Neo-Tech

[Michael]

Anyone ever hear of Neo-Tech? I just happened to stumble across it and thought it sounded weird. I like the notion of using "Neo-Tech" as a means to defeat "neocheaters"? BUT, isn't this just simply using "rationality" in arguments with theists - like here on Sciforms?
What's so different about "neo-tech"?

Why the catch term?


Neo-Tech

Neo-Tech is held to be a "dynamic" form of Objectivism, in contrast to Ayn Rand's Objectivism which Wallace regards as being "static". Wallace sought, by developing Neo-Tech, to eliminate epistemological mysticism from the world. Wallace said he was driven by the desire for biological immortality. He believed that mysticism is an impediment to science and freedom and that if it is eliminated, economic freedom will prevail, technology will advance, and commercial biological immortality will be achieved. He maintained that this is possible in our lifetimes.

The idea of Neo-Tech was spawned by Wallace's studies in the cognitive aspects of poker, where he saw mysticism being an important part of the dynamics of poker games. His authored the book, Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts of Poker. In that book, he coins the term "neocheating" which is the manipulation of mysticism in others to gain income. Neo-Tech is supposed to be used as a defense against neocheaters in the real world.

 

[lightgigantic]

The term "biological immortality" sounds pretty mystical

Does neo-tech also work against mystical atheistic doctrines?

 

[Michael]

The term "biological immortality" sounds pretty mystical

Does neo-tech also work against mystical atheistic doctrines?

Actually THAT'S kind of what I thought. Biological immortality sounded odd and so I thought I'd post it to see if anyone knew anything about it. It's seemed L RonHubard-ish huh? Quite odd.

But, it should be noted however that while "immortality" (to me) is far fetched -increasing the biological life span isn't at all. We do it every year.

 

[everneo]

it is not mysticism that impedes science but nuts like ayn rand and neo-nuts like wallace are the ones that corrupt scientific minds.

 

[Sarkus]

Does neo-tech also work against mystical atheistic doctrines?

Such as?

 

[lightgigantic]

Such as?

whats the matter?
Didn't you read the OP?

 

[Sarkus]

whats the matter?
Didn't you read the OP?

You don't understand it - so it is obviously "mystical".
It doesn't involve God - so it is obviously "atheist".
Someone has put it forward as an idea - so it is obviously "doctrine".

Now I understand.
How foolish of me.


Now, where are the other "mystical atheistic doctrines" you claim exist?
But wait - if they're only going to be non-theistic studies and theories that you don't understand - I guess we're talking about most things.
How about studies on evolution - do they count?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

You don't understand it - so it is obviously "mystical".

I would have chosen the word "oxymoron" but since the OP was in the theme of deconstructing mysticism I thougt I would stick with that

It doesn't involve God - so it is obviously "atheist".

Well if you read the OP it's not merely dealing with things that could exist with or without god - it is establishing ideas to launch an assault on the idea of god - sounds like atheism to me .......

Someone has put it forward as an idea - so it is obviously "doctrine".

doctrine is also a word applied to political manouvers (strutting around for the control of power) - since they just have tentative ideas and an absence of evidence, and have their eyes on the big slice of pie, it sounds like a doctrine to me ......

Now, where are the other "mystical atheistic doctrines" you claim exist?

I am sure you could offer a few

But wait - if they're only going to be non-theistic studies and theories that you don't understand - I guess we're talking about most things.

I think thats the point - theories are just that - theories - why are they required to be dressed up as something else?

How about studies on evolution - do they count?

If you have evidence (distinct from theories) of the following in regards to abiogenesis it would be a start

1) The hypothetical atmosphere was either reducing or neutral
2) Simple molecules like amino acids, purines, sugars etc were formed in this atmosphere via ultraviolet radiation, electrical discharges. thermal activity etc etc
3) In the course of time these molecules gave rise to protoproteins, protonucleic acids, etc which in turn gave us the living cell

hope its not too non-non-theistic for you

 

[baumgarten]

Anyone ever hear of Neo-Tech? I just happened to stumble across it and thought it sounded weird. I like the notion of using "Neo-Tech" as a means to defeat "neocheaters"? BUT, isn't this just simply using "rationality" in arguments with theists - like here on Sciforms?
What's so different about "neo-tech"?

Why the catch term?


Neo-Tech

Neo-Tech is held to be a "dynamic" form of Objectivism, in contrast to Ayn Rand's Objectivism which Wallace regards as being "static". Wallace sought, by developing Neo-Tech, to eliminate epistemological mysticism from the world. Wallace said he was driven by the desire for biological immortality. He believed that mysticism is an impediment to science and freedom and that if it is eliminated, economic freedom will prevail, technology will advance, and commercial biological immortality will be achieved. He maintained that this is possible in our lifetimes.

The idea of Neo-Tech was spawned by Wallace's studies in the cognitive aspects of poker, where he saw mysticism being an important part of the dynamics of poker games. His authored the book, Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts of Poker. In that book, he coins the term "neocheating" which is the manipulation of mysticism in others to gain income. Neo-Tech is supposed to be used as a defense against neocheaters in the real world.

Sounds like a combination of objectivism and transhumanism (my two "favorite" philosophies!) to me. He probably invented the buzzwords so that he can become rich and popular. He's going to die anyway.

 

[Michael]

Sounds like a combination of objectivism and transhumanism (my two "favorite" philosophies!) to me. He probably invented the buzzwords so that he can become rich and popular. He's going to die anyway.

Sorry about this but: "objectivism" ... "transhumanism"? Could you explain in a really easy to understand manner

Thanks!

 

[Zephyr]

If you look up 'neotech' on wikipedia it sounds like they're mostly interested in making money.

 

[baumgarten]

Sorry about this but: "objectivism" ... "transhumanism"? Could you explain in a really easy to understand manner

I will explain briefly. I'm not sure I can make it really easy to understand, but I can try.

Objectivism: Ayn Rand's philosophy. There are tons of resources on this, from her books (try to get through Anthem or Atlas Shrugged) to encyclopedic resources (Wikipedia, plato.stanford.edu might have something...) to the home page of the Ayn Rand institute: http://www.aynrand.org

It claims to be a synoptic school of thought, but its metaphysics are not really metaphysics, and anyway they seem to conflict with its own epistemology. On the one hand, objectivist metaphysics assert the authority of an external physical reality in matters of truth over one's inner world of thoughts and feelings; whereas objectivist epistemology claims that the only means to reaching the truth is through reason, suggesting that logic, a component of the inner (or perhaps ethereal) world, is the authority, not physical reality, no matter how impartially the latter is observed.

Objectivism's ethical and political stances are essentially those of Adam Smith. True to form, empirical knowledge of the exploitation that occurs in purely capitalistic systems is discarded in favor of an evidently flawed theoretical rationale for supporting laissez-faire economic policy. All in all, Objectivism does not strike me as very objective. But what's in a name?

Transhumanism: the belief that technology will allow Homo sapiens to transcend their biology. Through genetic engineering and bionics, we can achieve effective immortality. Probably the most well-known proponent of Transhumanism today is Raymond Kurzweil. Initially famous for building the first synthesizer to convincingly emulate the sound of a piano, he has now made himself into a self-proclaimed expert on technology and society. His claim is that the rate of technological breakthroughs is increasing exponentially, and by the year 2040 this rate will be infinite. As such, we will have an unimaginable amount of technological ability, allowing us to modify the human physiology at will, or get rid of it altogether if we wish. Psychological or economic obstacles to such a goal are unaddressed, not to mention the justification itself for his theory: what exactly constitutes a "technological breakthrough," anyway? Seems a rather subjective measurement to take, especially if it is supposed to underpin a scientific theory.

Kurzweil and the transhumanists also believe that at this "technological singularity" or some time before it, we will create sentient machines that will eventually become superior to us in every way, "obsoleting" the human species (the same way that the dinosaurs "obsoleted" cockroaches?).

There is a more damning overview of the whole thing here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/27/bbc_horizon/

Of objectivism and transhumanism, I hope you understand why I don't like the former and absolutely despise the latter. Surely this colors my analysis of each, but don't let that stop you if you're interested. Cris will probably have something positive to say about transhumanism in this thread, anyway, and Godless will probably try to defend objectivism (though he may just launch a salvo of vulgarities at me).