the expansion of life to engulf the universe is exactly what is required to cancel the positive cosmological constant” (reference above). This “fix what you don’t like” is, in my opinion, a very transhumanist attitude and is supported by Ray Kurzweil‘s last sentence in The Age of Spiritual Machines: “So will the Universe end in a big crunch, or in an infinite expansion of dead stars, or in some other manner? In my view, the primary issue is not the mass of the Universe, or the possible existence of antigravity, or of Einstein’s so-called cosmological constant. Rather, the fate of the Universe is a decision yet to be made, one which we will intelligently consider when the time is right”.
We should not take nature (lower case n intended) as an absolute that cannot be modified or as something “superior” that must be revered, but rather as a plastic material that can be shaped and modified once we develop the capability to do so. Which is, in my opinion, what transhumanism is all about. Past generations were used to considering human biology, with all its comic or tragic accidents such as body fat, unchosen gender, stupidity, aging and mortality, as an absolute. We are beginning to see that, after all, our bodies and minds are just machines that can be fixed, improved and redesigned by engineering once we develop the needed knowledge and tools. I am just proposing to apply the same concept to cosmology and the fabric of reality, that’s all (!). Of course. I do not have the faintest idea of whether, when and how megascale cosmic engineering may be an actual possibility. But I do not think we know enough of the detailed machinery of reality to rule out this vision, and find some pleasure and motivation in allowing myself to contemplate it.
It is worth noting that also Tipler’s predecessor in using the term “Omega Point”, Pierre Teilhard de Cardin, has been often criticized (even by Tipler himself!) for not getting some scientific facts right. But this is really like dismissing Leonardo as a crank because his aircraft sketches wouldn’t fly, which is just stupid. Leonardo was a genius who got the *concepts* right, and later engineers equipped with more detailed knowledge have realized his visions.
While I find speculations on megascale cosmological engineering in the very far future interesting, I don’t think we can take too seriously any current speculations on the capabilities and motivations of persons (in an extended meaning of “person” of course) millions of years more advanced than ourselves. So, I am quite agnostic on the specific resurrection mechanism proposed by Tipler. I also think that, perhaps, we may find some better ways to resurrect the dead much before the end of the universe, regardless of a Big Crunch that may or may not take place, like the fictional example in Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter’s novel The Light of Other Days. In Clarke-Baxter “theory” micro wormholes naturally embedded with huge density in the fabric of spacetime permit looking back in time and downloading a copy of a person’s mind, that can then be “uploaded to the future”. Many other thinkers and writers, including Nikolai Fedorov and Mike Perry, have dared contemplating resurrection. See also the website of the Society for Universal Immortalism.
While I cannot claim any knowledge of future “super technologies”, I do relate deeply to Tipler’s high level concept that future technology may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of “copying them to the future"and, in the spirit of “There are more things in Heaven and Earth...”, allow myself to contemplate such possibilities. There may be a point where consciousness becomes a important factor in the destiny of the universe, where conscious beings develop the capability to choose and build the universe they *want* to inhabit, and invite the dead of past ages to join the party by copying them to the future. I am using “Soft Tiplerianism” to indicate this soft rationalist, high level and not detailed concept that will, I hope, be detailed and realized by future scientists and engineers.
Since these are very long term visions, I do not put them in the realistic/programmatic world. What I do put in the realistic/programmatic world, in a “think big, act small” sense, is taking the first small steps toward the advancement of our species on this cosmic path, while at the same time trying to ensure our immediate survival. The future can be magic and beautiful, and we want to be there to see it happen. One of the first small steps that should be taken, in my opinion, is making transhumanism more appealing to more people in a more immediate way. Therefore, I am proposing to include “Soft Tiplerianism”, as defined here as “Future technology may be able to resurrect the dead of past ages by some kind of copying them to the future”, in the transhumanist memetic package. I am persuaded that this could facilitate outreaching beyond the original transhuamanist subculture(s), give many more people hope and a sparkling vision of a better future, and motivate them to roll up their sleeves and try to contribute to realizing such vision.
I am *only* arguing for the hypothetical feasibility, in principle, of these concepts, and my argument is based on the fact that they do not contradict the laws of physics as they are presently understood. I never said, do not want to say, and do not think that these possibility are “absolutely certain” or “guaranteed”, just that they are a possible outcome of the development of our species. So I am not at all certain that our descendants will be able to, or be willing to, upload me to the future, but the simple possibility of this option is good enough (for me) as a replacement of religion. The main point of my proposal is an explicit acknowledgment that the current scientific thinking, and some reasonable extrapolations from today’s engineering, *may* provide *some degree of* hope, grounded in technology and sciences, in some of the promises of traditional religions. Without, of course, the irrational faith, rigid dogmatism and intolerance that have plagued traditional religions.
Posted by G.P. on 05/27 at 06:32 AM
Transumanismo forte e religione
Il seminario su Transumanismo e Religione in Second Life ha fatto ricominciare le solite discussioni sulle liste transumaniste. Dagli interventi sulle liste e dalle comunicazioni private che ho ricevuto vedo, e questo mi fa molto piacere, che molti hanno capito bene quello che ho cercato di dire con il mio intervento. Altri non hanno capito cosi’ bene, e questo in molti casi e’ certamente dovuto al fatto che non mi sono spiegato bene. Cerchero’ di spiegarmi meglio in quest’ articolo.
La comunicazione dovrebbe essere sempre chiara e precisa, ma anche semplice e immediata. A volte ci si riesce, ma piu’ spesso questi obiettivi si escludono a vicenda. Se si mira solo alla semplicita’ e all’ immediatezza si perdono molte sfumature che sarebbero necessarie alla comprensione del messaggio. Se invece si mira solo alla chiarezza e al rigore concettuale, spesso si finisce per dire cose incomprensibili o, ancora peggio, troppo noiose da stare a sentire. I grandi comunicatori sono quelli che riescono sempre a trovare l’ equilibrio ideale in un dato contesto.
Molto spesso la comunicazione e’ mirata non a convertire definitivamente chi ascolta, ma solo a convincerla/lo a continuare ad ascoltare. Questo lo sanno bene quelli che vendono enciclopedie, tappeti etc. porta a porta: sanno perfettamente che se riescono a convincerti a farli entrare in casa dopo ti riusciranno a vendere tutto quello che vogliono. Il problema e’ proprio quello di convincerti a farli entrare. Questo e’ ancora piu’ vero ai nostri giorni con una quantita’ enorme e crescente di informazione disponibile. Una volta leggevamo un giornale e non un altro perche’ era l’ unico che si trovava in edicola. Oggi siamo a un click dai contenuti di decine di migliaia di giornali blogs etc., in competizione tra loro per quei pochi secondi del nostro tempo fino alla decisione di continuare a leggere o tornare a google.
Allora e’ importante formulare il proprio messaggio, qualunque messaggio e specialmente se si tratta di qualcosa di nuovo, con sufficiente sex appeal da convincere a stare a sentire invece di chiudere immediatamente la porta. Qui la semplicita’ e immediatezza hanno un grosso vantaggio sulla sofisticazione, specialmente se rivestite con un linguaggio forte che fa appello alle emozioni. Ci sara’ tempo *dopo* per spiegare le cose per bene e con tutta la chiarezza e il rigore necessari.
Pensiero forte e debole: sono sempre stato un adepto del pensiero debole, anzi un ultrarelativista tanto relativista da considerare lo stesso relativismo come qualcosa di molto relativo. Non credo in nessun Assoluto ontologico o morale, e a volte ho seri dubbi sull’ esistenza della realta’, che potrebbe non essere altro che un sogno dentro un sogno come ha detto non ricordo chi. Ma mi rendo conto che per smuovere la gente dall’ apatia e dall’ indifferenza ci vogliono argomenti e parole forti, contenuti emotivamente carichi, tamburi e trombe, striscioni rossi o neri, se avanzo seguitemi, la dittatura del proletariato, Dio e’ con noi, Viva l’ Inter/Milan e andiamo a riempire di botte i milanisti/interisti…
Il transumanismo: continua a sorprendermi il fatto che un complesso di idee tanto belle, rivoluzionarie e intrinsecamente forti non riesca ad avere la risonanza che merita. Non e’ che magari siamo noi a cercare di essere troppo intelligenti, fare troppe distinzioni, spaccare troppi capelli in quattro, proporre troppe sfumature, e lasciare che la forza delle idee transumaniste affondi nella palude del culturalmente sofisticato e politicamente corretto? Non sarebbe meglio cominciare con poche idee forza espresse con un linguaggio semplice e immediato? Invece di dire sottovoce “Abbiamo il diritto di agire sulla nostra evoluzione biologica, sempre che… e senza dimenticare… e tenendo conto di… [montagne di caveat e sottigliezze], dicevo invece di dire questo sottovoce non sarebbe meglio urlare “Abbiamo il *dovere* di prendere in mano le redini della nostra evoluzione biologica e oltre, di espanderci nell’ universo e oltre, e di lasciarci alle spalle ogni limite”? Con una bella musica drammatica di sottofondo (non faccio esempi perche’ quelli che mi vengono in mente sono troppo carichi politicamente), grancasse, e tutti i rituali che hanno dimostrato di funzionare.
L’ immortalita’ e la resurrezione: il mind uploading non e’ la tecnologia piu’ semplice di questo mondo e ci vorranno probabilmente decenni. Ma la possibilita’ del mind uploading e’ perfettamente compatibile con le attuali conoscenze scientifiche, quindi prima o poi ci si arrivera’. E il mind uploading permettera’ l’ immortalita’ (chiaramente solo nel senso di possibile durata indefinita della vita, ma forse questa e’ proprio una di quelle distinzioni che andrebbero fatte solo in un secondo momento). E prima o poi i nostri discendenti superumani e immortali saranno capaci di andare a ripescare l’ informazione contenuta nella mente di quelli che sono gia’ morti da secoli o millenni, e farla continuare a girare su supporti computazionali nel tempo presente (loro presente, nostro futuro). Uploading al futuro, o in altre parole la resurrezione che e’ stata promessa dalle religioni.
La resurrezione, cioe’ non solo divenire immortali ma anche rivedere i nostri cari che sono morti, e’ stata la promessa con la quale le religioni sono riuscite ad agganciare la gente. Ora stiamo cominciando a intravedere, attraverso spiragli che la scienza sta aprendo nel tessuto dei nostri modelli della realta’, remote possibilita’ di resurrezione attraverso la tecnologia futura. Siamo quindi in grado, forse non di promettere la resurrezione, ma almeno di suggerire la compatibilita’ di questa con la nostra visione del mondo. Questo potrebbe essere un modo di mettere il piede nella porta come fa il venditore di enciclopedie. Senza parlare della pace mentale, della speranza e della felicita’ che la sola possibilita’ della resurrezione puo’ dare a chi la prende sul serio. Allora, perche’ non fare di questa parte integrante del nostro messaggio? (vedasi ad esempio la Society for Universal Immortalism: “We dedicate ourselves to finding a way one day to bring back all persons who have ever lived, so they can join in our eternal adventure. This is the idea known as Universal Immortalism (R. Michael Perry - Forever for All").
Allora: parole semplici, pensiero forte, il nostro dovere come specie, immortalita’, resurrezione e la musica drammatica di sottofondo. Il transumanismo formulato in questo modo diventerebbe *molto* simile a una religione. Certo che, parlando rigorosamente, la parola religione e’ sbagliatissima perche’ stiamo parlando di idee sviliuppate nel quadro concettuale della visione scientifica del mondo, che esclude il soprannaturale e le verita’ rivelate. Stiamo parlando, in effetti, non di una religione ma di un’ alternativa alla religione. Ma forse, rinunciando momentaneamente al rigore per la semplicita, si potrebbe prendere a prestito la parola religione, con alcune delle strutture rituali sviluppate da e per le religioni, per convincere la gente a prendere sul serio e approfondire una visione del mondo che puo’ dare felicita’, fiducia nel futuro possibile, motivazione e energia par partecipare alla costruzione di tale futuro.
Posted by G.P. on 05/05 at 07:03 AM
Climbing Technological Mount Improbable, by Extropia DaSilva
This is the talk given by Extropia DaSilva at the seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life, on Sunday, April 29, 2007. Published with permission. Unfortunately time was too short for Extropia to answer all questions she received. Please ask her about Life, the Universe and Everything here.
Posted by G.P. on 04/29 at 06:44 PM
Seminar on H+ and Religion in SL
Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life
Sunday, April 29, 2007, uvvy island in SL
The event was organized by the Second Life Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association.
Speakers:
Giulio Prisco, Executive Director, World Transhumanist Association (yours truly). I summarized my article/book precis Engineering Transcendence.
Extropia Dasilva, Fascinating and Mysterious Virtual Personality. Extropia is a “transhumanist avatar” who writes some of the best mind expanding stuff about first and second life, the universe and everything. Her talk Climbing Technological Mount Improbable is available online.
James Hughes, Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. James presented his paper “The Compatibility of Religious and Transhumanist Views of Metaphysics, Suffering, Virtue and Transcendence in an Enhanced Future” (link).
Lincoln Cannon, President, Mormon Transhumanist Association. Lincoln presented the fascinating blend of Mormonism and Transhumanism developed by the MTA.
My presentation started, as usual, with a personal introduction slide where I said that I am with the WTA but am now speaking on behalf of Giulio Prisco, Giulio Perhaps (my avatar in SL), Yours Truly, the Fat Ugly Guy here (my avatar again) and Myself. I presented my own views on transhumanism and religion, which are not and cannot be represented as official WTA views. I think the “cosmic” part of transhumanism *is* an alternative to religion, firmly based on the scientific worldview, but able to provide much of what most people search in a religion. My conclusion: “Our Manifest Destiny: our species will spread to the stars, merge with its technology, and acquire god-like powers. Uploading technology will permit cybernetic immortality with the safeguard of backup copies. With “future magic”, we may find a way one day to bring back all persons who have ever lived. This can be an alternative to religion, based on science, rationality and humanism. I am very interested in the current experimental activities to memetically engineer transhumanist alternatives to religion, based on science, but still able to offer hope in “another life” even for those who are already dead”.
Extropia gave, as usual, a very thoughtful and challenging presentation of current trends towards a Singularity and beyond. Her conclusion: “If the technological Singularity is not the summit of Mount Improbable after all, one might ask what is. Will science reveal the answer? Or maybe philosophy? Perhaps theology? Or should we conjecture that these are all manifestations of a grander overarching conceptual framework that we currently cannot comprehend, but may come to appreciate as we ascend to a state that might appropriately be defined as ‘God’? I like to think so!”.
James had a monster presentation of interfaces, similarities and differences, and possible cross-talks between transhumanism and religions. James is, of course, a smart politician who knows better than trying to be too explicit on whether transhumanism can or cannot be an alternative to religion. His conclusion: “Transhumanism is potentially compatible with many metaphysics, theodicies, soteriologies and eschatologies. Religious will incorporate the H+ project into their faiths to create trans-spiritualities. The future religious landscape will be much more interesting”. This concept of infecting religions with transhumanist memes is not so different from my concept of engineering religions based on transhumanism, and basically similar to an equivalent strategy, often discussed on the lists, to develop a transhumanist memetic presence in political movements.
Lincoln affirmed the basic compatibility between Mormonism and Transhumanism. He stated that the views of the MTA are received “with interest” by the larger Mormon community. His conclusions: “We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end”. This is, I believe, a perfect explanation of why, despite what fundamentalists may say, transhumanism is not at all incompatible with religion but, on the contrary, each of the two sets of sensibilities can boost the other in a positive feedback loop.
This was a very good event and I was especially pleased to see some of the newcomers join the Second Life Chapter of the WTA.
Technical notes:
All speakers with the exception of Extropia used audio streaming for presentations and answers to questions from the audience. James Hughes and Lincoln Cannon used the Shoutcast plugin for Winamp to stream to our Shoutcast server, and I used Nicecast on a Mac to do the same. The technical challenge was the coordination of sound streams coming from different remote locations (basically, the previous speaker has to stop broadcasting, the next speaker must start broadcasting, nobody must start broadcasting at any moment different from the scheduled moment, and an occasional restart of the Shoutcast server may be required). Audio worked very well for James and Lincoln (their voices were crystal clear). It worked very well also for me but with some interruptions (I had to restart broadcasting several times). This was due to a combination of other speakers starting their broadcast while mine was still on and the fact that my Internet connection was not so reliable yesterday.
About 60 persons attended, with a peak audience of 45. There was not too much lag despite uvvy island being only a Class 4 sim.
Extropia’s talk was disturbed by a griefer who, of course, was kicked out and banned from the region. He may even have been (you never know) one of the well known outspoken enemies of transhumanism. I can see his point - our ideas *are* a danger for the narrow, fundamentalist mentality they represent.
This page on the uvvy wiki has more pictures and will be updated with pictures, links, transcripts, audio and video clips as they become available.
Posted by G.P. on 04/29 at 05:05 AM
Kevin Warwick’s talk in Second Life
Prof. Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, England, gave a presentation in Second Life on Monday, April 23, 2007. The event was organized by the Second Life Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association. When we look towards the capabilities of intelligent machines (AI) we can see that these hold some distinct advantages over human intelligence. Mathematical speed, memory, sensing range, multi-dimensional operation and respectable communication being examples. It seems sensible therefore for humans, if they wish, to benefit by directly linking their brain with that of an intelligent machine network. In this presentation Kevin looked at the possibilities, considered some of the experimental work presently going on around the world and described the practical experimentation he has already carried out.
Please see this page for pictures and technical details. The page will be updated with pointers to the press and media coverage, transcripts, audio track and videoclips in a few days. I gave a short introduction saying “we talk the talk, but Kevin walks the walk”. Of all the the transhumanist events we organized in Second Life so far, this was by far the most popular: the available space filled very soon and I was getting IM messages like “I cannot come because uvvy island is full, please do something”. So I had to raise the occupancy limit of the sim risking a crash (that did not happen). 70 persons in total attended the talk. The success of the event is certainly due to the fact that Kevin Warwick is a well known expert in a hot field, but also to the very professional preparation work done by Prof. Warwick’s staff and the Second Life Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association, in particular VR Manoj.
Prof. Warwick gave a very good talk on current technology and its likely evolution. He stayed mostly on the practical side, but I am sure most people in the audience got the radical, transhumanist implications of Kevin’s cutting edge research in interface technologies.
The next event organized by the Second Life Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association will be the Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion on April 29.
Posted by G.P. on 04/25 at 03:51 AM
Manifest Destiny: To the stars and beyond
Manifest Destiny was a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States was destined to expand from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). Manifest Destiny was always a general notion rather than a specific policy. The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the natural superiority of what was then called the “Anglo-Saxon race”. While many writers focus primarily upon American expansionism when discussing Manifest Destiny, others see in the term a broader expression of a belief in America’s “mission” in the world, which has meant different things to different people over the years.
Three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny: 1. the virtue of the American people and their institutions; 2. the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and 3. the destiny under God to accomplish this work. The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America’s Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop’s famous “City upon a Hill” sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society: We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand....
One may not always like everything about America, but there is no doubt that American culture has achieved a lot. Their gut belief in their Manifest Destiny, their own goodness, the superiority of their way of life, their mission to bring democracy to the world, and that their God is always on their side, has provided them with a single minded drive to overcome all obstacles on their way and conquer one frontier after another.
In President Kennedy’s words: “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too”. A few years later, watching the first men walking on the moon, it was easy to believe in humanity’s Manifest Destiny in space.
Too bad space “did not happen”. It will happen someday I hope, but reading the news it is evident that today’s world is a complex, interconnected and difficult place on its way to becoming even more so. It is evident that no part of humanity can march toward its destiny leaving other parts behind. Kennedy’s Moon speech was intended to energize citizens with a 20th century grand vision of Americans’ destiny in space but, as it is now evident, a single nation is not going to make it. We can only move onward as a whole, or else.
Where is a grand vision for the Manifest Destiny of all humanity, that can energize all persons on the planet and provide the drive to move onward as a whole? I think Transhumanism could be the answer.
The background of the image above is taken from a painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, an allegorical representation of Manifest Destiny. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward. I replaced Columbia with the picture of one of my best friends in Second Life, a young, energetic and very bright person. I do not have the faintest idea of her looks in real life, but her avatar’s looks suggest a sexy, high-tech vision of a radically democratic future.
I believe a sexy, high-tech radically democratic future for all humanity is our Manifest Destiny. It will not lead to holy wars against infidels, but rather to a Holy War against the limitations of being humans 1.0: disease, mortality, stupidity, unhappiness, lack of empathy and understanding, and being confined on our little planet. This is the first paragraph of the Transhumanist Declaration: ”Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth”.
We must find new and better ways to communicate this beautiful vision to everyone. We have often failed to do so in the past: transhumanists are often far too aseptic, over-intellectual and out of touch with “the people” to communicate effectively. We should not forget that we are *still* biological beings, and rationality without emotions is often not enough to provide motivation and drive -we also need some chemical and hormonal fire in our blood. This is the challenge ahead: formulating transhumanism as a strong belief that can energize people with emotional fire, without giving up our roots in rationalism and scientific thinking. Besides scholarly works we need more novels, movies, series. We also need good communicators able to explain transhumanism in everyday language and generate a positive emotional response.
Religion has been, and is, important for Americans. This is sometimes difficult to understand for most of us us Europeans, used to considering religion as something largely irrelevant and with no place in public life. But religion was an important part of the Manifest Destiny meme, and still is a powerful factor in American policies. In fact, this short article was inspired by a discussion about religious belief in the US and Europe on the wta-talk mailing list of the World Transhumanist Association. Thanks to all those who contributed to the discussion, and especially to PJ Manney.
Religion is certainly a powerful enabler for memetic engineering. When criticizing the extremes of religion, and there are many very sad examples in history, it is important to bear in mind that religion has also fueled many worth initiatives and provided peace of mind to countless believers. The key question if how to keep the good things of religion (sense of community, happiness, and a hopeful vision of our place and purpose in the universe) without the bad things (bigotry, fundamentalism, intolerance, holy wars, burning heretics and infidels). Here again I think transhumanism, and especially its “cosmic” face aimed at achieving superhumanity and spreading to the stars and beyond, may provide a modern, energizing but tolerant alternative to religion rooted in the scientific worldview.
Posted by G.P. on 04/05 at 11:26 AM
Transhumanism is taking common sense seriously
I just found on the Mprize site a very good short article on, and definition of transhumanism. This is the kind if explanations I prefer: no big words difficult to understand, but plain simple common sense.
When they start with their crap about reverence for nature, respect for our limits, value of suffering, mortality as a defining feature of being human, and similar BS, just remind them of plain old common sense: health is good, disease is no good; happiness is good, suffering is no good; being alive is good, being dead is no good; Etc. etc. Transhumanism is taking common sense seriously.
Full text by Reason (original here):
On the day it comes to you that living a longer, healthier life is something you’d like to do, that an extra year or ten of good health (or hell, why not more?) would be just peachy keen, think of the transhumanists - because you just became one. You saw a limit in the human condition, thought about what life would be like with that limit removed, and liked it.
Welcome to the party!
Transhumanism, make no mistake, is just a fancy name for common sense. Change for the better is good, right? Common sense. It’s what we humans do in our scattered finer moments - we work to change things for the better. It’s common sense to fetch in the harvest on wheels rather than on foot, and it’s common sense to repair the biomolecular damage of Alzheimer’s before the mind begins to rot. It’s common sense to build perfect immune systems from nanomedical robots, and it’s common sense to develop the technologies of regenerative medicine to their logical end.
It takes work, but what is work compared to a world of suffering? Choosing not to attain these goals makes about as much sense as standing out in the rain to spite yourself.
New technology cannot set slaves free, remove poverty brought of corruption, make the willfully blind see, or the unhappy bring themselves to good cheer of their own free will ... but it can remove the limits placed upon us by evolution, and it will one day give us all much, much more time in health and life to work on our other, very human issues. You can’t rid the world of poverty when you’re sick, decrepit and aged to death. The limits to our lives that we cannot negotiate away by talk and travel are the most confining, don’t you agree?
Transhumanism, common sense with a slick name, is really simple humanism - which is also really no more than a name for common sense. It is only humanist to work to give people the choice to live without suffering, and without death. To live, for without life, there is nothing.
Posted by G.P. on 04/04 at 04:53 AM
DIY cancer therapy
From Nature News - Cancer patients opt for unapproved drug - Internet trade pre-empts clinical trial. DCA has seemingly remarkable anticancer properties. It seems to leave healthy cells untouched, has been relatively safe in human trials, can be taken by mouth and easily penetrates tissues. DCA blocks an enzyme in mitochondria - the energy-production centres in cells - causing more glucose to be metabolized in the mitochondria rather than by a different pathway in the cytoplasm. The compound has been in clinical trials for years as a treatment for certain mitochondrial diseases, but it has not yet been approved. Mitochondria also control cell suicide, and DCA might reactivate the mechanism of cell suicide that becomes inactive in cancer cells. After the first experiments with rats earlier this year, DCA was hailed as a “magic bullet” against all types of cancer.
Because DCA has been around for years, its structure can’t be patented and pharmaceutical companies aren’t interested in developing the drug (drug development, including years of clinical trials, cost a lot of money). So the scientist who reported the first promising results in rats is raising money and hopes to start his own small clinical trial within the next few months. In the meantime, a team of chemists have found a cost-effective way to synthesize the compound and started selling it (as a veterinary drug to work around FDA regulations) from the website buydca.com. They also set up the website thedcasite.com to collect the reports of cancer patients who decided to try this DIY cancer therapy.
Of course, this unconventional procedure has caused the outrage of the medical community. They insist that the correct procedure must be based on conventional clinical trials. But of course some patients, who are dying of cancer and do not have the luxury of waiting years to be admitted in a trial where they only have a 50% probability of being given the drug, have decided to buy DCA and just see what happens. If the reports are positive (too early to say atm), they could become a big wave.
We have seen all that before. My mother was one of those who decided to try an “alternative” cancer therapy and the results were, unfortunately, no good. But I hope the results of the DIY DCA trials will be good. I will follow the reports on thedcasite.com, and hope to see positive reports. None of the magic bullets against cancer proposed so far really worked. But sooner or later one that works will be found. I hope it will be something like DCA, not patentable and cheap to produce. In this case, as soon as the results of the first tests will be made public, patients will launch spontaneously a huge, open source clinical trial to see if it works. Is this happening now? I don’t know, but I really hope so.
Would I take DCA if I had 6 months to live? But of course I would - what the hell would I have to lose? And what harm would I do to others? I think that, regardless of the outcome of the DIY trial, I would be contributing useful data that can help others making their own decisions on their own health. To my knowledge, nobody has ever done a clinical trial for orange juice, with the control group taking perhaps machine oil, but the wisdom of crowds says that drinking orange juice is good and drinking machine oil is bad. Nobody has ever formally studied the benefits of eating healthy and working out while forcing a control group to spend years in front of the television drinking beer, smoking and eating French fries with mayonnaise. It just works.
Nobody has any right to prevent dying patients to experiment on their own health at their own cost and without damaging others. Not so much “ethics” please, and some more compassion and especially common sense. People have been experimenting with their own health for centuries, and often developed open source medicine that worked. But I fear DCA will be made illegal without any reason, just to “give an example” and to protect the dictatorship of the medical establishment. As soon there are indications that this might happen, they should move manufacturing and marketing abroad, to many different countries to avoid being hostages of a single national health system.
I am in favor of a strong and democratic public administration. But there are lines not to be crossed, beyond which a strong state becomes a dictatorship and democracy becomes a politically correct way to oppress minorities. For the sake of democracy, we must not let this happen.
Posted by G.P. on 04/02 at 04:45 AM
Reality 2.0: A new world in the making
Reality 2.0 is still in development and preliminary alpha testing. It will have a unprecedented degree of graphical video-realism and a very, very realistic physics engine. It will offer all features of current VR worlds like Second Life, Kaneva or the forthcoming Sony’s Home: instant teleport to remote locations, IM, built-in editing environment to create your own things out of thin air and customize your own avatar, multiple avatars per user, intelligent NPCs and the possibility to acquire all sorts of near-magic powers. Reality 2.0 will be much more realistic and addictive than current MMOGs and permit users working and playing in-world without ever leaving it. Living and working in Reality 2.0 will be, as a matter of fact, much more interesting and fun than whatever you can do in good old RL (Real Life) as we know it.
I am sure you have already understood that Reality 2.0 is, in fact, good old RL with some enhancements that will be developed over the next few decades.
IM (Instant Messaging) will be implemented by read-write brain implants linked to the wireless network. Think something to tell someone, your thoughts are captured and processed by your implant, addressed to the recipient through the net, and appear in her mind. A popular name for this process is telepathy. Reading thoughts and memories from a brain and writing thoughts and memories back to a(nother) brain or a computational network (neural interfacing) will also permit cutting and pasting entire personalities and making backup copies of human minds (mind uploading). This is how teleport may work: the entire contents of your mind are copied from where you are and beamed to where you want to go.
We also need the capability to create objects out of thin air like we do in Second Life. The development of molecular nanotechnology will permit the development of utility fogs: live air filled with zillions of tiny (nanoscale) machines able to communicate over a network and link to each other to reproduce any shape or material. With utility fogs, the fabric of physical reality will be used as a construction materials for objects and avatars (bodies). (If and) when they are developed, utility fogs will effectively lift the boundaries between physical and virtual realities.
Many Second Life users, especially in the “first generation”, were mainly motivated by the wish to change things they did not like in their RL. In particular their body shape, age and gender. I must be one of the few people who are middle-aged fat guys in both RL and SL. But many give their avatars younger and better looks, and some choose for their SL avatars the gender that they wish to have in RL but has been stolen by a stupid biological accident. Sooner or later, we will be able to do this in RL too, when it will evolve to Reality 2.0: we will be able to change physical bodies like we change clothes today, and wear a new body like we wear a new shirt.
In writing this I am identifying with the computational processes that take place inside my mind and regarding my physical body as something external outside me, like my car. Of course I know that things are more complex and there are many feedback loops between body and mind, with chemical and hormonal things happening in the body that influence the activity of the mind, but I do not really consider weather-induced bad moods as central to being me. If my thinking were never degraded by a headache, I think I would gain a lot without losing anything important. So I think I (the I that matters) am information, and look forward to the possibility to decoupling this information from biology.
Once mind cut-copy-paste technology is developed, it will mean effective immortality. When you are killed by a monster in Entropia Universe, you wake up at the nearest revival station where, we can imagine, the most recent copy of your mind file is reloaded to a physical body similar to the last one you were wearing, built on the fly by a utility fog. This is how I imagine the unwritten fictional machinery behind Entropia Universe works, and I think Reality 2.0 will also have a revival feature. It will be necessary because, while the monsters in Entropia Universe are very dull, Reality 2.0 will be populated by conscious, thinking NPCs as smart as us, often smarter than us, and occasionally much smarter than us. Of course, the same technology that will permit creating supersmart AIs will also be used to become smarter ourselves, by merging with intelligence boosters. In Reality 2.0, we will be as smart as we need or want to be (it may cost money of course).
Ok, so when will Reality 2.0 be released? An alpha version is in the making in all research laboratories where nanotechnology, neurotechnology, advanced biotechnology and artificial intelligence technology are being developed. Let me refer to these as transhumanist technologies. Not in the sense that only transhumanists are engaged in the development of human enhancement technologies, but rather in the sense that transhumanists take Reality 2.0 seriously and view it as something *good*.
So when? My best guess is in the second half of this century, but it may well be sooner and some experts think it will be sooner. So cross fingers or, better, follow the last link above to join and donate some time or money. Waiting for Reality 2.0, watch this space for the announcement of Reality 3.0.
Posted by G.P. on 03/31 at 08:38 AM
Back from Geneva
I have been a week in Geneva. I was living there for a few years (1984-1988).
The two guys with my wife in the pictures are my two best friends Carmelo and Federico in their country houses. They both work at CERN.
My daughter was born in Geneva. Another important thing born in Geneva more or less at the same time was the Web. Now at CERN they have big screens proudly advertising CERN as the birthplace of the Web. But few people (even at CERN) took it seriously at that time. The Web was to have a radical impact on our personal and professional lives in only a few years, but many people, even including some of those who were developing the technology, did not realize its potential out of the lab environment.
Same today with the so-called transhumanist technologies of human enhancement, that will have a much more radical impact on everything else. The signs are out there for everyone to see, but only a few people realize that big changes are coming soon.
Posted by G.P. on 03/30 at 05:20 AM
Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life
We have been thinking of this event for weeks, now I wish to organize it. I am looking at my calendar and thinking Saturday, April 28 at 10am PST would be a good choice. Date and time can still change though.
EDITED: We changed the date to Sunday, April 29 at the same time 10am PST.
I will propose my own views, summarized in the article Engineering Transcendence and to be expanded in a book Transcendent Engineering. I plan to give a revised version of the same talk at the TransVision 2007 conference in Chicago in July.
Extropia DaSilva, a “transhumanist avatar” who writes some of the best mind expanding stuff about first and second life, the universe and everything, has promised to give a talk. Some recent Extropia’s essays are available on Transumanar. Bill Bainbridge (YES, Bill is in SL) plans to give a talk. I hope to have one or more speaker(s) of the Society for Universal Immortalism.
James Hughes will present his paper “The Compatibility of Religious and Transhumanist Views of Metaphysics, Suffering, Virtue and Transcendence in an Enhanced Future” (PDF).
Technology and practical organization:
The current plan is to hold the seminar on uvvy island (now completely rebuilt) but if more than 45 people sign up we may move it to a new sim on a higher performance “Class 5” server able to accommodate 80-90 participants.
Voice chat is coming to Second Life (I am participating in the beta test and have been impressed with what I have seen and heard so far), but it will not be generally available before June. So, this will be one of the last transhumanist events with text chat as the main conversation mode.
Of course, speakers will have a choice of multimedia technologies to give their talk. I will give mine by real-time streaming video broadcast. The video streaming server will of course be also available to the other speakers who, if they choose this option, will have to install webcam broadcast software like QuickTime broadcaster (Mac only, recommended option, free download) or Wirecast (Windows, commercial product). Now that I think of it, I have never been at an event in Second Life with real-time video broadcast from multiple locations, this is an interesting experiment to make.
Participants will ask questions by text chat, and speakers will answer by text, voice or video. Extropia, whose face and voice may be very well known (many people like to speculate on who her primary might be - once I advanced a guess that she may even be Ray K himself but she denied), will give her lecture and answers by text.
Posted by G.P. on 03/18 at 07:02 AM
