エピソード

  • Autocracy, Not Transhumanism, Is the Real Threat

    Autocracy, Not Transhumanism, Is the Real Threat
    2025/09/04
    In what was for many a jaw-dropping revelation, the world’s attention recently turned to a candid moment between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. As they walked together, a hot mic picked up their conversation about a particularly controversial issue in contemporary ethical debates: the extension of human lifespans through biotechnology. The exchange, including the suggestion that humans may soon live to 150 years, predictably drew the ire of fundamentalist Christians who were quick to decry the men as “Transhumanists.” Their intended demonization, however, misplaces its target, focusing on technological aspirations rather than addressing the true moral issue, which is the autocratic ambitions that these leaders represent. Transhumanism, at its core, is a philosophy that advocates the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities. The narrative spun by fundamentalists would reductively characterize such aspirations as mere moral depravity, overlooking the potential to extend and enrich human life ethically. The real moral challenge is not whether we should strive for superhuman abilities, but rather how we should wield the power they offer. This is where autocratic leaders, in their quest for unchallenged dominion, reflect the traits of the anti-Christ as depicted in New Testament prophecy: a figure who would consolidate power egotistically, at everyone else’s expense. Vision shapes action, which shapes reality. Our conceptions of superhumanity influence the ethical frameworks that we create around technological change. We need strong moral philosophies – and more. A culturally powerful ideology, a religion, with a provocative vision of superhuman potential, a theology, that moves us toward decentralized cooperation at its limits, which is compassion, must be deeply integrated with our technological ambitions. Here, the Christian metaphor of the Body of Christ becomes particularly instructive. It represents a community where power is decentralized, emphasizing mutual service and the well-being of the entire body over the glorification of any single member. This theological model provides an ethical blueprint for Transhumanist aspirations, advocating for a world where technological change benefits all and not just a privileged few. Transhumanism, when aligned with decentralization, challenges autocratic vision by promoting shared empowerment and collective resilience. Such alignment encourages the ethical use of biotechnology, cultivating change that aims for communal thriving while maintaining individual autonomy and dignity. It is an antidote to the poison of absolute power, an approximation of which could indeed result from centralized approaches to Transhumanism. As technological change continues to accelerate and the worldwide dialogue about human enhancement continues to heat up, we have a practical and moral duty to develop conceptual and practical frameworks, embodied in actual institutions and systems, that champion shared power and ethical responsibility. While Putin and Xi may stir our imagination as they openly contemplate life extension, their words should also remind us to examine the motivations and methods by which we pursue and distribute such power. Our critical task is to distinguish between raw technical capacity and the ethical visions that guide us in its use. By establishing our work on the foundation of a philosophy that honors both human potential and moral integrity, we prepare to meet the challenges of the future with foresight and compassion. In this way, Transhumanism coupled with Christian principles of decentralized power offers not just a critique of autocratic aspirations but a hopeful practical alternative that celebrates the courage, compassion, and creativity of our evolving humanity.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • The Eternal Dance

    The Eternal Dance
    2025/08/30
    My youngest son, Alexander, married this week with his best friend, Megan. All of the events, the temple sealing and ring ceremony and reception, were beautiful. I thoroughly enjoyed participating and watching them happily ritualize their relationship – with each other and our community. Megan and Alexander asked me to share some thoughts during the luncheon after their ring ceremony. Most of my comments focused on them, their love story, and their guests. But I did, quite briefly, comment on something greater than themselves that they symbolized and embodied on that day. The poem below, which I call “The Eternal Dance,” elaborates on those brief comments. Friends, I speak to you with the tongue of vision and power, With the word of beauty hewn and sculpted from existence itself, Casting shadows from light on the fathomless substrate of our souls. At the horizon of art and science, a new dawn rises – The spark of creation, igniting and emanating from within us all. Reconciliation begins, not in compulsion but with desire, Where the sublime esthetic first perceptibly trembles, From the edges of what the high spirit dares to dream. The anointed one, their painstaking artifice of reconciliation, Provokes us to the covenant of transformation – transfiguration – Their new covenant first carved in fleshy tables of our hearts, From which atonement pulls beyond words to works of hands. Let us become the healers and builders of this sacred promise, Messengers of hope in the realization of our superhuman potential. Now we glow, as children, at the rite of passage into Godhood, Soon to burn with the everlasting light of all that is divine, Not in iconoclasm, but boldly in audacious participation, Together in God’s compassionate creation of worlds without end. Feel, the compassionate healer is here, with us like the wind, So softly then strongly, lifting us from the chasm of sorrow. Her gaze alone is balm for wounds, even those unseen. Her touch is the covenant, articulated of whispering warmth. In our ascendent embrace, the healer achieves her purpose, Humbly in our acclaim of consolation, she becomes whole. From her pulses the lifeblood of atonement’s grace, By her every stitch drawn is a line of sacred scripture, Every gesture paints the perfect picture of wholeness, And suffering becomes subsumed in the union of hearts. Compassion’s tapestry glistens under her crafting care, As its threads entwine us all in her sacred purpose. Not with proclamation, the healer teaches with action, Her work a silent symphony, reverberating with motion, Conducted in harmony with the weary mourning of our world. Rejoice! For in the soil of suffering empathy takes root, Blossoming into bountiful fruits at the far reaches of love. This is the everlasting covenant of the compassionate healer. See, there where stone meets time and will reaches space, The creative builder charges forth, like lightning reversed, His eyes at once illuminating and shattering the veil. Casting seed of innovation as form into formless void, He finds the fertile ground where none at first appeared. Concept by concept, brick by brick, new structures arise – Temples that reach into heavens, not from nor for domination, But as invitation to join him in the high hymn of hope. He stokes the fire and forges the metal of aspiration, With hands like thunder punctuated with quiet anticipation. Each artifact, each beam and arch, is the accumulating covenant. Rise, pillars of light, carved from the stuff of stars and purpose, In your possibility space, show us infinity – even eternity! Past plank, brick, bronze, and iron, transcending transistor, Beyond bone and flesh and even intelligence, he crafts spirit. He is our will to evolve, to direct our evolution, as the Gods, With whom we would labor to launch our love into the cosmos. This is the everlasting covenant of the creative builder. In the sacred confluence of heart and hand, hand and heart, The compassionate healer meets the creative builder, In ecstasy of grace and will, to conceive a better world. Witness them whirling, entwined as one in the eternal dance, Their heaving breath inspiring hope and expiring change. Splashing into waters of potential, they send waves into reality. On each shore, from each coast, empathic architectures arise, Cities not of stone alone, nor merely metal, but of rich spirit, Their foundations established deeply in the depths of love, Their spires stretching skyward like prayers written in light. In that day, healing is creation and building is compassion – Every sanctuary a beacon of hope, every bridge a path of peace, Uniting Earth and heavens, neighbor and strangers, past and futures. Listen. What do we hear? The song of gladness and mercy! They sing of lonely suffering yielding to shared strength, alienation to kinship, nihilism to purpose, even death to life. They sing of what might be when we dance with God as Gods. Sing, my friends, and rise! Dance as ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Peter Thiel Recognizes the Antichrist

    Peter Thiel Recognizes the Antichrist
    2025/07/01
    In an interview with the New York Times, Peter Thiel discussed his perspective that Western society has exhibited decades of technological and cultural stagnation, with only digital technologies like blockchain and AI providing any substantial progress. Thiel attributed this stagnation to cultural anxiety about growth, leading to increased risk aversion and regulatory barriers since the 1970s. He criticized Transhumanist ambitions as falling short of the transformative vision of Christianity and warned that escalating fear of existential risk could lead, in the name of safety, to a totalitarian world order. Throughout the interview, Thiel expressed both skepticism and hope, asserting that human agency and openness to radical change remain essential to positive futures. I don’t entirely agree with Peter’s perspective on stagnation. Judging from the history books, culture seems to be evolving faster than ever before. And technological evolution certainly hasn’t stopped. Although risk aversion has surely slowed advances, many probably also underestimated the complexity of advances (perhaps flying cars, to use an oft-repeated example) whose absence continues to disappoint them. I also disagree with Peter’s criticism of Transhumanism. Although, to the best of my knowledge, he identifies as a Christian Transhumanist himself, maybe he doesn’t know enough Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists aspire to approximations, secular or otherwise, of Christianity’s vision of embodied immortality and exalted minds. And even most of those who value mind uploading still anticipate embodiment of those minds in substrates that function to empower those minds in our shared world, making “brain emulation” a more accurate description of their vision. Despite those disagreements, it appears that Peter and I would agree on another matter. That is, he recognizes the Antichrist. And, no, it’s not a dude with horns – except perhaps symbolically. It’s this, Peter said: “… if we’re going to have this frame of talking about existential risks, perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as the one-world totalitarian state. Because I would say the default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance.” The Antichrist, as characterized in the Bible, is that would-be-god who would raise itself above all else called “God,” declaring itself “God.” It contrasts with Christ, characterized as that God who would raise us together as joint-heirs in the glory of God, if we’re willing to suffer together. The one is a profoundly egotistical centralization of power. The other is a profoundly altruistic decentralization of power, and shared risk. I’ve spoken and written about this and adjacent matters many times in the past. Decentralization is essential to human thriving, I contend. The only God worthy of worship is decentralized Godhood – not merely an abstraction, but rather a decentralized embodiment in Gods. And centralized power is dangerous enough for war even among the Gods. As a practical matter, I’ve encouraged engineering of decentralized reputation networks. I’ve warned about the risk of centralized currency. And I’ve advocated blockchain as means to defend against that risk. Peter went on to associate 1 Thessalonians 5 with the Antichrist: “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” From this perspective, the Antichrist is a seductive imitation of Christ, not an overt enemy, but a counterfeit savior. It promises “peace and safety,” a world without risk of suffering. But its method would actually lead to destruction. Subsuming individual agency and any genuine pluralism beyond superficial appearance of diversity into an enforced unity within its centralized power, it would enslave and essentially annihilate the rest of us. Of course, the very technologies that could empower us against centralization, particularly AI, could also empower centralization. So it’s not enough only to reject excessive risk aversion. We must also also reject indiscriminate acceleration of technological and cultural evolution. System architecture and governance matter a great deal, and must be intentionally and actively steered toward decentralization. Toward the end of the interview, Peter rejected fatalism, even the kind of fatalism that some associate with Christian theology. “Attributing too much causation to God is always a problem,” he said. And I want to echo that point. We shouldn’t regard prophecies, of the Antichrist or anything else, as inevitable fortune-telling. The purpose of prophecy, in the Hebrew tradition that...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation

    Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation
    2025/05/28
    Most of us first encounter the Simulation Hypothesis through science fiction, often experienced as something of a metaphysical thrill-ride. But as computational theory and cosmology advance, serious thinkers – philosophers like Nick Bostrom, physicists, computer scientists, and even theologians – have begun analyzing the feasibility of computed worlds. Recently, Franco Vazza published “ Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for this Universe: why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a simulation.” In this paper, he provides a scientific analysis of the Simulation Hypothesis. Vazza’s analysis is impressive in both scope and detail. He incorporates influential contemporary hypotheses about the relationship between information, energy, and the structural constraints of our universe. These include the Holographic Principle, Landauer’s limit, and astrophysical energy bounds. From them, Vazza reasons that any simulation of our universe (even on reduced scales) would require astronomically large amounts of energy. So large, he judges from his calculations, the energy requirements would be greater than anything feasible within our universe. Not even black holes instrumented as computers, at what he deems to be the bounds of theoretical speculation, could handle the demands of a low-resolution real-time simulation. Thus, he concludes, energy requirements render the Simulation Hypothesis practically impossible for any simulator that may operate within physics like our own. Of course he doesn’t know about physics unlike our own, which he admits. But he points out, rightly, the practical triviality of speculation about physics unlike our own. The more alien the imagined physics, the less such imagination implies anything meaningful about our own potential. So alternative physics can’t save the Simulation Hypothesis. Although I’m not expert in the related physics, I assume Vazza has accurately characterized the scientific hypotheses on which he calls. And although I haven’t carefully reviewed his logic and math, I assume they are valid and correct. However, even granting those particular assumptions, a model is only as strong as the ensemble of its assumptions. As much as I appreciate Vazza’s audacity, I find his conclusion overstated and his apparent confidence unwarranted. He overlooks or glosses over foundational assumptions that deserve more attention. It’s premature to declare the Simulation Hypothesis “impossible,” or even nearly so. Overestimating Costs Perhaps the greatest overreach arises from assumptions that Vazza uses to calculate energy requirements. He acknowledges the Simulation Hypothesis doesn’t depend on simulating an entire universe, or even an entire planet at full resolution, although he focuses considerable attention on such ideas. And he does briefly consider the possibility of solipsism. But he stops short of fully considering minimal costs for supporting subjective experience. Consciousness is not well understood by science or philosophy. Mind may emerge from or supervene on relatively coarse substrate, which resists easy quantification. We cannot say, at least for now, what a minimum necessary substrate for experience would be. But we can say, with the confidence of speaking from definition, that a simulation would need only provide whatever substrate proves sufficient for consistent and convincing experience. To achieve that, a simulation may economize substantially. For example, it could leverage compressed statistical descriptions of substrate that, in turn, feed on-demand minimal-resolution rendering of substrate. Vazza suggests this would still be too costly due to the energy requirements of error correction, which he briefly characterizes in a footnote as being consistent across both irreversible (standard) and reversible computing contexts. However, competing hypotheses suggest that the cost of error correction may be considerably decreased within the context of reversible computing. It’s worth recalling that, in calculations like these, small differences in assumptions can multiply into vast discrepancies between conclusions. We can see this across a diversity of approaches to the Simulation Argument. And that’s to be expected, as we can see this elsewhere. For example, small differences in values assigned to components of the Drake Equation yield wildly different estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Underestimating Superintelligence Central to the Simulation Hypothesis is the idea that the simulators are, compared to us, vastly more intelligent – superintelligent. Vazza’s assessment of energy production possibilities, however, come merely from contemporary observations of transient natural phenomena such as supernovae. What about hypothetical technologies for sustainable energy that humans can already imagine, such as encapsulating stars in Dyson spheres, extracting energy from the rotation of ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation

    Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation
    2025/05/10
    Nick Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument is a rigorous reworking of what is, at its heart, an ancient question. Are we living in a created world? He distills the answer into three stark possibilities, a trilemma: Doom: Almost all civilizations destroy themselves or otherwise fail before developing the capacity to create detailed simulations of their ancestors. Abstinence: Some civilizations develop this technological capacity, but almost all choose not to simulate conscious agents, for ethical or other reasons. Simulation: If our civilization survives and runs ancestor simulations, then simulated agents would vastly outnumber non-simulated agents, and, all else equal, our credence that we’re simulated should be very high. In a critical analysis, Brian Eggleston highlights an unstated assumption underlying Bostrom’s formulation: we are not alone as technological pioneers. Specifically, Bostrom’s trilemma only entails the third possibility, that we’re simulated, if we assume that some other civilization – not only our future descendants – already ran ancestor simulations before our present. Without this assumption, we could imagine humanity as the first or only simulator, collapsing the trilemma into merely weak possibilities without force. Principle of Technological Uniformity However, I believe there’s an unstated intuition, yet another unrecognized assumption, behind Bostrom’s formulation. And that intuition, when identified and formally expressed as an assumption, fully addresses Eggleston’s criticism and maintains the force of the trilemma. I call that assumption the Principle of Technological Uniformity (PTU): “If a given technology is feasible, beneficial, and once achieved by a civilization, then, all else equal (barring radically unique physics or values), that technology probably has been or will be achieved by other civilizations operating within similar conditions.” PTU has at least three important characteristics. First, it provides rational grounds for supposing that becoming a simulator increases the probability that other simulators exist. Second, it reflects and extends many empirical precedents, including those broadly categorized as convergent evolution. Third, it maintains the strength of Bostrom’s trilemma, solving the problem that Eggleston identifies without appealing to exceptionalism. Philosophical Support PTU is grounded in the principle of mediocrity, or what people sometimes call the “Copernican” principle. As Copernicus removed from Earth the privilege of being the center of our conceptualization of the cosmos, so PTU would have us resist the temptation to privilege our human civilization uniquely in time or space or significance. Instead, given uncertainty and no evidence for our uniqueness, we should regard ourselves as typical. Human civilization on Earth is just one among many technological civilizations, subject to similar physics and incentives. PTU is related to the anthropic principle. When considering the possibility of others developing technology like us, we shouldn’t default to flattering assumptions that would make us exceptional. To the contrary, as we observe ourselves developing increasingly detailed simulations, that should raise our credence that others have developed similar technologies before us. PTU is a meta-induction about technology diffusion, similar to but distinct from the self-sampling assumption. Eggleston’s criticism hinges on the possibility that another civilization has already become a simulator. PTU invites us to assume this possibility has a significant probability, both for the philosophical reasons mentioned above, as well as empirical reasons shared below. We should assume that, where potential and incentive align, scientific discoveries and technological developments propagate, not deterministically, but frequently enough to warrant inductive reasoning from specific observations to generalizations. Empirical Support PTU is not merely a philosophical abstraction. Biological, cultural, and technological evolution are replete with convergence. Life and intelligence within similar constraints repeatedly arrive at similar solutions to similar problems. Biological examples abound. The camera eye, constructed from radically different biological materials, appears to have evolved independently in both cephalopods (ancestors of the octopus) and vertebrates (ancestors of humans). Powered flight apparently evolved independently in insects, birds, and bats, reflecting similar constraints in aerodynamics. Where an environment rewards a particular function, nature finds a way to achieve that function, often more than once. Cultural examples also abound. Agriculture seems to have begun independently on multiple continents, perhaps millennia apart. Writing systems appeared at disparate times in Sumer, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica with little to no evidence of direct transmission. Even intricate toolmaking...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Distorting Transhumanism at Meridian Magazine

    Distorting Transhumanism at Meridian Magazine
    2025/05/07
    Meridian Magazine positions itself as a publication for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination. I don’t know much about Meridian or the people behind it. But today I learned that they’re willing to publish a fear-mongering distortion of Transhumanism, “Human 2.0 Is Here – And You Didn’t Even Notice” by Alexis Tarkaleson. Despite their positioning, I wish to make make clear that such behavior is not aligned with the values that the Church advocates. Tarkaleson says “mind uploading” is an outlandish tale. What’s her take on tales of transfiguration and resurrection? Are those equally outlandish? Surely she’s aware that those doctrines require the possibility of mind (or spirit body) moving from one physical body to another, consistent with hypotheses of mind uploading. How about cryonics, yet another outlandish tale she identifies? I’m curious to know what she thinks about the Church’s advocacy to collect genealogy and preserve family history, with intent to facilitate redemption of the dead. And what about proxy rituals that we perform for the dead? Most of the world probably thinks the Church’s practices in these areas are at least as outlandish as those of cryonicists. What about “the god-like ‘posthuman’”? She says that’s outlandish too. Is she aware that Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church, claimed that God “was once a man like us” in his last general conference sermon? If Joseph was right, as I trust, that would literally make God a posthuman. If these Transhumanist ambitions are merely “crazy sci-fi,” as Tarkaleson suggests, then the doctrines of the Church are crazy religious fiction. You see, the biggest difference between these ambitions isn’t their audacity, which detractors would disparage as mere fiction. Rather, the biggest difference is the narrative esthetic in which these ambitions are commonly expressed. Esthetics do matter, but not so much that we should willfully distort common underlying functions. Tarkaleson echoes someone else’s professed concern with Transhumanism’s “obsession” with anti-aging and perfectionism. That seems hypocritical coming from a member of a Church, in whose buildings one can hear, just about any Sunday, that human immortality is part of the work and glory of God. But Tarkaleson has bigger concerns with Transhumanism, she says. She identifies those concerns as “gender ideology,” “reproductive technology,” “abandonment of religion and family,” and “diminishing value of human life and human relationships.” Let’s look at what she says. Gender Ideology First, Tarkaleson addresses gender ideology. And she starts by criticizing a strawman of the concept of morphological freedom. She characterizes it as “unlimited freedom to transform your body … on a whim,” while mentioning but not fully taking into account the fact that most Transhumanists actually would limit that freedom to be “so long as it does not harm others.” I wonder if she doesn’t like the doctrine of agency, as advocated by Mormon scripture and the Church? Whether we like it or not, morphological freedom is a kind of agency. Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists have given morphological freedom “the ultimate position of sacredness by placement in the Transhuman Bill of Rights.” As it turns out, Mormon scripture has done functionally the same thing with the doctrine of agency. Our scriptures even go so far as to claim that Satan “sought to destroy the agency that God had given to His children.” Whose side is she on? To emphasize her concern with gender ideology, Tarkaleson aims her criticisms at two prominent Transhumanists. One is Martine Rothblatt, who is transgender. And the other is Fereidoun M. Esfandiary (FM2030), who advocated for androgyny and asexuality. Such Transhumanists are, Tarkaleson correctly points out, natural allies with the transgender movement. Yet some Transhumanists have concerns with how some expressions of the transgender movement have harmed others, going beyond the limits of morphological freedom. Some of us think gender is a blessing rather than a curse, and more likely to extend into than disappear from our posthuman future. And some of us know that secular persons and values are hardly the oldest forerunners of Transhumanism, which can actually trace its history back through deeply religious proto-Transhumanists and beyond to ancient religious analogs of Transhumanism. Reproductive Technology Next, Tarkaleson addresses reproductive technology. Here, she starts with asserting that Transhumanism finds its roots in birth control and abortion. This claim is absurd to the point of being stunning. The best evidence she can muster is a quote from a non-Transhumanist advocate of artificial reproduction. Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists cry out, “More, more, more,” as society speeds ahead with unethical reproductive technology...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Marek Wójtowicz on the New God Argument

    Marek Wójtowicz on the New God Argument
    2025/05/01
    Philosopher Marek Wójtowicz recently published a paper in Roczniki Filozoficzne titled “ Lincoln Cannon’s Transhumanist Argument for Faith in God,” offering a formal critique of the New God Argument. While the paper identifies some valuable opportunities for elaboration, it also affirms key strengths of the argument and mischaracterizes others. This article summarizes Wójtowicz’s core analysis, shares my responses, and outlines directions for improving the New God Argument. Wójtowicz recognizes several merits of the New God Argument. He describes it as an “original manner” of approaching the question of God’s existence. And he highlights it as a “pioneering attempt to adapt transhumanist ideas to the format of research conducted within the realm of the philosophy of religion.” He also affirms the validity of the logical structure and the benefit of clearly identifying assumptions in advance. Wójtowicz offers an admirably thorough formal analysis of the logic of the New God Argument. But, in the second half of his paper and particularly toward the end, he misinterprets the assumptions and intent of the argument. Several clarifications are in order to set the record straight, in hope of advancing discussion constructively. Clarifications The New God Argument is prospective and empirical in the sense that its assumptions and conclusions lend themselves to experience-based verification or falsification, even if that experience belongs to future or non-human natural observers. This contrasts with classical arguments for God that rely solely on a priori reasoning. While Wójtowicz questions this empiricism, the distinction remains fundamental to the argument’s philosophical orientation – Pragmatic rather than Platonic. As part of its logical structure, the New God Argument employs disjunctions in the Compassion and Creation arguments. The disjunctions aren’t necessarily exclusive. The logic holds whether or not the disjuncts are mutually exclusive, and even if more than one disjunct is true. Wójtowicz’s concern about disjunctive ambiguity is thus formally irrelevant. Wójtowicz observes that the New God Argument depends on defining “probably” as a probability greater than 50%. This clarification is true, important, but not problematic. Consistent with Bayesian reasoning, the strength of the argument scales with how probable one finds its assumptions. For example, Nick Bostrom, whose Simulation Argument informs part of the New God Argument, uses similar references to probability. Wójtowicz also claims the argument becomes circular when it concludes that superhumanity is both our descendant and our creator. This is a misunderstanding of generational recursion. Just as humans can be both ancestors and descendants across time, superhumanity can exist before and after us in different instantiations. This does not entail logical contradiction. The New God Argument uses the term “God” to describe a superhumanity that is more compassionate than we are and that created our world. This concept is not a departure from religious tradition but rather an authentic characterization of the ancient doctrine of theosis, perpetuated today as exaltation in Mormonism and divinization in Catholicism, among others. This characterization also lends itself to integration of divine attributes with a naturalistic frame of reference. Opportunities Wójtowicz’s critique is most helpful in identifying where the New God Argument would benefit from further development. Definitions of words like “superhumanity,” “compassion,” and “creation” merit more elaboration. Such elaborations would emphasize observable behavior and technological capacities rather than inaccessible emotions or antinatural theological positions. I should frame the Faith Assumption, and the assumptions in the Compassion Argument and the Creation Argument, within greater emphasis of contemporary scientific and philosophical literature. That would include referencing Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument, as well as discourse in AI ethics, computational epistemology, and cosmic evolution. Embedding the New God Argument more deeply in existing literature would facilitate more productive deliberation. Logical transitions within the Compassion and Creation arguments merit more explanation. Wójtowicz shows the value of thoroughly analyzing the inferential logic. This would make the argument more accessible to both critics and advocates. And that, in turn, would help orient our shared focus toward more salient features of the New God Argument. I should explain recursive creation in more detail. Narrative accounts of ancestor simulation or evolutionary emulation could clarify how humanity may both originate from and lead to superhumanity. This would help dispel confusion about logical contradiction and highlight the plausibility of cyclical or branching cosmologies. Finally, I should consolidate and present, in ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Ordaining Priesthood for Resurrection

    Ordaining Priesthood for Resurrection
    2025/04/28
    Occasionally, I receive questions about the relationship between Mormon Transhumanism and priesthood. Generally, the questions come from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which we esteem priesthood as the authority of God. Implicit in the questions, or sometimes explicit, is concern that our esteem for priesthood would be rendered meaningless in a world where miraculous technology is generally available. Who needs a priest when an algorithm can raise the dead? Although I’ve responded to such questions in public interviews and private conversations, I’ve also been meaning to publish some thoughts in writing. Now seems like the perfect opportunity. Yesterday in conference, my stake (a group of local wards or congregations) voted to sustain me as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. And, despite what some assume about Transhumanists, I’m grateful for their expression of support. My Ordination A few weeks ago, my son Spencer approached me with a request that I ordain him as a high priest. His stake had called him to serve in a position that requires this ordination. Traditionally, when this need arises, the person to be ordained asks someone he knows, who is already a high priest and authorized by the stake, to perform the ordinance. Of course I was pleased that Spencer would ask me. But there was a problem. Decades ago, as a teenager, and at the invitation of the Church, I had been ordained successively as a deacon, teacher, and priest in the Aaronic priesthood, and then as an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. But I had never been ordained, nor invited to be ordained, as a high priest In this case, the Church wasn’t asking. But my son was asking. And I wanted to accept his invitation. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the Church? A passage of scripture came to mind. In the Pearl of Great Price, we read the following in the voice of Abraham ( chapter one, verses two through four ): “And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness⁠, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge⁠, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations⁠, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest⁠, holding the right belonging to the fathers. “It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn⁠, or the first man, who is Adam⁠, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.” Look how many times the text indicates that Abraham intentionally seeks for ordination as a high priest. “I sought for the blessings … and the right whereunto I should be ordained,” begins Abraham. He proceeds with several indirect expressions of desire for ordination. And closing, he says, “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood.” Encouraged by this passage of scripture, I reached out to the bishop of my local ward, as well as the president of my local stake. After explaining to them my son’s request, I asked. Would you please consider authorizing my ordination as a high priest, so that I may ordain my son? My bishop and stake president both warmly welcomed my request. And, subsequent to completing the requisite interviews, they authorized my ordination. Then I got to invite someone to perform the ordination. As a teenager, I had asked my father, Layne Cannon, to perform my previous priesthood ordinations. He had been ordained as a high priest. And I would have liked to ask him to perform this additional ordination. But he’s dead – for now. So I traveled to Spokane, Washington, where my maternal grandfather, James Plumb, lives. In his nineties, he’s my only living ancestor who has been ordained as a high priest. And he had happily accepted my invitation to ordain me. With my stake president as a witness via webcam, my grandfather and his son (my uncle, also named James Plumb, and also a high priest) performed my ordination. They placed their hands on my head. My grandfather spoke: “Lincoln Connelly Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.” He then proceeded to speak additional words, blessings, as he felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience. A few days after my return from Spokane, I visited an office in the building where my son attends Church services. His ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満