Editor's Blog
The Greek notion of “hubris” is rooted in the religious idea that humans shouldn’t transgress the “presumption of the gods.” In Greek mythology, hubris was represented by Prometheus, “the bringer of light.” Greek mythology blames Prometheus for bringing science, mathematics, medicine and general productivity into the world. To the Greeks, Prometheus was their greatest sinner. In Western Christian mythology, Lucifer (“light bringer”) most closely resembles Prometheus.
The revolution in human thinking that was the Enlightenment partially overthrew the notion that knowledge and productivity should be controlled by authorities acting on behalf of a God that held these things suspect. Of course, in reality, the Enlightenment’s embrace of scientific and technological advances has been engaged in a tug of war with opponents clinging to a fundamentalist, religious suspicion of these things. The ambiguous social and environmental effects of technological civilization have added a third stream of discourse – people who are essentially secular rationalists who find, to varying degrees, some types of knowledge and technology at best suspect and sometimes worth opposing. These social critics of the technological exuberance of modern day Prometheans will likely warn against human “arrogance” as opposed to hubris.
While I have long been a supporter of radical technological change, I see a tendency towards arrogance (and not in a good way) in some aspects of transhumanist culture and as expressed by some (but not all) transhumanist narratives. Broadly speaking, I would say that a faith in God (or gods) which cannot be substantiated has been supplanted by a similar faith in the human brain, its perceptions and the measurements of the instruments those brains devise.
In some ways, this faith in the brain seems directly reflective of a faith in God. If our brains — or the combination of our brains with our bodies and the environment — are a biological accident, an emergent property of a set of patterns that have survived and spread according to Darwinian principles, from whence comes the assumption that these brains can possess anything more than a fragmentary comprehension of reality or existence? I would say, obviously, it comes from an unexamined faith that there is something particularly “blessed” about human thought, even if this goodness or completeness isn’t provided by a benevolent deity.
Well, anything is possible. Because I don’t put my faith in the equipment that I was born into (nor in yours), I prefer to call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. It’s a linguistic quibble since both atheists and agnostics agree that there is no proof of a God. But really, we all know that an avowed atheist, using reason as a weapon, will hunt down and annihilate any implication that a God is likely. For me, it’s a coin flip. Unknowable is unknowable, period. In fact, rather than putting the possibilities at 50/50, I would put them at 33/33/33. There is or isn’t something that we would call God if we could understand it, or if we could understand everything about existence, we would know that it’s a silly question. Some things may fall outside our language and our logic. Reality, for example.
In a recent essay for H+ Magazine inspired by the film “Transcendent Man,” I wrote, “One of the few things that disturbs me about (Ray) Kurzweil’s theories (and desires) is the notion that we should ‘illuminate’ the entire universe with what we — or the minds that we create — presume to call intelligence.” Several commentators couldn’t imagine why I would find this idea unattractive. It’s not so much the content of the comments that interests me as the “I can’t imagine why” part of it. While I hate this cliché, it does seem to be indicative of a tendency within some transhumanist and Singularitarian circles to be unable to “think (or step) outside the box.” In this case, the box is human reasoning and measurement — a process that rests on the presumably accidental biological equipment located in the human head.
At a recent showing of “Transcendent Man” in San Francisco, Kurzweil was asked about the possibility of the existence of other intelligent beings around the universe. He rejected the notion on the basis that if such intelligences did exist, at least one of them would have gotten smart enough to fill the galaxy with computation and intelligence. Here we have the assumption not only that all intelligence would be biological, but that it would enact Kurzweil’s storyline right up to the grand finale (not to mention the assumption that the universe is not already filled with intelligence and/or computation.)
Of course, this idea of colonizing the universe in our own image comes from a desire to place ourselves back at the center of things, something the great astronomer Copernicus took away from the scientific-minded among us back in the 16th century. But will we — with unimaginably amplified intelligence — still feel the desire or need or compulsion to do this? Is there something so unambiguously wonderful about intelligence and sentience as we know and experience it that we will feel compelled to spread it everywhere?
Maybe. But for the moment, we find manifest a perverse type of faith — a type of certainty — emanating from people who are predicting a plunge into an event horizon, the major characterization of which is supposed to be it’s unknowability, or at least its radical divergence from what we can now understand.
It’s my hope that, if and when we do enter into or produce a radically distinct type of intelligence, that intelligence will be self-aware enough to recognize that all it perceives is based on the abilities and biases built into its hardware and software and not on the way things actually, ultimately, are.
In the meantime, all I can do is hope that the very suggestion that people should question the authority of their perceptual apparatus might be novel enough to infect a few readers here, because uncertainty is the mother of novel perceptions.
Sign up for the Humanity+ newsletter:
29 Comments
I think the futurist John Smart has a alternative to the universe colonizing path. He calls it something like “Inner Space”, I’m sorry I don’t remember the whole argument. I remember something about harvesting power from black holes (even inside black holes, I think), because black holes are one of the highest energy density areas in the universe.
But I still like Kurzweil’s idea, but then again that just my current modeling of subjective reality talking (see what I did there).
Great article, it strikes me that you have summed up a major shortcoming of a majority of humanity if you were to preface one sentence from your article in this way; For the most part humanity is not “self-aware enough to recognize that all it perceives is based on the abilities and biases built into its hardware and software and not on the way things actually, ultimately, are.”
i feel like its not good marketing this universe awakening theory, cause all newcomers to the idea would laugh (or is it good marketing ?) ;
As an atheist I reject the concept of a ‘Mystic’ God, especially as described in holy books and classical religions that wants (or demands) the worship of humans. I do not however discard the possibility of superintelligent ‘Powers’ that operate in accord to the fundamental laws of reality/nature(as they really are, not our current definitions of them), and such a Power I assume doesn’t care about my existence and even less so about any beliefs I hold.
As for the Kurtzweilian computational universe I’ve never really understood why we or anyone else would insist on converting everything to computational matter, given that such a conversion would be to a much more advanced computational elements(that is, something a lot more fancy than 22nm planar circuits) we would end up with absolutely ridiculous amounts of processing power(and memory) from just converting a few million tonnes of matter, even more so if we bother to turn whole planets or moons into computational matter. But what for? The assumption that we’d even bother to convert the mass of our current solar system to a gigantic computer assumes there is some holy grail, really desirable computation that can scale infinitely on hardware, something i don’t see as very likely.
as a layperson who likes tasty jibberish, I would imagine that the human techno hydrid trajectory would eventually lead toward energy sources like star clusters, galaxy clusters and eventually the big bang, thus spreading evenly throughout the universe. Alternately, any creature with 5th dimensional perception would already be able to operate at omnitime omnispace within our human cognitive envalope.
I’ve noticed that people tend to think that they are always right or that their perception is the best. Who is willing to change their beliefs? Beliefs which cause harm to others should be questioned.
I’ve had to change my personality in many ways. It’s a difficult thing to do but I did it for love of others and that kind of love is experienced as being divine rather than coming from my animal nature.
If I question whether this is true or not true, I may never get to an answer, but the way I see it, if that spiritual element of myself allows me to transform into something better than who I am then it’s a positive thing because it benefits more people than just myself.
Prior to reforming my thoughts and behavior, the struggle of my ego persisted to survive. However, death brings forth new life and creativity. To change beliefs we have to first destroy the old ones.
Who is willing to transform/reform/change their thoughts if it means changing your personality, changing behavior, and changing the way you perceive the world? I don’t think most people would do it unless their current beliefs and thoughts were causing their own self to suffer. If everyone around you told you that they didn’t like who you are, would you change? If you saw yourself as good but let’s say you annoyed people or were just weird, would you change to conform to their standards? How do you know if you are living in the right way if you don’t question your own brain?
“self-aware enough to recognize that all it perceives is based on the abilities and biases built into its hardware and software and not on the way things actually, ultimately, are.” ultimately ultimately !
Excellent points, R.U. We carry an inevitable chauvinism of ontology. We can hope that preserving (& encouraging) the diversity of various types of minds and “reality tunnels” will become a transhuman value in time.
I don’t think you understand what “atheism” means. It only implies a lack of belief that a God or gods exist, nothing else. If your answer to the question “Do you believe in a God?” is “yes,” then you’re a theist. If your answer is anything else, you, by definition, are an atheist.
In any case, agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive. One is a position on what you know or can know, and one is a position on what you believe. I consider myself an agnostic atheist because I lack a belief in any deity, but don’t claim to know that no gods exist (though I do claim to know, though not with certainty, that no god of any Earthly religion exists. This has nothing to do with atheism in general, though).
Finally, I should point out that you are making a knowledge claim when you put the probability at 33/33/33. Let’s say we had absolutely no idea whether any deity exists. Nothing about that proposition implies that all outcomes have an equal probability. When you say that they do, you’re making an unsupported claim. Not to mention, if you’re going to question the applicability of logic to this deity, why not question the applicability of probability? It may be the case that our earthly notion of assessing the probability of something goes completely out of whack when applied to God. So for you to even assess probabilities in the first place is for you to make a knowledge claim regarding any God that’s out there.
~Ian
Everything you’re criticizing me for was clearly contextualized as being subjective (for me, it’s a coin flip) and I already made the point that the difference between atheism and agnosticism is a linguistic quibble (but I have behavioral observations about a lot of people who label themselves atheists)
So, wrong on all counts.
“I never lie and I’m always right.”
George Leroy Tirebiter
Shoes for industry… shoes for the dead.
“I prefer to call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. It’s a linguistic quibble since both atheists and agnostics agree that there is no proof of a God. But really, we all know that an avowed atheist, using reason as a weapon, will hunt down and annihilate any implication that a God is likely. For me, it’s a coin flip. Unknowable is unknowable, period. In fact, rather than putting the possibilities at 50/50, I would put them at 33/33/33. There is or isn’t something that we would call God if we could understand it, or if we could understand everything about existence, we would know that it’s a silly question. Some things may fall outside our language and our logic. Reality, for example.”
At the risk of sounding condescending I have to say: you are almost there! You’ve realized that reality is outside our language and our logic and that it can never be fully captured and comprehended by our minds. That’s simply because inside of human brains we cannot run a complete simulation of reality. The best we can ever hope for is to develop very accurate models of reality based on evidence.
We must never confuse models (whether on paper or inside brains) with the underlying reality.
The crucial puzzle piece that I think is missing in your understanding of reality is the correct application of probabilities. If you truly accept what you said yourself – that we can never know with 100% certainty what is real – then the next logical step is to start thinking in probabilities. And in fact you are already doing it to some extent as you’ve demonstrated yourself.
Where your current error of reasoning lies is in consciously recognizing, that what one ought to do in order to somewhat correctly estimate the likelihood that reality has a certain feature (for example the existence of a god) is to adjust your level of certainty/uncertainty according to the evidence at hand. If there are two options, you start out at 50/50 and then look at the evidence and then accordingly correct your estimates up or down.
You’ve said that you are an agnostic because you estimate the likelihood of there being a god at 50/50, since it is basically a yes or no question. But of cause you instinctively know that just because there are two possible answers, that doesn’t automatically mean that they both have the same probability of being true.
Either the Nazis have a base on the dark side of the moon right now or they don’t. It’s a yes or no question like the god one but I take it that you would not assign it a 50-50 chance of being true. Why not? Because you know enough about reality and the world has provided enough direct and indirect EVIDENCE for you to know that this is essentially impossible… so what happens is that your amount of evidence with regards to the “Nazi-Moon conspiracy theory” controls your level of certainty. You know enough about history and physics and 100 other domains of reality that tell you that this hypothesis is just batshit crazy.
The same may be said for any other crazy conspiracy theory from the supposedly “faked moon-landing” to 9/11. Now these are extreme examples but they illustrate one general point – your certainty aka your probability estimate should be controlled by the quality of the evidence.
And this I think is exactly what you have failed to apply to the god question. Of cause your probability estimate depends heavily on your definition of god – if ANY kind of loosely defined alien/creator/deist type of god will do for you, then this loose hypothesis will be more likely than a very strict definition of “god” along the traditional monotheistic interpretations.
So what’s the likelihood that the Christian bible is perfectly true and that every demented and contradictory story within that book is nothing but the truth and represents an accurate reflection of our actual creator-god? The answer is that this probability is as close to zero as the “Nazis on the moon” or “leprechauns on mars” hypothesis. It is not to be taken seriously by any thinking person and it certainly does not reflect the same probabilities as a coin-flip.
Also, ask yourself what one would expect reality to actually look and behave like if there actually was a god with certain characteristics (all-knowingness, all-lovingness, omnipotence, omnipresence). Reality would look nothing like what we see before us and it most certainly would not feature something so horribly cruel and indifferent as natural selection as a roadway to creation. (Just one example).
If humans were planned purposefully by a god (or were in almost any imaginable sense the focus of his “experiment” and attention) you would expect us to be smarter than primitive apes with a little whipped cream and a single solitary cherry on top – which is exactly what we are.
By the way, I agree with your sentiment about Kurzweil. First of all the fact that we have not yet been turned into computers by a cosmic superintelligence may be more a reflection of the fact that the speed of light is the upper bound of practical space-travel in conjunction with the insane vastness of space. And second of all, it is quite possible that the chosen utility of a superintelligence may not be to convert every grain of sand in the universe into a computer.
Kurzweils argument about the nonexistance of extraterrestrial intelligence due to the absence of superintelligence on our planet earth is a joke. I find it almost hard to believe that this was a serious argument by him and not just a playful sidenote-quip.
Anything is possible… but most things are unlikely. That applies to specific human myths about god or gods. It doesn’t apply to the question of whether there is something that we would call god if we could understand it.
Fair enough, if one’s definition of god is that loose and unconstrained then the likelyhood goes up dramatically in comparison to any traditionally religous definition of god.
But 50/50 still seems too optimistic. A lot of possible gods or intelligences that would fall under the extremely unconstrained and loosely defined category should in principle be detectible by current sciene if they actually impact our reality in any shape or form.
But I think I can see where your reasoning is actually going…
It’s basically just like the question whether or not we live in a simulated reality. One can say the probability of that being the case is always stuck at 50/50 because if our laws of physics and our entire reality and existence are just the product of a simulation that is conducted at a higher level of reality (a level that we can never access or detect because our current laws of physics prohibit us from doing so), then we may not ever find a piece of evidence within our supposed reality that could potentially confirm or disconfirm the existence of a higher reality.
Thus one may say the probability of a simulated virtual reality or some undefined deity at a higher (and forever inaccesible) level of reality is stuck at 50/50.
I think the sensible answer to this problem is the application of occam’s razor: If there is absolutely no convincing evidence whatsoever for a deity-type-god or for the idea that we are indeed living inside a simulated world, then we should reject such possibilities as unlikely, until a scrap of evidence comes along that has the potential to alter your probability estimate.
Keeping your mind open at a 50/50 probablility for a possibility for which we will never EVER have the possibility to find evidence by DEFINITION is not sensible.
Now you can say that a god or the creators of our simulation may intervene in an obvious way and prove its existance, but ironically that would get you nowhere and you’re still stuck at 50/50… why is that?
It’s because even if you actually found out that there is some type of god that created our universe, I could still suggest that this god was also created by another indetectable god, that not even he/she/it knows of. Or I can say that this god is also part of a simulation and neither you nor god could deny this possibility with 100% certainty. At this point we simply enter an infinite regress of your 50/50 uncertainty.
But no one can live like this from a practical perspective. We need to make working models of our own reality and unless we have reason to believe that we aren’t at the fundamental level of reality, then we get nowhere by postulating indetectable higher realities or dimensions.
I was talking about gods that live within our reality or at least have some detectable effect on our reality from the “outside” (whatever that is) – and such a god definitely does not have a 50/50 chance of existing given what we already know.
In conclusion: It simply doesn’t make sense to be agnostic about reality itelf, because you enter an infinite regress without any possibility of ever finding a piece of evidence that shifts your probability from 50/50. It’s a perfect dead end and it’s also a perfectly unpractical belief that doesn’t have the potential to get you or your model of reality anywhere.
Be practical like a judge who has to make a judgement about a murder case eventually, once all the evidence has been examined. Postponing your judgement indefinitely is not a practical solution to the infinite regress problem that comes with imaginary higher levels of reality. If there is nothing that strongly points to the possibility of a simulation or a god then we should not seriously entertain this fiction.
That we’re in a simulation is a nice example of something that we can conceive of but that we may never be able to find evidence for or prove. Even if we create a simulation and populate it with creatures that are virtual to us and that seem to have the same richness of experience that we seem to have, we can’t know that it happened to us. But you’re still stuck with what the human brain can conceive of… and so you’re basically missing the point of my article.
Anyway, don’t tell me what I can or can’t entertain. (Call me anything but don’t call me late for dinner). I think of a David Bowie song, Law (Earthings) where a voice cries out “I don’t want knowledge. I want certainty.” Learn to live with uncertainty… or don’t. I have no urge to hand out commands.
Thanks for your interesting responses, btw.
It sounds to me like you’re both approaching the concepts of active nihilism…R.U. Serious is winning.
I didn’t know what active nihilism means, so I made a quick wiki-search.
There “active nihilism” is described as the concept that nihilism isn’t just intended to destroy the notion of meaning and value in order to leave it at that (“passive”), but the idea of going beyond destroying these beloved copcepts of meaning and value in order to create something new. E.g. the Übermensch.
I’m not sure that’s what you meant tough. I guess you mean the type of hyperskeptic nihilism that says knowledge is even in principle impossible (precisely because of simulations and illusions). If so, then that may be more a caricature of Sirius’ position but hardly my own
It’s called epistemological nihilism, but I deny the notion that knowledge is impossible. Even if we lived in a simulation we would still be able to know things about our simulation, which still remains part of reality even if it is virtual and offers just a fraction of what may be termed “ultimate reality”.
Still, according to wikipedia I should be happy with being called an “existential” nihilist so go right ahead.
Winning!
Thanks for writing
As far as my interpretation is concerned, it’s helpful to think of Plato’s cave. Being chained to the wall by belief and watching shadow’s dancing across from your perspective creates an impossibility. In order to find truth, belief must be cast away before we can adequately explore the cave and find the truth. Active nihilism is the philosophical process of denying knowledge of the truth to get around the preconceived notions that limit our ability to see the truth.
My favorite example of this is process in action is Buddhism. Buddha, in the search for enlightenment with the esthetic’s, realized that the difficult path he was on would lead to his own death. As a result, he abandoned the beliefs closely held by the esthetic’s and in doing so found the middle path.
Believing or not believing is simply a choice. Why is it that the more education one has means he/she must fill the page with words that have only shades of meaning outside the understanding of the average person. Atheist, agnostic – whatever!
There is more evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died and was resurrected than there is that Julius the Caesar of Rome ever existed.
What I’m reading in these comments is that you just don’t want to believe in Him.
As far as us humans travelling to other worlds! Come on! We’re killing each other in record numbers with the death toll climbing every year.
If there was life out there, do you think they’d let us off this planet?
I have no need for belief. Belief’s are hard to change, so much so that it sways the perception of truth. Case in point, it is true that there is quite a bit of proof supporting the argument that Jesus Christ, indeed, was a human that lived and died. However, there is very little evidence that Jesus Christ was “resurrected.” Also, there is a plethora of evidence supporting the position that Julius Caesar did indeed exist in the form of documentation, eyewitness written accounts, personally written documentation from Julius Caesar, etc. This evidence far outweigh’s the evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t be surprised if you do not “believe” me and even tried to argue against this stance. Belief’s are hard to change.
Another thing. Does it cause anger to have your belief nitpicked at? For people to point out hole’s in your arguments? This anger easily translates into aggression. The same aggression that causes us to kill each other in record numbers each year. Take for instance, the recent death of Osama Bin Laden. I’ve watch many people rejoice, wave flags, and celebrate upon hearing the news of his death. Why did he have to die? Because he was involved in the death of many innocent human beings? We believe that we were justified in the murder of another human being because he has done harm to us but really, are we any different then the people that rejoiced, waved flags, and celebrated when the twin tower’s were hit by planes? Our support of the war in Afghanistan has probably resulted in just as many innocent deaths. The previous wars we have been involved with in the middle east, that killed many innocent people, helped garner the hatred for this country that created the terrorists. They “believed” that they were doing the right thing. We are all humans, the only real difference is our beliefs.
“There is more evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died and was resurrected than there is that Julius the Caesar of Rome ever existed.”
That’s a preposterous statement. Many historians who happen to not be invested in or affiliated with faith do in fact doubt the actual existence of a man named Jesus. During the time of the Roman occupation of Judea there were many historians present whose documents were preserved and none of them even so much as mentioned anything worth noticing happening during Jesus’ supposed existence, whilst they were documenting much more mundane things… if say Jesus did indeed ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and with many people celebrating and greeting him with palm leaves and whatnot… that would not have gone undocumented by the contemporary historians.
The chronologically first real accounts of Jesus’ existence are the gospels that were made out to be eyewitness accounts – and they were written between 200 and 300 years after Jesus’ death. That’s like me posing as an an eye-witness to the industrial revolution or the American civil war, it’s perfectly absurd to take such “eyewitness accounts” at face value.
I’m not heavily invested in the idea whether or not there was a person named Jesus at that time, I honestly don’t care much and if there ever was such an individual or not – but pretending or proclaiming to be perfectly certain about his existence based on “eyewitness accounts” that were improvised at least 200 years later by dubious people is just absurd.
Julius Caesar existed, Jesus – maybe for all I know and care. But if so, then he wasn’t that much of an impressive guy, given the strangely non-lasting impression he made on every historian that lived at his time and place. Sorry.
To the idea of not believing in God because of no proof, I offer a understanding found in the scriptures, this being, that no sign or proof will be given to those seeking a sign other than Christ in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Knowing He spake not without a parable, then you can only come to understand this statement when the Father of mankind drags you to the Truth/Christ, this will happen in His time, don’t be deceived into the religious thought of the experience of life in this flesh as an only opportunity to come to the Truth, better yet in wisdom seek understanding through the Words of God without the influence of men.
Don’t believe everything you think.
Good article! Just like there are suckers that will believe anything, there are an equal, or perhaps greater number of people who will disbelieve anything, so to speak.
I am new to the h+ community magazine. Occasional forays in make me think that we are well into the trans and well nigh onto the post human stage. Evolution continuously produces a better predicting machine to predict evasive behavior of prey and tactical behavior of predators. Even today with transportation across the globe a there are pockets of lower iq civilizations. To these groups average citizens of our culture must seem almost supermen. (and women) If you are reading this the chances are you are substantially higher iq than average. A quick examination of the bell curve of human iq shows that your place on it is abnormal. Normal is being defined by statistics.
You have known you are abnormal, frustrated by slow progress of the group, isolated to some degree. You are also likely to be connected to the net and released from isolation. You are connected to your machine through your optic and otic nerves. You are now BCI
Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice keeps me from feeling isolated.”
-Albert Einstein
You are statistically different from the left side of the bell curve. Your parents and ancestors have altered your potential by surviving in tough complex situations and have through stress altered your epigenes.
Suicide is a strange marker for an intelligent society. Speculation on the causes are many and can be googled and studied but I suspect being let out of the box will begin to rectify the problem of isolation of the transhumans and as they begin to connect will accelerate progress even more.
There has been transhumans since even before there were modern humans. Those were the more intelligent and more adaptable who passed superior brains to their offspring.
When societies began to form, those who were doing and thinking “odd” things were persecuted. Continued pressure by the transhumans activated ethical legal systems to protect themselves. ( the pope recently apologized to Galileo).
It would be easy now that there is adequate communication and support groups to begin to become segregated and this might even be inevitable. All along though the transhumans have brought along the paranoid, conservative slow thinkers or there would have been no technical advancement. Having said that I will bring up my personal philosophy.
I am a pantheist. The theory can be put in a nut shell. All matter is energy, all matter is a collaboration of condensed energy into small machines, each and everything we interact with is small machines or a collaboration of machines. We are a collaboration of machines and nanocomputers. Since life began the prediction of prey to avoid predator and predator to predict the behavior of prey has driven the evolution of intelligence/consciousness. This consciousness is where we are and now the evolution of biological forms has become odious. The thrust of increased intelligence now has a conscious nature. That conscious nature has determined that machines evolve faster than biology. It knows increased intelligence has a likelihood of producing an advantage to survival.
Even the turkey dinner for the carpenter that built the house for the transhuman that designs the most modern integrated chip has done its part in the progression toward increased intelligence and awareness of the true nature of reality.
In fact everything has produced its effect on the drive to intelligent machinery. It is all a gigantic collaboration of machines in an elaborate ripening. The earths seed is about to germinate. What it leads to is a mystery to us but in my opinion is determined.
So as tempting as it might be to segregate the transhumans it must be remembered that it is only statistics that define them and that everything and everyone is doing some thing that is part of the determination for the universe to become aware of itself. Transhumans must and will continue on the determined path but it is my opinion that path is to be at one with the turkey dinner and all who made it so.
Thank you form this article. I’m a teenager, and Am often considered a “nerd”. I always wonder why other people my angel don’t seven worry about humany’s future and Earth’s. It like they’re to busy in X-box LIVE of, trying to yet and keepa girls (I already good one,she’s like me).It’s good to know some people are like me out there.
I wouldn’t worry about all this too much.
5/21/11 6 pm, Judgment Day!
Or, more likely, the banal stupidity, cupidity and thanatos of men.
Hope our livers aren’t eaten daily as punishment.
One Trackback
[...] Question the Authority of Your Brain. [...]