Church of transhumanism

Projects
62

Disclaimer: Long story, read the bottom line, and only expand if you’d argue that!

Intro

My original intention was to throw in the topic, grab some popcorn and let it unfold.
I’d rather point out a few things before kicking my feet up, it might make the discussion more interesting. Gonna be lengthy…

Do Not Take Any Rule For Granted

The mayor difference between a religion and other social structures, like society that the so-called laws that make up their foundations are different in a few aspects.
Working towards a common goal has proven to have cohesive effect.
This can be conquering territories, spreading beliefs, implanting chips into unsuspecting members of public…etc

There’s gotta be rules that bind the cohort together either way.
However, once you postulate a doctrine one can bring up an example to challenge the idea.
Generally speaking it’s just a question of time. If you accept that whatever can happen will happen (article about a hypothesis) the longevity of any doctrine is finite.

•From a historical perspective I’d recommend this text that describes how civilisations evolve into decline.
•Almost like a bubble, expanding until the content bursts its physical boundary.
•Let me squeeze entropy between these 2 lines w/o further explanation.
•In biology the cell membrane keeps the dilution of the desired from the unwanted in balance.

This fluidity seems to be necessary for long term functioning. (Almost like entropy, ain’t it?!)
•Some of the religions, recognised this, and made their binding rules ambiguous enough to apply to various situations. (The other common method is to make the rules broad.)
Part of the popularity and/or longevity caused by the combination of politics - law, and religion - moral. (Or refer to aforisms, rather than anecdotes.)

Exclusivity in Religion

Judaism could be described as ‘exclusive’. Unless you were born (what they accept) jew, you really need to proof that you want to take on judaism to be accepted. Nowadays is okay to speak about religion, but even jewish families restrict the knowledge they pass to the upcoming generations. Bumpy road to become jewish w/o ancestry.

Inclusivity in Religion

Unlike Islam, that is inclusive and expansive, you can be member w/o the x-year-long procedure judaism requires, and you are encouraged / required to spread your faith.
Governmental politics as a topic is forbidden, however muslims talk about football like. 2nd religion. Preachers are very active, leaflets and books are printed in bulk and spread on a rather organised way. You can get a copy of the Quo-ran for free. The road is paved to enter the religion.

General References

Take the example of constitutions. Most of them grant the right for life.
This is (and always was) debated from time to time. If some naughty things happen some debate death penalty. In other cases abortion is argued. The lines are blurry.

Examples - Vagueness

Once you stick down poles you pretty much grant the decline of it. However, Theodore Roosevelt pointed out that a bad decision is still better than an unmade decision. This suggests that if anything I do was doomed to extinction I might as well exercise power and choose the way I want it to decline.
Buddhism makes suggestions, or gives guidelines, rather then list Dos and Don’ts. A flexibility is imbedded into the membrane… gives room for common sense, also trusts the community to self-regulate and adjust to eras.

I guess that’s why the “”-s there.
“Harm” is rather difficult to define EXACTLY. But it would be true for anything if you accept that There was a comment about someone removing an implant (xGlo) because someone else considered it to be harmful.
Nietzsche pointed out that there are no facts, only interpretations. This suggests that statutory interpretation is needed… in some cases (pun intended).

I would suggest phrasing some guidelines, and only read this :point_up: if you disagree.

63

I’m just thinking out loud is all,
(I still read though because I’m curious about everyone’s perspective)

My opinion is worth what you paid me for it

Probably comes down to how “organized” it should / “needs” to be

64

The Church of Transhumanism, being a late church, has a chance to set itself up the way other churches should be setup, i.e. refrain from being doctrinal and giving advice - or worse, giving orders - to its members.

In short, the Church of Transhumanism should be a place of gathering for people who want or had their body augmented, and should not pass judgment on what that body augmentation is or is for. Like it or not, a human being with a poison dart thrower embedded in his arm is still a transhuman.

2 Likes
65

Yep, those questions you phrased should be answered by a church that I would take seriously. Even if the answer is literally:

Whatever!

So there should be a writing to point at.
The scale could be from anything as precise as an equation to a free poem by a collective that Rosco mentioned:

Broad spectrum, indeed. But by my understanding a church can be an organisation similar to a trade union or a club. (Please correct me if it’s untrue!)
Answering how structured should it be:
…at least as structured to be recognised in the US (thus I guess that is the strictest place in terms of regulations).

66

I get that, but it will need to be a bit more specific than just collection of random individuals

I hate how weaponized and dogmatic most religions are, but I don’t think you can swing too far the other way and be “do whatever you like” that’s a group of friends or a club, not a movement or religion

Am I a transhuman because I (maybe) have a titanium clip on my bile duct?

Does a pacemaker count?

What about glasses?

A lot will mirror the “what’s a cyborg” thread

Wether or not weaponized implants are frowned upon is one thing, but I think there needs to be more of a mission that “augmented”

Need to hit on a reason of “why” augmented

If asked why you got implants, “because they are cool” while a valid reason to do it, doesn’t quite rise to the level of religious belief

End of the day you/we/whoever can do whatever we want,

But if we want it to be taken seriously, it will need to be more “movement” and less “legion”

67

Indeed. My opinion on the matter is that no human on Earth is a true “naked” human. We’re all special monkeys augmented by our special monkey things, be they in or out of our monkey bodies. So in a sense, the Church of Transhumanism has no raison d’etre, since we’re all transhumans already.

However, remember that the primary purpose of the Church is to further our agenda as implantees and body modification enthusiasts, gain clout, and turn rules and laws that afford stupid religious exemptions on their heads. Therefore, in that case, I’m taking a narrower view of transhumanism for the express purpose of justifying the Church’s existence.

1 Like
68

But here we meet another possible problem - what exactly is augmentation? I think we might have a big overlap with the bodmod-church here. As of now, I wouldn’t even qualify for the church, because I currently have no single chip implant. Yet, I changed my body quite a lot by now, and, by my views, improved it in doing so. The skin around my scarification has become more sensible, so I gained new sensations as well… where do we draw the line?

My opinion is, that anyone who strives to be reaching beyond the boundaries of being human is actually “transhuman”, but I’m very uncertain about the means to achieve that. (keeping in mind that there are not only “technical” ways to achieve that, like implants or other mods, but more intellectual approaches as well)
Transhumanism is a philosophical school, and I think this should reflect into all this here as well - as in, someone getting an implant just because it glows and is “funky” might not qualify, someone who gets the same implant because he wants to evolve into a bioluminescent being might do. Dunno, like I said, very uncertain about all that.

And to the “do no harm” thing… for the implants themselves, I’m more on Roscos side here - an implant is an implant, no matter what it’s used for, and the “evolution of mankind”-aspect might even be especially present on potentially harmful things. But maybe it should be considered if a general set of ethics should be established in the church as well. But of what kind? Especially Transhumanism has some overlaps with social darwinism and other things some of us here won’t agree with…
Maybe a different name would make things easier… I’m not so creative today, so, no idea for what would be more fitting :wink:

69

Coma is in philosophical mode today :slight_smile:

70

Totally :wink:
Just love to use my brain a bit after a stupid day at work :smile:

71

I’m still on vacation mode until Monday and I’ve only skimmed this, but I think the focus of the CoT should be on the transitional aspect of Transhumanism and not necessarily the mode or method of transition… looking forward to diving into all of this with you guy next week.

1 Like
72

A guru is never on holiday, he’s on a spiritual retreat.

Gotta learn the terminology if you want to play the part.

3 Likes
73

Damn, I only saw this boat when it was already sailing deep waters!

I guess @Coma already pointed out most of the same questions I would have asked.

I do like spirituality, and have nothing against any religion. But I do have a lot against the whole concept of “Church”.

As in… looking at our species past, Every single time a belief/faith/religion/Idea becomes organized within a Church, it ends up crystalized and individuals (not necessarily the founders) end up raising in power to distort it and exploit it’s followers for their personal gain.

So when I read something like “Church of Transhumanism”, despite a part of me really liking the Idea, and me Identifying as a Transhumanist, I still can see only terrible things coming from it in a not so distant future.

On the simplest Items:

  • The existance of a recognised “Church” will place the whole Transhumanist lot in the scrutiny of haters from other faiths.

  • It’s mere existance will paint all of us, members or not, in a very similar light as the Pastafarians. Even here, in this very thread, FSM was used as a Joke. We can only expect more of that coming our way.

  • There is already far too much divergence within this community. a Church would bring about more bureaucracy, thus the need for more strict definitions, which would only cause even more discord… soon we would have a myriad of little churches popping up.

  • The mere existence of a Transhumanist Church could make the lives of so many young people so much harder. Even if they are not members. Just picture this: Young Timmy is really into electronics, and dreams to have a chip. Timmy’s parents are “veryvery” religious. If Transhumanism is “only a philosophy”, they are much more likely to accept Timmy’s interests and nurture them. Now… if Transhumanism is a “religion”, then allowing their little boy to be interested in that suddenly becomes a “sin”, a “heresy”. And fast like that, we’re making the lives of hundreds of people much harder. (despite our good intention)

  • It would attract way more negative attention than positive one. Despite our best intentions, despite our “hopes for the best”, we must still face the hard truth that Religions are constantly “under attack”. It’s a shit world when some religions brand “everyone else” as “sinners”, but this is the world we live in.

So I must ask…

What are the benefits a Church would bring us that would make up for all these issues which it would also bring? (and those are just the tip of the iceberg)

I just feel like most of the good things a Church could bring us… wouldn’t actually need a Church to exist at all.

I Would love to be wrong, though, but both in our history and our current reality, we are surrounded of examples that only go bad. And I am yet to find a single one where it hadn’t ended up causing more pain than gain, in the long run.

also…

Unfortunately, it takes two to Tango.
So unless both Churches (and whatever governing body in power) will recognize an individual’s “non-binary-faith”, then it does not matter if “one church is not jealous”…

In most countries you will either:

  • not require any formal recognition to be granted your religious rights. (I.E. you can claim whatever you want, so there would be no actual “official need” for forming a Church)

  • not recognise any “non-state-backed” Church. (so… no gain there, regardless of the route you take. Even worst, some places might even begin to hunt down Transhumanists, even if they are not affiliated with the Church, just because other countries begin to recognise it)

  • or, the ones like most of EU/US/etc… Will allow you to have all the benefits from belonging to a church (such as some tax benefits, recognised holidays, etc), but then you “must pick one”. Most of those places will not allow a public servant to claim holidays off work from more than one religion, for example.

PS: I’m aware that I’m pointing out flaws and playing devil’s advocate here. So if this is not a welcomed behaviour just let me know and I shut up.

3 Likes
74

IMO it’s ultra strange to even think about a CoT.
I associate churches with fanatics and lies, and not at all with science.

This sounds like we are worshipping DT/Amal and I have concerns that others will have the same feeling.

Ofc that’s not what CoT really is/will be but… whatever, I don’t think this is a good idea.

Also all of @Coma 's and @Eyeux ’ points.

2 Likes
75

I carry on a line of thought from another topic, but lacing it here:
The original debate was about religion vs science that I expand and detail my view about the concept of God. (As always, please disagree as you like!)

Many of us thinks of God as a fatherly figure.
LOL!!! You silly fucks! What could reflect more on the nowadays fashionable individualism?!?

According to Atilla the concept of God leans towards collectivism.
An omnipresent unconsciousness doesn’t give a flying flamingo about your wishes and prayers! That is your weakness and stupidity (not being omnipotent or omniscience) make you thing that only.

Then what is GOD?

Imagine God as a guy who likes tea :coffee:
There are gazillion water molecules in the cuppa, and each molecule want to go one way to another.
From God’s perspective they are determined to be mixed with sugar, cream and stirred before being slurped.
And there is that tiny particle praying perceptively, because it wants to be one with God.

In order to be a better molecule it should come across different experiences.
So it meets the sugar :ice_cube:, and they change each other as they dissolve.
Then the temperature changes, different environment.
The cream was cold, the whole structure is richer compared to pure water.
A nice little stir with a spoon… Done.

The components are shaped and seasoned until they all match the criteria of being ready.
Then the guy lifts up the mug, and drinks the tea. YUMM

The wish came true: the molecule became the part of that higher consciousness.
It fulfilled the requirements to be good. Approved to be enjoyed as a cup of tea!

Did the prayer help? - I donno :man_shrugging:
Is it pre-determined? - I honestly donno :man_shrugging: :man_shrugging:

What’s the point then?

The guy likes tea, and that’s all I know!

So if it happened once it can happen again.
But there are other ways to be a noble or meaningful molecule. Some prefers to become tea, some enjoys to be bath water.
The guy likes tea, so the chance is there all the time, any time. Taps are open…
Although that tiny H2O doesn’t matter for the cup, neither for the guy who likes tea. However that molecule can stick to other molecules to form droplets. But not even a drop of water is going to change the tea! (A drop of acid, or poison does, but not the water.)
And the cup is filled by drops of water.

Is there moral? You affect your environment. Building up from the bottom, forming ever expending self-similar structures. Couple, family, class, society… You’d better better yourself, and only yourself. So you’ll end up attached to ones who are similar.

76

Just one little question - because I think I just don’t really get it.
What do you need the tea-drinking guy for? :thinking:

77

That was the reason I tagged you in the other topic, I just didn’t know how to link you here!
I wish that was a live discussion rather then correspondence, I could reply to most of your points, those are valid and important to be answered.

78

I get that. Reasons for it;

  • church as defined by a group of people with similar beliefs who organize to pool resources, enable action, and provide guidance when asked for it.

  • church as defined by a non-profit organization who pools resources, enable action, and do so under documented governance.

  • church as defined under “religious freedom” laws that seem to be taking root here in the USA at the state level and as we see pushes for such laws and interpretive law at the federal level. The freedom to practice biohacking for example, would fall under CoT’s “doctrine” and thus be protected under “religious freedom”

Beyond that, I don’t think the church has any practical function…l that said, I do think that collection of donations in order to do things like the following is a dang good use for the church structure;

  • provide legal support for employees who are battling their employers over implants at the workplace.

  • participate in supporting biohacking projects or research that could dramatically impact humanity. yes this is subjective and what gets focus would need to be hashed out.

  • provide mental health services and counselling for membership to help deal with the mental and emotional challenges that the human condition brings.

3 Likes
79

Represent scale orders of magnitude different.

80

Can I apply for that?

1 Like
81

Dude, it’s a pretend church. It’s a device to abuse legistlation designed for real churches, and a potential lobbying group.

Kind of like the FSM church.

EDIT: well Amal explained it better