HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 20, 2006 John is at it again, using useless-knowledge to vent his fears and frustrations with science. He fears science because his own New Age yogic-super power ideas will likely be shown to be delusion in a quite conclusive manner. He is frustrated with science because his “research” thus far is pseudoscience at best and wishful thinking at worst. On the one hand, John suggests a sort of peace between two opposing schools of thought in the “culture war”. On the other, he continues to attack that which he clearly does not understand. John dislikes the 11 Chapters and its attack on old religion, but John engages in the attack as well. Old religions don't sync with New Age mysticism, after all, and John has attacked what he calls the “Christ myth” several times. I'm always amazed and confused at what John is attempting to accomplish here. How can this be anything besides a cheap ploy playing on the fact that most readers are likely to be theists and Christians in particular? Isn't it rather easy to attack an atheist in this context? When other zealots such as Michael John McCrae or Skip Tomaloo attack atheists along similar lines, they at least seem to speak with conviction. I also have to wonder about a key argument in a good chunk of his piece which is summarized in his title, “The New Faith: Transhumanism”. Faith is believing without evidence, so, let's assume for the moment that I was a transhumanist for no other good reason, that thinking along these lines just feels good and completes me and gives me hope. Isn't that what every other faith does or purports to do? At the very least, this would mean that transhumanism breaks even philosophically with all the rest. John's attempt here is as silly as calling liberal ideas “faith based” or calling evolution a religion. Do the folk who make these kinds of statements not realize the irony? They are, in effect, attacking faith-based belief systems. Of course one should not take something just on faith! – that notion is the foundation of secular humanism. Particular specific stated paths of transhumanism are science fiction. What will we look like? Where and how will we exist? Will we call ourselves Geshels and Naderites as Greg Bear imagined? Will we ultimately exist as energy beings able to live freely in space as Clarke imagined Bowman doing in his 2001 series? What will future human society be like if we live hundreds of years, or as software without physical bodies ? Much science fiction has explored these possibilities. That we will live very long life spans and be augmented with technology in general is not science fiction, however. Humans in modern civilized society already live three times longer than we did as hunter gatherers. Humans began down the road of transhumanism eons ago. We routinely plug humans up to machines which take over the functions of the heart and lungs for long periods during major operations. We plug humans into artificial kidney machines to clean the blood. We implant pace makers to make the heart beat artificially. We have artificial hearts – does anyone really doubt that these plastic computer controlled pumps won't get very much better in the future? We have artificial limbs which are always improving. We have eye surgeries which can make the eyes see better than they naturally would. We have the very beginnings of chips placed at the back of the eye allowing blind folks to see, and have rather practical cochlear implants allowing the deaf to hear. We are LEGOS made from atoms, molecules and at a higher level, cells. These parts can be replaced, repaired and/or made better. That's the foundation of transhumanism. Indeed, there is no reason yet known to suppose that humanity won't continue to improve its health and condition until we can live very long lives. Does John really doubt this? What magical line would exist to prevent us from living any longer? If we can gradually advance from living 35 years to 90 years, why not from 90 to 180? When a car has a faulty part, we merely replace that part. One could, provided one has access to the parts, keep a car running virtually forever. John mentions the Singularity – a quite misunderstood idea. The Singularity is the prediction of several branches of technology reaching a certain maturity and then working together to change the world. We've had many before: steam power + factories = industrial revolution, farming + towns = civilization, abstract thought + writing = precise incremental knowledge accumulation, etc. We can come up with many examples. The predictions made by the guy oft associated with this term, Ray Kurzweil, are rather sound if one cares to explore them further. For example, Moore's Law seems to be holding up – every 18 months, computer processing ability doubles. Of course, John already knows that transhumanism isn't fiction, but reality. After all, while the first half of John's piece attacks transhumanism as a religious fantasy, the second half all but admits the reality of transhumanism and then warns against it! John's linking of transhumanism with Nazi/Big Brother type “master races” is as disturbing as it is ridiculous. The industrial revolution allowed both America/England/France AND Germany to prosper. Germany wasn't pre-destined towards fascism by the increase in technology, to think otherwise is absurd Kurzweil doesn't envision his specific future as a utopia of any sort, and readily admits new problems will be created. Old ones will be solved, however, life will be better overall, and that's the key. The first stone tool invented to take easily the hide off an animal also allowed easier killing of a neighboring tribesman. Progress is always a double edged sword. Now, let me address a few specific gripes John had with the science behind some of the passages in the 11 Chapters, starting with the information. That information cannot be destroyed is an accepted tenet of physics and not a fantasy as John claims. Therefore, the idea that black holes may destroy information is a scientific conundrum. John wanted “proof” to back up the 11 Chapters quote about black holes. Information in this context is best explained using a pool table. Consider the original rack of balls the thing whose information we are interested in. As the game progresses, each ball moves about by interactions with other balls, the sides, and so forth. It is technically possible to reconstruct the original rack, with balls in their original position, by looking at the current state of a pool table. Likewise, it is possible to reconstruct John Waters after his death assuming extremely advanced technology. It may never be practical, and even if future humans have the tech, why would they bring back any of us common folk? Nevertheless, this idea is within the bounds of physics. John Waters, in some sense, will exist until the end of time. Black holes seem to destroy matter and violate various laws of physics in the process as I've said. Indeed, the center of a black hole, the singularity [not the same as Kurweil's], is rather difficult to understand using current science, much like what came “before” the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking came up with a possible way around this problem. In other words, even if a corner pocket on a pool table were a small black hole, it would still be possible (although highly unlikely and rather difficult), to reconstruct the original rack. This isn't a proof, but then again, proving most anything absolutely is impossible and that's not really what science is all about. The 11 Chapters attempted to give value to the uniqueness of individuals and their imprint, if you will, onto the universe; call it poetry. After all, what is the likelyhood that anyone reading this will be sucked into a black hole? It may also be possible that Hawking is wrong and, that black holes leak information into other universes – this mind-bending concept would also make an interesting quote in this philosophy book. This is beyond John's understanding, for John thinks that science is dry and cold and that atheists, skeptics, and real researchers are incapable of his kind of colorful abstraction. John doesn't understand that the beauty of things as they really are (according to our best information) can move people in a way that we might call spiritualism (which, contrary to John's way of thinking, does not require magical or religious thoughts). John also had an issue with the suggestion that man's destiny includes the exploration of the galaxy. That was another attempt to be poetic, but, this kind of exploration does seem rather unavoidable. John has written himself about “fixing the sun”. The reasons are clear – if we don't we will die. Humanity has a death sentence; a cosmic surefire backup doomsday plan, if you will, that will utterly finish us off if we don't kill ourselves first. We know that the sun will run out of fuel and then puff up into a red giant in about 5 billion years. When that happens, the inner planets, including Earth, will be burned up. Fixing the sun must surely entail space travel. The situation is worse than this, however, for, long before the sun changes, a comet or asteroid impact will snuff us out; such events, while rare, are inevitable and will happen many times during the next 5 billion years. Leaving the solar system or at least living away from the danger zone to escape also involve space travel. Does John agree, or doesn't he, that space travel is mandatory for our ultimate survival based on everything we now know? He seems too, but it's difficult to be certain as with most of his views. In any case, assuming we agree that we must travel in space to save the species, this would entail “exploring the galaxy” in some manner, keeping in mind that t411's aim was to be poetic. Surely if we have the basic tech to live in space long enough to save ourselves, mankind will take advantage of all of the other opportunities which present themselves! It seems almost silly to spell this out – surely John can connect very basic dots and has SOME imagination in that mystical head of his? We either embrace space or we DIE – how much simpler does it get? Who can say if we will ever reach these goals, but who interested in survival would deny that these SHOULD be our goals? Transhumanism isn't a fad, it's a process that began eons ago with farming, the domestication of animals and plants and the first cities. Wanting to control nature doesn't make us “play God” or become “control freaks”. Future generations using ocean currents and adjusting ocean temperatures perhaps via satellites shooting down great energy beams to change the climate for our benefit is no different in principle than irrigation systems putting water where “God” failed to provide it, or the Tsunami early warning system in the Indian ocean, the dikes around the Netherlands, the lightning rods on tall buildings and churches. John is a neo-Amish. Technology has advanced to the point where he no longer completely understands it, no longer feels comfortable with it, and thinks that some imaginary, ever changing line called, “we've gone too far!” has been crossed. John is not alone - the divide between science and those who understand science is widening. Like the widening gap between rich and poor, this does not bode well. Most ironically, certain segments of the “old religions” that John defends when he isn't attacking them, are fighting rather hard at the moment in the US to weaken our grasp on science even further. ---- A few notes about the 11 Chapters: I am one of the collaborators, having submitted a few quotes. Most of the text is not mine, however, I do agree with the spirit and implications of the book. Its aim is to become a self-help type of book based on secular humanism, though ideas from secular, non-dogmatic, Eastern philosophical traditions and religions will likely be added as well. It is a book based generally on reason and science but with a poetic tone, sort of a guide for living in the same manner as what the Bible is considered to be for many. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
