Monthly Archives: May 2022

What about the body? Lets ask a Lutheran about Cybernetic Immortality & Disembodied Intelligence

Of the many promises to enhance human existence through technology made by our transhumanist friends, one stands out as particularly fantastic and thought provoking. That is cybernetic immortality. Cybernetic immortality prolongs human intelligence in a disembodied or post-biological form. After the body is discarded, our mental processes will continue in the computer cloud. So goes the H+ promise.

Cybernetic immortality looks a lot like the immortal soul of Cartesian or premodern religious belief. Is this what attracts the religious transhumanist? Can we achieve through technology what religion promised but failed to deliver? Might Christians find in transhumanism a shortcut to immortality and salvation?

Not on your life! At least according to Lutheran theologian Jamie Fowler. Jamie believes that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ. To become incarnate means to enter the flesh. What has been redeemed by God is the human person in the flesh, in the body. God promises a resurrection of the body, not an escape from the body either as an immortal soul or as a postbiological intelligence. We compared and contrasted Radical Life Extension, Cybernetic Immortality, or Resurrection of the Body in a previous Patheos post. In this post, we take up resurrection of the body with more detail.

If we ask Jamie Fowlerand we will interview Jamie belowwhether she plans to become a religious transhumanist, we can predict her answer. No way!

Our transhumanist friends tantalize our imaginations with visions of human transformation. These processes require critical thinking and visionary accounts to assess how technology is altering human nature and what it means to be human in an uncertain world (Vita-More, 2019, p. 49). Here in Patheos we will take the advice of Natasha Vita-More and engage in critical thinking. We will ask Jamie Fowler to help us think about the human body in Gods gracious plan of redemption and resurrection.

This post is one in a series on religious transhumanism and its critics. Weve interviewed Micha Redding on evangelical Christian transhumanism, Lincoln Cannon on Mormon transhumanism, Michael LaTorra on Buddhist transhumanism, and James Hughes on UU transhumanism. Weve also interviewed Hava Tirosch-Samuelson who vehemently repudiated H+ based on Jewish theology. In this series of Patheos entries I would like to explore theological reasons for embracing or jettisoning the H+ vision of a transformed humanity. Here we pit against each other cybernetic immortality and resurrection of the body.

Transhumanists believe in transforming humanity through technological enhancement. Here is Ray Kurzweil.

My views are certainly consistent with the Trans-humanist movement. My only hesitation is that I dont like the term Transhumanism because it implies that we will transcend our humanity. The way I articulate this is that we will remain human but transcend our biological limitations. To transcend limitations is precisely what being human is all about.

One form of transcending our biological limits is shooting for postbiological existence, called either cybernetic immortality or whole brain emulation (WBE).

We start by postulating that our present mind is a pattern. Allegedly, our mind is an information pattern attached to a biological substrate. Once we have captured the pattern, we can remove the mind from our brain and upload the it onto a silicon substrate. Then, perhaps even into the cloud. Once in the cloud, no longer will the vicissitudes of the body drag the mind toward discomfort, pain, suffering, or death.

Cybernetic immortality is achieved through whole brain emulation. The basic idea is to take a particular brain, scan its structure in detail, and construct a software model of it that is so faithful to the original that, when run on appropriate hardware, it will behave in essentially the same way as the original brain. The once biological brain becomes substrate independent. In short, a disembodied mind.

Uploading a human brain means scanning all of its salient details and then reinstantiating those details into a suitably powerful computational substrate, Ray Kurzweil tells us. This process would capture a persons entire personality, memory, skills, and history (Kurzweil, 2005, pp. 198-199). Postbiological intelligence will live on in disembodied form. At least as long as no one pulls the plug on our lap top. Nothing short of disembodied cybernetic immortality will have been achieved.

What great news! Cybernetic immortality, brags Donald Braxton, will be able to continue a non-biological life in a virtual reality for as long as the simulation can run. Thus, the transmigration of the soul will no longer be a matter of faith, but a scientific fact(Braxton, 2021, p. 8).

Theologians puzzle and ponder whole brain emulation. What are its implications? Modern transhumanism is a statement of disappointment. Transhumanists regard or bodies as sadly inadequate, limited by our physiognomy, which restricts our brain power, our strength and, worst of all, or life span. Transcendence will not be found in the murky afterlife of the usual religions, but in technological and biological improvement (Alexander, 2003, p. 51). Would Brian Alexander prefer to keep his body replete with restrictions on his brain power and life span? Why not trade this dying bag of bones for the ecstasy of thinking in disembodied form among the stars?

Jamie Fowler is a systematic theologian in the Lutheran tradition. She is currently pursuing a doctorate at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. As a laboratory genetics researchers, she gives special attention to Theology and Science.

TP. Jamie, in your research for your doctoral dissertation, you are investigating the work of divine grace in, with, and under what is physical. What do you believe to be the decisive theological point here?

JF. I believe the decisive theological point that unites divine grace and our physical existence is the Incarnation! In the incarnation, Christian faith claims the presence of Gods Word in our world. Gods Word is particularly located in this universe, on this planet, in Israel. Gods Word lives in history as the human person Jesus of Nazareth. Because Jesus is fully God and fully human, from a biological perspective, the Incarnation instates the physical existence of Gods Word as a living organism. But wait, theres more: through Jesus God connects all the dimensions of our existence the physical, the social, the spiritual dimensions and so on into the very life of God. In his death and resurrection Jesus retains his multidimensional linkage to us.

This multidimensional linkage is the pathway by which grace travels to those who have faith in the salvific power of Christs death and resurrection. Because Christ was a physical being, he transmits his grace to us through a multitude of interconnected dimensions. Consequently, we receive grace multidimensionally. Take the Eucharist, for example. When we eat the Eucharist, we utilize our physical and biological dimensions. We take grace which is really present When we believe in Christs presence in the Eucharist as we eat, we open our spiritual dimension. For the Christian, and more specifically the Lutheran, this pathway of grace is not possible without the physical connection between God and creation. Thus, the Incarnation is the decisive theological point from which divine grace works in, with, and under our physical existence.

TP. When it comes to embodiment, why would transhumanism pose a problem for a Lutheran?

JF. Hopefully my answer above illustrates the fact that, for a Lutheran, physical existence, or embodiment, is paramount to faith and salvation.

Yet, physical existence does not play a central role in Transhumanist philosophy. In fact, for transhumanists our physical existence, characterized by aging and eventually death, is a problem to be overcome. Transhumanists envisage a day when postbiological human beings will be free from all corporeal restraints.

For example, Ray Kurzweil, futurist, inventor, and transhumanist, anticipates that, around the year 2030, biotechnology will enable a union between humans and genuinely intelligent computers and/or AI systems. The resulting human mind/computer would be free to roam a universe of its own making, uploading itself at will on to any suitably powerful computational substrate.

Thus, when it comes to embodiment, the problem transhumanism poses for a Lutheran is the formers radical rejection of the human body. For a Lutheran, discarding bodily existence is nothing short of a rejection of God as both Creator and Redeemer.

TP. If a Lutheran must choose between (1) Radical Life Extension, (2) cybernetic immortality, or (3) resurrection of the body, which will it be? Which do you believe to be most authentically Christian?

JF. Both Radical Life Extension and Cybernetic Immortality are Transhumanist ideals that grapple with the problem of aging/death. Radical Life Extension (RLE) intends to overcome aging and death to some extent by genetically altering the human body. Cybernetic Immortality (CI) aims to shed the human body by transferring ones self-consciousness from that individuals biological body to a suitable, intelligent substrate. Even though RLE and CI have different methods, they both, albeit to different degrees, reject the natural human body.

A Lutheran would not choose either of these options in the face of aging and death. Instead, the Lutheran hopes for eternal relationship with the Creator, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in addition to the entire body of Christ in Gods Kingdom. The Lutheran yearns to be resurrected at the appointed hour. In the resurrection, God fulfills and perfects human beings with new, immortal bodies that are blessedly free from the threats of aging and death. Thereby, Lutherans like Roman Catholics wait in faith for their resurrected bodies. Such bodies cannot be manufactured. Resurrection is the work of God alone.

Furthermore, the Resurrection of the body is the only authentic Christian choice when compared to RLE and CI. The New Testament of the Bible, the central Christian text, tells of Jesus Christs death and Resurrection and then the resurrection of the dead.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Corr 15: 42-44 NIV)

As we can see, Christian salvation is marked by the resurrection of the body. When God assumed a natural body, God gathered our physical bodies, our entire existence, in all dimensions into Gods life. Without the Incarnation, the general resurrection of natural bodies to spiritual bodies is not possible.

TP. Any final words?

JF. As I have observed above, Transhumanist philosophy and technology holds the human mind in the highest esteem. Yet, Transhumanism regards the body as merely a husk in which individual subjectivity resides. This perspective is Cartesian and dualistic because it clearly relegates mind and matter into two, separate existential realities.

However, according to the biologists and neuroscientists, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, authors of the Santiago Theory of Cognition. The Santiago Theory claims that living systems are by definition cognitive systems. Living is itself a process of cognition. And this applies to all organisms, with or without nervous systems. In short, body and mind are inseparable.

To put it another way,the structure (matter) and organization (mind) of any organisms are two aspects of a single self-making process. In other words, mind and matter are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is Life. According to this theory, the mind cannot be extracted from the physical body. The human mind does not exist apart from the biological body.

Thus, uploading our minds onto a suitable AI substrate as Kurzweil would have us do, is simply not possible. We might successfully transfer a shadowy imprint of our thoughts, emotions, memories, habits, and behaviors onto the substrate. However, this Transhumanist eschatological hope will never be achieved because the human mind cannot be extracted from the human body.

In conclusion, let us acknowledge and celebrate especially in this highly technological age that we ARE our bodies! Our individual bodies contribute to our individual identities. As a Lutheran, I believe that all bodies matter. When God assumed existence in Jesus, God did not fail to assume a body! To that end, Christ was resurrected to new life with God, a new Life that still included a BODY.

TP. Lutherans are not alone among Christians in looking forward to what St. Paul promised in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. In the eschatological resurrection, Paul anticipates a spiritualized body, a soma pneumaticon. This vision of the resurrected body looks nothing like the disembodied cybernetic mind in the transhumanist vision. Here is Carmen Laberge of Reconnect Radio. The body is part of Gods good creation, described as the temple of the Holy Spirit for those who are redeemed, and Jesus bodily incarnation, resurrection and ascension demonstrate the value God places on the physical human body. So then, should we. And yet, it is not the body that is to be worshipped nor is this flesh-suit eternal (LaBerge, 2019, p. 774). Yet, it is the bodily creation that God redeems in the Easter resurrection of Jesus and your and my promised resurrection into the eternal kingdom of God.

In sum, there is no consonance between the transhumanist vision of cybernetic immortality and the Christian vision of an eschatological resurrection of the dead.

Ted Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). He is editor of AI and IA: Utopia or Extinction? (ATF 2019). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited the new book, Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics hot off the press (Roman and Littlefield/Lexington, 2022). Soon he will publish The Voice of Christian Public Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

This fictional spy thriller, Cyrus Twelve, follows the twists and turns of a transhumanist plot.

Alexander, B. (2003). Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion. New York: Basic Books.

Braxton, D. (2021). Religion Promises but Science Delivers. The Fourth R: Westar Institute 34:3, 3-9.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity if Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin.

LaBerge, C. F. (2019). Christian? Transhumanist? A Christian Primer for Engaging Transhumanism. In e. Newton Lee, The Transhumanism Handbook (pp. 771-776). Switzerland: Springer.

Marturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Valero, 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Peters, T. (2019). Artificial Intelligence, Transhumanism, and Rival Salvations. Covalence, https://luthscitech.org/artificial-intelligence-transhumanism-and-rival-salvations/.

Peters, T. (2019). Boarding the Transhumanist Train: How Far Should the Christian Ride? In e. Newton Lee, The Transhumanist Handbook (pp. 795-804). Switzerland: Springer.

Peters, T. (2019). The Ebullient Transhumanist and the Sober Theologian. Sciencia et Fides 7:2, 97-117.

Vita-More, N. (2019). History of Transhumanism. In N. Lee, The Transhumanism Handbook (pp. 49-62). Switzerland: Springer.

World Transhumanist Association. (2015). Transhumanist Declaration. http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/.

Originally posted here:
Religious Transhumanism 11: What about the body? | cybernetic immortality - Patheos

Elon Musk is a self-proclaimed advocate of transhumanism. However, there is no transhumanism in Agenda 2030.

Many conspiracy theories related to Agenda 2030 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) have been doing rounds on social media since the WEF's annual conference at Davos, Switzerland, kicked off this week (May 22, 2022). One such claim was linked to Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Automotive. A Facebook user posted a video of an old interview with Musk where he can be heard talking about transhumanism. However, his statements were wrongly linked to the Great Reset initiative of the World Economic Forum's Agenda 2030.

Transhumanism is the belief that humanity can be enhanced with human physiology and intelligence using science and technology. Sometimes this amounts to humans "merging" with machines, or other sci-fi predictions.

Elon Musk is a self-proclaimed advocate of transhumanism. During the World Government Summit in Dubai in 2017, Musk argued that humans could become redundant in the face of AI. Further, he went on to say, "AI threatens to become widespread, humans would be useless, so there's a need to merge with machines to become a sort of cyborg," according to a CNBC report. In 2020 Musk also launched Neuralink, a new brain-computer interface that attempts to implant a brain chip that enables the computer and other devices to communicate with the brain. Neuralink is believed to help cure neurological disorders.

However, there is no connection between Elon Musk's interest in transhumanism to the Agenda 2030 laid forward by WEF's Great Reset initiative.

The Great Reset initiative of the World Economic Forum's Agenda 2030 aims to build the foundations of the economic and social system for a fairer and more resilient future and a requirement for sustainable development by eradicating poverty. The WEF is a global foundation that seeks to influence governments and business leaders. Likewise, the "Agenda 2030" plan from the WEF is also not anywhere associated with transhumanism.

The WEF's "Great Reset initiative" has been the subject of many conspiracy theories. Logically recently debunked claims around WEF's agenda 2030 to propagate the Great Reset Conspiracy theory.

The is no link between Elon Musk's stance on transhumanism with Agenda 2030, and the WEF has not mentioned transhumanism anywhere in its Agenda 2030. Conspiracy theorists are making baseless connections to justify the existence of a fictitious conspiracy "Agenda 2030."

The rest is here:
Elon Musk is promoting transhumanism as part of Agenda 2030. - Logically

Americans regard advances in artificial intelligence and human enhancement technologies with a degree of caution and uncertainty.

Anew Pew Research Center reportlooks in depth at three of the growing number of AI applications: the use of facial recognition by police, the use of computer algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites and a future with driverless passenger vehicles. It also explores three developments tied to the convergence of AI, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields that raise the possibility of dramatic changes to human abilities in the future: computer chip implants in the brain to advance peoples cognitive skills, gene editing to greatly reduce a babys risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions, and robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to greatly increase strength for lifting in manual labor jobs.

Americans wariness about this wide arc of emergent developments runs through many of the surveys findings. This wariness often centers on concerns about whether people would retain control of their lives, possible unanticipated impacts as these technologies become widely available, and uneasiness about how far these advances might go in changing fundamental human traits and social realities. Some remain uncertain of where they stand on these developments, and about half or more see restrictions on their use that would make them more acceptable.

The survey of 10,260 U.S. adults was conducted between Nov. 1 and 7, 2021. Here are five key themes that run through peoples answers on these questions.

Far more Americans anticipate positive than negative effects from the widespread use of facial recognition technology by police to monitor crowds and look for people who may have committed a crime: 46% think this would be a good idea for society, while 27% think this would be a bad idea and another 27% are unsure. By narrower margins, more describe the use of computer algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites as a good rather than a bad idea for society (38% to 31%).

One of the factors tied to Americans largely cautious take on these new and emerging developments stems from doubt that these potential human enhancements would make life better than it is now or that reliance on AI would improve on human judgment or performance. On these questions, less than half of the public is convinced improvements would result. For example, 32% of Americans think that robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems to increase strength for manual labor would generally lead to improved working conditions, while 36% think their use would not make much difference and 31% say they would make working conditions worse.

Another concern for Americans is tied to the potential impact of these emerging technologies on social equity. For instance, 57% of Americans say the widespread use of brain chips for enhanced cognitive function would increase the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans, while just 10% say it would decrease the gap. There are similar patterns in views about the widespread use of driverless cars and gene editing for babies to greatly reduce the risk of serious disease during their lifetime.

Views are also tied to peoples sense of how these technologies would be used and who might benefit or be harmed by their rollout. About two-thirds (66%) of Americans think the widespread use of facial recognition technology by the police would lead them to monitor surveillance of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods.

The public largely agrees when it comes to standards for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of technologies still in development. Across the four of these technologies in the survey, large majorities support the idea that higher standards should be applied, rather than the standards that are currently the norm. About nine-in-ten Americans (87%) say that higher standards for testing driverless cars should be in place, rather than using existing standards for passenger cars. And 83% believe the testing of brain chip implants should meet a higher standard than is currently in use to test medical devices.

There are sharp partisan divisions when people think about possible government regulation of these new and developing technologies. Americans are often closely divided in their views of government regulation of these six scientific and technological developments. For example, when it comes to regulating the use of facial recognition technology by police, 47% of Americans say their greater concern is that government regulation will go too far, while 51% instead say their greater concern is that government will not go far enough.

Across all six technologies the survey explored, a majority of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say they are more concerned about government overreach, while a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners worry more that there will be too little oversight.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their greater concern is that the government will go too far regulating of the use of facial recognition by police (59% vs. 36%). Conversely, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their concern is that government regulation will not go far enough.

People are relatively open to the idea that a variety of actors in addition to the federal government should have a role in setting the standards for how these technologies should be regulated. Across all six applications, majorities believe that federal government agencies, the creators of the different AI systems and human enhancement technologies and end users should play at least a minor role in setting standards.

One element of public caution in thinking about these six developments is the desire to retain human control over these new and emerging possibilities. Some of the mitigating steps we explored related to the issue of human autonomy. For instance, seven-in-ten Americans say they would find driverless cars more acceptable if there was a requirement that such cars were labeled as driverless so they could be easily identified on the road, and 57% would find driverless cars more acceptable if a licensed driver was required to be in the vehicle.

Similarly, about six-in-ten Americans think the use of computer chip implants in the brain would be more acceptable if people could turn on and off the effects, and 53% would find the brain implants more acceptable if the computer chips could be put in place without surgery.

About half or more also see ways that advances would be more acceptable to them when it comes to the use of robotic exoskeletons, facial recognition technology by police and gene editing in babies to greatly reduce the risk of serious disease during their lifetime.

Note: Here arethe questions usedfor this report, along with responses, andits methodology.

Cary Funk is director of science and society research at Pew Research Center. Find Cary on Twitter @surveyfunk

Lee Rainie is director of internet and technology research at Pew Research Center. Find Lee on Twitter @lrainie

A version of this article was originally posted at Pew Research and is reposted here with permission. Find Pew Research on Twitter @pewresearch

Read more from the original source:
PEW and transhumanism: Public has mixed concerns about arriving era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and human enhancement - Genetic Literacy Project

Its too bad that the title Bodies Bodies Bodies is already taken (by an upcoming horror film), because it would be a great name for David Cronenbergs new film, Crimes of the Future, which premiered here at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday. Cronenbergs first film in eight years is about body obsession, imagining a time maybe decades (or more?) from now when humanity eagerly melds with the synthetic.

In some ways, Crimes of the Future is an eco-horror, an imagining of where our species might be headed now that there have been microscopic bits of plastic found teeming in nearly all of us. Cronenberg envisions a world in which people have begun mutating, producing new internal organs for as yet unknown purposes. While their use is sussed out, their existence has become a cult-like fascination, creating a new genre of performance art.

Viggo Mortensen plays just such an artist: Saul, a weather-beaten man whose body is working overdrive inventing new parts. These developments may be killing him. Or maybe its the constant surgeries, performed as public shows by his partner, Caprice (La Seydoux). These peculiar acts have caught the attention of culture vultures and of a government organization that tags new organs, as a way to delineate between regular anatomical matter and the ominous other stuff.

Theres a mystery at work in the film, gruesomely involving a murdered child. Saul and Caprice become ensnared in that bit of intrigue while continuing to explore what I suppose you could call their craft. The film is rather opaque in its plotting, forcing a viewer to lean forward, squinting to gain an understanding of just what is going on in these dank operating theaters and junkyard hangouts.

Crimes of the Future is more style piece than narrative story, a jumble of ideas and images that have been swirling in Cronenbergs singular mind for years now and are finally manifest and sallow. It may prove tricky for some to get on the films eerie-weird wavelength, though lifelong Cronenberg fans will no doubt be happy to see him mucking about in the gooey and grotesque after some time spent in the more polished realms of crime (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises) and celebrity satire (Maps to the Stars). Crimes of the Future is undeniably a Cronenberg film, with its mecha-organic contraptions that look like bones (a la eXistenZ) and the faintest of wry smiles curling up at the pictures edges.

As he has done before, Cronenberg makes great use of Mortensen, who plays Saul with a disarming warmth that stands in pleasant contrast to the broader films chilly murk. Mortensen has vital chemistry with Seydoux. Together they create a recognizably human dynamic amid so much otherworldly strangeness and unease. That the people in Crimes of the Futureincluding Kristen Stewart, as a perhaps overly invested government organ trackerare very much people, not unlike those wed meet in our reality, gives the film a crucial grounding. With these sturdy anchors in place, Cronenberg can stretch his film toward the various gonzo directions of his singular interest.

Much early hay has been made about the body-horror aspect of Cronenbergs film, buzzed about as a film that would send Cannes audiences running for the exits to escape its gory onslaught. Take it from a squeamish person that much of that chatter has been overblown. There are some gnarly things in the movieparticularly a bit of mouth play on an open wound (of a sort) that will dreadfully linger in my head for some timebut for the most part, Cronenbergs approach to these surgical oddities is clinical enough to prevent true revulsion.

Really, the most unsettling image in the film is Saul struggling to eat breakfast while he sits in a rattling, yanking kind of chair made of synthetic bone (I think), meant to stabilize or stimulate (Im really not sure I parsed that one) his body for ideal food consumption. Its quite frightening to think of a quotidian task made so strange and difficult by both failing personal health and technological advancement.

Though, is any of this actually advancement? Cronenberg is coy about whether what hes showing us is meant to startle us into action to prevent such a future, or if there is a cold comfort in its inevitability. Maybe the film is saying we should just sit back and await the surreal wonder of our own mechanical breakfast chairs. Or maybe hes making a sort of doomsday prophecy.

More here:
David Cronenberg Gets Back to Basics in Crimes of the Future - Vanity Fair