Religion and The Human Adventure.

Cris

In search of Immortality
Valued Senior Member
Religion and the Human Adventure In Perspective.

These are a few personal views and projections of where I see humans evolving and where religion will go. It is a departure from the usual religious debates and an opportunity to consider a wider picture of humanity and our long term future.

Death.

People die; you’ve probably noticed, and we don’t seem to have much choice in the matter, but then most things we call life die on this planet. Some say this is natural, but not all things die, at least not from aging. Bacteria doesn’t die unless it is starved, theoretically bacteria that began life some 4 billion years ago might still be alive now if it has found sufficient nutrients. And there are giant trees in South America that are over 3000 years old. And there is a particular cactus that also doesn’t age. So there seems to be exceptions to the alleged natural order of death.

Promises Promises.

A common link between all the major religions is that they promise life after death. It is curious that not much else is found in common. It has been noted that if there was only one true god and he had revealed himself to all the peoples of the world then all religions would look the same. But we don’t find that. What we find is that death of course seems to be universal and every religion promises a solution. In fact life after death is the major ingredient in all major religions. The promise is of immortality and paradise, at least for the theist types, and a permanent cycle of life and death and enlightenment for the Buddhist types.

The End of Religion.

If we didn’t die what would happen to religion? It is the life after death where we are generally punished, either through a hell scenario or a less than nice reincarnation. But while we are alive is there any real punishment? Not really. If death by aging and disease are resolved then what type of punishment would be effective? I don’t see anything, boredom perhaps? So if we were to solve the death issue then I strongly suspect that religions would fade away pretty quickly since gods don’t seem to exert themselves by using earthly punishment and hence there would be nothing to fear.

Immortal Life.

So can we solve the problem of death and if we do what then do we do with our lives?

Assume for the moment that we become immortal, and I’ll describe how that is not so unlikely in a moment. Why would this be good? We are so conditioned to the idea that we only live a few decades and are so busy surviving that we never have a chance to think of much else. But there are aspects to the universe that need long lived entities. We are but a tiny insignificant speck of a planet in an insignificant part of the universe that is unimaginably vast. How do we set about exploring what must be a fabulous set of diverse planets, star systems and nebulae, and perhaps other life?

How Far can we go.

Interstellar travel is going to take time. Dreams of warp drives and wormholes give the best solutions to how short lived humans could move around a vast galaxy, but these are fantasies designed to overcome the limitations of our short lives. While technology is likely to generate faster engines it also seems likely that there will be practical limits set by the laws of physics and we must accept those. Common sense indicates that we are likely doomed to wait long periods of many years while journeying between the stars, and between galaxies. This is all pretty much hopeless while we are short lived. There is cryogenics of course. But I have been reminded many times that reaching a destination is not always the only goal of a journey, the enjoyment of the journey often plays a major part if not the best part of life.

Where can we go.

But what types of places can we visit and live once we survive such long journeys of perhaps hundreds or thousands of years. Our biological bodies are uniquely suited to the environment in which we evolved and they are dependent on certain gases and nutrients, the gravity and the rotation of the Earth that has resulted in our inconvenient awake/sleep cycles. Evidence suggests that most planets are not going to have these ideal characteristics. This will severely limit the places where we could live and visit in comfort. But I doubt this will ever be an issue since realistically there seems little likelihood of our continuing to retain our biological bodies for much longer.

Biological Limitations.

Genetic engineering, anti-aging research, etc are all great things, and all point to the likelihood of increasing the quality of our life and our life spans. But while we will be able to genetically alter ourselves over time to have greater and improved abilities there will be practical limits on how fast such progress can be made. Evolution took millions of years to produce us in our current form and while we can now intelligently direct our future biological evolution it will still take time. For example; to increase our intelligence will almost certainly involve an increase in brain size and hence skull size. But this will take generations to perfect and develop. That’s fine and perhaps there is no need to rush. But improving our fragile biological bodies still leaves us with fragile bodies dependent on an environment in which we evolved. If we want to break into the next frontier in earnest then we need to seriously consider alternatives to our biological formats.

Technology Solutions.

Computing power has been doubling approximately every 18 months since the 1940s. In the 1950s there was a great deal of excitement over the potential of creating computer based artificial intelligence. It never happened because those early pioneers massively underestimated the computer power required plus the complexity of the software required. But the excitement is beginning to grow again and there is every sign that over-optimism won’t happen this time. There seems little doubt that computing power in terms of raw cycle rates will match and exceed the human brain in the next few years. AI software development is lagging but that is likely to change once the early learning seeds are perfected. The growth rate will then be exponential and will vastly outpace any biological genetic engineering approaches to increased intelligence.

But what happens when we have machines that have equal and greater intelligence than humans? There are two major expectations. (1) The machines will find ways to take control and if they are benevolent then we as biological humans are likely to live in some degree of increased luxury. If they are not so nice and see us as a threat then we will simply cease to exist. (2) We learn to adapt ourselves to use the same technology as the machines and compete with them on an equal basis. It is this last approach that we should recognize as our best hope for survival and a way to rid ourselves of our fragile biological bodies and a way to achieve effective immortality.

The next Stage in Human Evolution.

The transition from bio forms to artificial forms enables us to separate ourselves from a dependency on Earthlike environments, e.g. no need for bio food, drink, defecation, oxygen, or special gravity, no need to sleep, etc. We become free to live on almost any type of planet and otherwise hostile environments, to travel at speeds and accelerations far beyond what bio beings could endure, to live in high or low gravity environments with no long term side effects, to experience senses like a wider band of the electromagnetic spectrum, to experience ultra sound, and other enhancements impossible or difficult while we were biological.

Where next.

I suspect that the universe is going to offer us fabulous opportunities for adventure and exploration that will far exceed anything that a religious like heaven could ever offer. Our artificial brains will continue to be upgraded and enhanced and take us to levels of intelligence far beyond what we can currently imagine. If we are currently made in God’s image then I feel sorry for God because we have the potential of being so much more and unrecognizable compared to what we are now.

The fantasies of religion are primitive, short sighted, and severely limited. Humans are capable of so much more.
 
Issue of focus

Is it conquering death itself, or conquering fear of death? This question will have to be addressed at some point by those seeking to conquer death itself. For does not the fight against death itself stem from fear of death?

The presumption there is that death is something that should be conquered. Perhaps this is so. But there are many who view death, like birth, as a natural stage of life, and the conquering of death would equal a transformation of the species. We would, by the metaphysical at least cease to be "human". We can call the species anything we want, but just as fortune or security or love have varying meanings, so does the idea of being human.

I think of the miserable wretch whose name escapes me hopping around the Universe in one of the books of the Hitchhiker's trilogy (the same one where Ford and Arthur land amid a cricket match).

Consider that the religion of Conquering Death will be replaced, should it attain its seemingly objective goal, with the religion of Escaping Confines. In that sense, the early mind uploads will merely be a technological starting point for a full abandonment of body and confines. When "humanity" can exist in the Universe as only an intentionally-organized energy field capable of any potential state, I can imagine humans giving up religion altogether.

What, other than a natural part of life, do we give up when we conquer death?

Objectively speaking, the soul does not appear to exist, and thus the human self is all we have. What happens to religious ideology in general when we artificially create the eternal soul?

Thought will be the only important thing, and while that seems attractive to a certain degree ... can we say with any objective assurance how the human conscience will behave when it no longer deals with the common associations of the mortal shell?

At any rate, I'll give it some more thought.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Cris,
You speak of conquering death and suggest getting rid of our biological component. With this you are suggesting that our biological component is lowly and unnecessary, then may you describe the real essence of us that you seek to preserve. And how do you capture our essence?

Here is a scenario to think about.......If we place your body currently in a small tight room that allows nothing to escape including magnetic fields and we kill you and allow your body to decompose completely into it's simplest components, then do you suggest that the room have captured your essence inside of it and that your essence is trapped in the room????
 
Flores,

You speak of conquering death and suggest getting rid of our biological component.
Yes exactly.

With this you are suggesting that our biological component is lowly and unnecessary, then may you describe the real essence of us that you seek to preserve. And how do you capture our essence?
It is not that our bodies are lowly or unnecessary but that they are inferior to what we could do. Essence is not quite the correct word but I’ll explain that in a moment.

Here is a scenario to think about.......If we place your body currently in a small tight room that allows nothing to escape including magnetic fields and we kill you and allow your body to decompose completely into it's simplest components, then do you suggest that the room have captured your essence inside of it and that your essence is trapped in the room????
No, you will be dead, there is no ‘essence’, you are entirely physical and you need a physical substrate to survive.

What makes you unique are your specific patterns of neuronal connections held within your brain and which have been changing and growing throughout your life. No two people have identical experiences and each experience generates its own patterns in your brain. If any of those patterns are irretrievably damaged through accident or disease then part of you will also be permanently lost.

If we could remove every part of your body but manage to record the exact set of neuronal connections then we would have preserved your ‘essence’. For you to be re-animated we would need to provide another substrate that can process your patterns in the same way as the original biological brain. The technological approach at present is to use a massively parallel processing computer, and your neuronal patterns would be held as digital data. Digitizing your patterns would require a very high definition scan of your original brain. The entire process is known as mind-uploading and the Mind Uploading Research Group (MURG) is a group of international scientists distributed around the world all working in different universities and research institutes in related fields.
 
Tiassa,

Many thanks for your comments. You briefly touch on a number of very profound issues that I expect will have far-reaching consequences.

Is it conquering death itself, or conquering fear of death? This question will have to be addressed at some point by those seeking to conquer death itself. For does not the fight against death itself stem from fear of death?
It is that thought that has led me to state many times why I see religion as being one of the greatest evils mankind has ever produced because it dulls the mind to the fear of death and replaces it with a fatalistic acceptance that death is unavoidable and then persuades its victims that it is not important anyway since your soul will survive death and heaven will be much better than physical life. The human mindset for short life and death has been firmly established and to break out of that mold and see that it isn’t inevitable will likely be a major trauma for most people and humankind in general.

The presumption there is that death is something that should be conquered. Perhaps this is so. But there are many who view death, like birth, as a natural stage of life, and the conquering of death would equal a transformation of the species. We would, by the metaphysical at least cease to be "human". We can call the species anything we want, but just as fortune or security or love have varying meanings, so does the idea of being human.
Again isn’t the perspective that death is basic and acceptable is simply because no one has been able to see a solution, or to even consider a solution is possible? But it doesn’t have to be inevitable, very simple bacteria doesn’t die. Aging is a disease to be cured like any other disease. Take a look at anti-aging research; the terminology they use is disease. Aging and death are simply very severe limitations of a fragile biological format.

I think of the miserable wretch whose name escapes me hopping around the Universe in one of the books of the Hitchhiker's trilogy (the same one where Ford and Arthur land amid a cricket match).
Yup I can’t remember it either.

Consider that the religion of Conquering Death will be replaced, should it attain its seemingly objective goal, with the religion of Escaping Confines.
I think you just haven’t thought enough about having a limitless lifespan yet. When you have had time to let it sink in then I would suspect that the idea of not resolving the death issue will become ludicrous. But remember that religions like, Christianity have been peddling immortality since inception. Why aren’t people concerned about escaping the confines of an eternity in heaven?

Consider also that resolving the death problem is very much a beginning. Technology is still in its infancy and many more significant changes are very likely. Escaping confines is not likely to be an issue; the question will be what I shall try next. I doubt staleness will surface for a long time.

In that sense, the early mind uploads will merely be a technological starting point for a full abandonment of body and confines.
Perhaps. I suspect a virtual reality will very likely be a common choice. We would have the choice.

When "humanity" can exist in the Universe as only an intentionally-organized energy field capable of any potential state, I can imagine humans giving up religion altogether.
Only then? Are you sure? Once uploading becomes demonstrable or even when AI becomes a reality, then won’t the issue of ‘soul’ surface in a somewhat dramatic manner? If AIs become clearly superior to man, emotionally and IQ, then what does it mean for man to be the superior product of God? And if uploads do operate perfectly and clearly no souls will be uploaded then won’t that basic element of most religions be seriously questioned? I suspect religions will become sidelined and become significantly irrelevant very quickly. My major concern is how much their current political might (especially in the USA) will block development of AI and MU.

What, other than a natural part of life, do we give up when we conquer death?
But death isn’t a natural part of life, it is the end of life. But did you have anything in mind?

Objectively speaking, the soul does not appear to exist, and thus the human self is all we have. What happens to religious ideology in general when we artificially create the eternal soul?
I think that is my point. Does it have anywhere to go apart from just fading away?

Thought will be the only important thing, and while that seems attractive to a certain degree ... can we say with any objective assurance how the human conscience will behave when it no longer deals with the common associations of the mortal shell?
But I hope you are including emotions as well in your category of thought, since they still form an important part of being human. Although I wonder what we would be like if we could optionally eliminate or significantly control emotions.

But your new seemingly immortal self will still be dependent on technology for maintaining your unique patterns. Energy will be required and accidents could still occur where your pattern could be lost or destroyed. There would likely always remain an element of mortality, and danger, and where suicide would continue to be an option.

At any rate, I'll give it some more thought.
Good, since I think there are significant avenues of discussion here that are not obvious to many, yet.
 
Cris,

I had a strange dream yesterday that i was hopping around the universe as an intentionally-organized energy field capable of any potential state after shedding my biological body 1 billion years ago and shedding completely my robo-sapien body and its confines 200 years after that. I woke up from that dream when i was about to be sucked by a blackhole when i tried to escape from another energy field that was much more powerful and trying to destroy me for the past 300 million years and succeeded in destroying all my back-up self(s).

I wish i have such efficiency Tiassa has to pull the rag gently and nicely.

:D

BTW, Cris, let me remember a discussion on mind uploading few months ago. that was really thought stimulating if not soul stirring.:m:
 
Last edited:
Excellent thread, as always, <b>Cris</b>.

While I was in Japan, I ran across a simple explanation on the ultimate goal of reincarnation: absorption of the self into the whole. The analogy given was that a man's soul was a drop, which added to the collective of the ocean. With Buddhism, individualism appeared to be the antithesis to religious zen; the only way to truly be evolved was to become one with the entire.

Though I think that the idea of MU is quite exciting, I have to wonder if, in the end, what would really happen is loss of identity.

I believe it was in <i>The Naked God</i> by Peter F Hamilton, where the author presented an idea that the Edenists eventually uploaded their minds (experiences, emotions, etc.) into a collective. The collective, in turn, had a functioning council to deal with the nearly departed, as well as rules and regulations as to what could be done. In effect, confines.

For me, MU would be man's version of heaven, but with far more liberal constraints. But there would be constraints nonetheless. I wouldn't be against the idea by any means. And I guess it's rather obvious to understand that there will be constraints regarding anything one attempts.

But to get back to my original point: what kind of environment do you envision the MU to be? Will it be governed by a central tenet of personalities (AI, Human, Both)? Or is it something more individual? As in, perhaps people will individually be able to upload their minds into a specific subset/body? Will it be a place where the exchange of ideas comes freely, or will there still be differing sects to contend with?

Again, thanks.

prag
 
Cris,

It is interesting that you chose to post this thread in the religion forum.

My personal impression of many brands of transhumanism is that to the ardent promoters it is itself a kind of religion. Followers have the utmost faith that we will solve the problem of death and become immortal - hopefully soon enough for the proponents of transhumanism to become the first immortal people.

It's heady stuff, but how realistic is it really? It's all very well to talk about uploading your brain into a computer, but as yet nobody has the foggiest idea of whether such a thing is possible, or whether it is really likely to become possible in the future. The human brain is an incredibly complex piece of equipment, and we don't even know how much information would be sufficient to "encode" a brain yet. It is even possible that quantum processes are important in the brain, so we might need quantum computers to truly store a personality.

Transhumanists tend to gloss over all the details and not worry about how their goal will finally be achieved. Instead, many of them simply have an abiding faith that somehow it will be done, and then we'll all have effectively magical powers beyond our wildest dreams. This kind of hubris is very familiar among the devout of all faiths.

I'm not saying that transhumanism will never happen (remember Clarke's laws). But I fear that, at present, transhumanism is just another New Age religion attractive to those who fool themselves into thinking they are above such things.
 
James,

It is interesting that you chose to post this thread in the religion forum.
For an enormous number of people in the world religion offers a hope of something more than a short life and then death. I am convinced that religion will continue to thrive until people are presented with realistic alternatives that give them a more positive hope for their futures.

My personal impression of many brands of transhumanism is that to the ardent promoters it is itself a kind of religion.
But is it the same? Aren’t hope and optimism also very positive factors? In the past 100 years we have seen massive evidence that shows how science and technology can solve many issues, why not then apply these new found techniques to solving the real problem of life, i.e. death?

Followers have the utmost faith that we will solve the problem of death and become immortal - hopefully soon enough for the proponents of transhumanism to become the first immortal people.
I think your use of the term faith, if used in the religious sense is a poor selection. Science and technology shows enormous promise of solving just this problem. That to me indicates genuine evidence and justification for the hope that we might well cheat death. But I don’t think most transhumanists suffer from the delusion that the problem is solved, unlike true religionists, who ‘know’ they will be saved. The term ‘hope’ here is far more appropriate than ‘blind faith’ used by real religionists.

Perhaps for the first time in human history there is genuine enthusiasm for a real solution that will displace religion as the primary solution to the death problem. It is perhaps unfortunate that you can mistake such enthusiasm for religious fanaticism.

It's heady stuff, but how realistic is it really? It's all very well to talk about uploading your brain into a computer, but as yet nobody has the foggiest idea of whether such a thing is possible, or whether it is really likely to become possible in the future.
Perhaps you need to look more closely at AI and MURG research since those involved see the issues as being more about challenges to be resolved rather than a question of possibility. But MU is not the whole or most of transhumanism, the movement includes all forms of genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and other technological advancements that show potential opportunities for improving the human condition.

The human brain is an incredibly complex piece of equipment, and we don't even know how much information would be sufficient to "encode" a brain yet.
Is it really an issue of complexity or just size? The neuron is one of the most varied types of cell in the human physiology but its operation is not too complex in its own right. I think the appearance of complexity comes from the vast number of them, approximately 200 billion, and their even greater number of interconnections. It is more meaningful to think of each neuron as a computer in its own right and the brain as a super Internet of interconnected computers.

I wonder how long it would take a group of scientists from 1850, if brought ahead in time, to reverse engineer the Internet without any help from modern scientists or technologists.

It is even possible that quantum processes are important in the brain, so we might need quantum computers to truly store a personality.
Perhaps, although I think neural networks operate at a far more gross level and several orders of magnitude above the level of such processes. But if your concern is true then isn’t that still just a matter of developing a solution rather than a real blockage?

Transhumanists tend to gloss over all the details and not worry about how their goal will finally be achieved.
Aren’t you making the error of grouping all transhumanists with identical capabilities. Many are actively working on practical solutions in AI, computing, genetics, neuroscience etc. while for sure the vast majority can only comprehend the concept and do not have the skills to transform the idea into a reality. But that is the reality of life, where a large number depend on the efforts of a brilliant and skillful few. But you imply that that is a problem, why?

Instead, many of them simply have an abiding faith that somehow it will be done, and then we'll all have effectively magical powers beyond our wildest dreams. This kind of hubris is very familiar among the devout of all faiths.
I think you are overly and erroneously emphasizing the comparison between the baseless concept of the supernatural with the proven successes of science and technology. Isn’t the essential difference that religionists believe they know they have found a solution but that transhumanists hope that a solution is imminent based n the evidence of past successes in science and technology? Isn’t the difference massive and critical?

I'm not saying that transhumanism will never happen (remember Clarke's laws). But I fear that, at present, transhumanism is just another New Age religion attractive to those who fool themselves into thinking they are above such things.
Transumanisn is real with a very rapidly growing following. And posthumanism is already beginning with genetic manipulation, and technological implants, e.g. artificial hearts, etc., and now more recently a direct brain implant to allow the blind to see.

While there might appear to be an emotional fervor much like religion there is a critical difference in that religion, including New Age, has nothing more to offer than emotionalism, whereas with transhumanism we see new scientific and technological progress on a daily basis. I.e. there is real fuel for the transhumanist enthusiasm whereas religions are stale and have not progressed for thousands of years.
 
Cris:

<i>Aren’t hope and optimism also very positive factors? In the past 100 years we have seen massive evidence that shows how science and technology can solve many issues, why not then apply these new found techniques to solving the real problem of life, i.e. death?</i>

We're already doing that. But in my opinion, chances are that the solution to the problem of death is not going to come out of a targetted research project. It is much more likely to be a by-product of medical research - even a serendipitous discovery.

<i>I think your use of the term faith, if used in the religious sense is a poor selection. Science and technology shows enormous promise of solving just this problem. That to me indicates genuine evidence and justification for the hope that we might well cheat death.</i>

I'm not saying science won't ever solve the problem. I'm just saying that I think the transhumanists are overly optimistic about how soon it is likely to happen. As far as evidence is concerned, I don't think there is any real evidence of progress towards extending the human lifespan at the present time. Increases in average lifespan over the last hundred years have been entirely due to better health and nutrition.

<i>Perhaps for the first time in human history there is genuine enthusiasm for a real solution that will displace religion as the primary solution to the death problem. It is perhaps unfortunate that you can mistake such enthusiasm for religious fanaticism.</i>

I think there is a fine line between hope and religious fanaticism. Frankly, some transhumanists have crossed that line.

<i>Perhaps you need to look more closely at AI and MURG research since those involved see the issues as being more about challenges to be resolved rather than a question of possibility.</i>

Again, I think the transhumanists are too optimistic about how soon the problems will be solved. AI has turned out to be much more difficult than anybody thought it would be. And so has the human brain.

<i>But MU is not the whole or most of transhumanism, the movement includes all forms of genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and other technological advancements that show potential opportunities for improving the human condition.</i>

Genetics is in its infancy, as is nanotechnology. Yes, they are very promising areas of research, but a lot of the hype which surrounds them is based more on wishful thinking than solid science.

<i>Is it really an issue of complexity or just size [to encode a brain]? The neuron is one of the most varied types of cell in the human physiology but its operation is not too complex in its own right. I think the appearance of complexity comes from the vast number of them, approximately 200 billion, and their even greater number of interconnections. It is more meaningful to think of each neuron as a computer in its own right and the brain as a super Internet of interconnected computers.</i>

Nobody really knows yet whether size alone is the issue or not. We just don't know enough yet.

<i>Aren’t you making the error of grouping all transhumanists with identical capabilities.</i>

Not an error. I am generalising, of course. Not all transhumanists can be put in the same basket - just as not all theists can be put in the same basket. Some have much more grounded beliefs than others. I guess I'm talking about my conception of the "average" transhumanist, much as you might talk about an average theist.

<i>Many are actively working on practical solutions in AI, computing, genetics, neuroscience etc. while for sure the vast majority can only comprehend the concept and do not have the skills to transform the idea into a reality. But that is the reality of life, where a large number depend on the efforts of a brilliant and skillful few. But you imply that that is a problem, why?</i>

As I said, I think that for many hope springs eternal. But wishing doesn't make it so. This is common to other religions, too; I'm drawing a parallel here.

<i>I think you are overly and erroneously emphasizing the comparison between the baseless concept of the supernatural with the proven successes of science and technology. Isn’t the essential difference that religionists believe they know they have found a solution but that transhumanists hope that a solution is imminent based n the evidence of past successes in science and technology? Isn’t the difference massive and critical?</i>

I think the line is harder to draw. The science and technology the transhumanists base their hopes on does not yet exist. The fact that science has solved other problems does not necessarily mean it will solve this problem. It is a matter of faith. Transhumanists believe there will be a solution, whereas standard relgions believe the solution already exists. It is a relatively minor difference.

<i>Transumanisn is real with a very rapidly growing following.</i>

So is Christianity. :)

<i>And posthumanism is already beginning with genetic manipulation, and technological implants, e.g. artificial hearts, etc., and now more recently a direct brain implant to allow the blind to see.</i>

Not everybody sees these things as the beginnings of posthumanism.
 
Without the fear of death live would be distinctly more pleasant. I am constantly trying to push myself to do many things at once in the 75 years I am allocated. I skirt away from pleasures and rest because it would take too much time. If only I didn't have to worry about that occursed limit.
 
Back
Top