Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mormon Transhumanism

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next
  • #1

    Mormon Transhumanism

    I was actually going to post on this a while back but didn't for one reason or another, but now there is a Mormon Matters podcast on it so I figured I'd start a thread.

    I'm not a transhumanist, but I like a lot of their ideas, especially their emphasis on eternal progression. A coupel of years ago a group of them formed the Mormon Transhumanist Association. I went to high school with one of the founding members, who I believe is no longer a director or officer, but he still participates from time to time. I also know Lincoln Cannon from somewhere but I just can't place it yet, but I want to say I went to school with one of his siblings.

    In any case, the podcast was interesting and was a good introductory course on what they beleive and how it ties into foundational Mormonism. I'm only listened to the first part, but I hope in the second part they get more into the MTA's feelings about Mormonism moving away from those foundational doctrines and going to a more mainstream Protestantism doctrine. I can only imagine they are not happy with GBH's statement on godhood in his Larry King interview or in the newly released Mormonism 101.

    My favorite quote so far in the podcast was when one of the interviewees talked about a Mormon Atheist that is part of the MTA and said that he's atheist because "there is not God.....yet". I thought that was profound and interesting.

    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I listened to that podcast. I also liked found that idea that there isn't yet a God an interesting one, as an approach to both eternal progression and theodicy. I have to chew on it a little more.

    Was Lincoln the uber-atheist? I would have liked to hear more from him. I was out running during the when he mentioned his epitaph. I remember liking it but can't remember the source or the exact wording--something about it being shameful to die without having given a gift to humanity?

    One thing that really really bugs me is when concepts of physics or science are distorted by humanities types and applied where they were never meant to be (people do this with quantum physics and relativity all the time), so the singularity discussion really annoyed me. Their concept is fine and interesting--just call it something else.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
      I listened to that podcast. I also liked found that idea that there isn't yet a God an interesting one, as an approach to both eternal progression and theodicy. I have to chew on it a little more.

      Was Lincoln the uber-atheist? I would have liked to hear more from him. I was out running during the when he mentioned his epitaph. I remember liking it but can't remember the source or the exact wording--something about it being shameful to die without having given a gift to humanity?

      One thing that really really bugs me is when concepts of physics or science are distorted by humanities types and applied where they were never meant to be (people do this with quantum physics and relativity all the time), so the singularity discussion really annoyed me. Their concept is fine and interesting--just call it something else.
      I don't think Lincoln is the uber-atheist but he may have made the statement for the person that was not present. I think you got the gist of the epitaph correct.

      Your last paragraph is spot on. I'm FB friends with Lincoln and he posts some interesting stuff, but he always spins it in a transhumanist sort of way, which I guess is to be expected. In any case, his view of Mormonism is very interesting.
      "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
        One thing that really really bugs me is when concepts of physics or science are distorted by humanities types and applied where they were never meant to be (people do this with quantum physics and relativity all the time), so the singularity discussion really annoyed me. Their concept is fine and interesting--just call it something else.
        I get what you are saying but as for the term they didn't coin it. Vernor Vinge, a SDSU professor of math an computer science and sci-fi author, used the term technological singularity in a speech he gave in 1993. It has since been shortened and popularized in geek culture.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
          One thing that really really bugs me is when concepts of physics or science are distorted by humanities types and applied where they were never meant to be
          This reminds me of a comment in Sunday School the other week. The teacher was talking about learning by the Spirit, and a guy in the class - the son of a really nice CES lifer who just moved from the area - made a comment to the effect that it's the scientific method that is used when someone prays for a testimony of something. I thought of CardiacCoug.
          "What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone

          "What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by SCcoug View Post
            I get what you are saying but as for the term they didn't coin it. Vernor Vinge, a SDSU professor of math an computer science and sci-fi author, used the term technological singularity in a speech he gave in 1993. It has since been shortened and popularized in geek culture.
            Yeah, it sounded like they weren't the ones who coined the term, although I didn't know the source. I suspect that Vinge, as a math guy, understood that although singularity is a generic term, THE singularity has a very specific meaning, and likely was careful to call it the "technological singularity" as a way of communicating the magnitude of an impending technological explosion. I have no problem with that. But these guys are now referring to it, at least in the podcast, as "the singularity", which makes me think transhumanist literature is doing the same. No physicist or mathematician thinks technology when they hear that.
            At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
            -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

            Comment

            • #7
              I'm interested that there aren't any scientists among their officers. I guess there is an MRI guy and a few people who have dabbled in science or have bachelors degrees in science, but I don't think that really counts.
              That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

              http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
                I'm interested that there aren't any scientists among their officers. I guess there is an MRI guy and a few people who have dabbled in science or have bachelors degrees in science, but I don't think that really counts.
                Kind of like the CB "Scientific Alliance" that's full of engineers. I think there's even a political science guy on there.
                If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

                "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

                "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                  My favorite quote so far in the podcast was when one of the interviewees talked about a Mormon Atheist that is part of the MTA and said that he's atheist because "there is not God.....yet". I thought that was profound and interesting.

                  It's neither profound nor interesting. It's silly. There is no such thing as an Athiest who is Mormon or a Mormon who is Atheist. There are times when an oxymoron is simply moronic.
                  "The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Non Sequitur View Post
                    It's neither profound nor interesting. It's silly. There is no such thing as an Athiest who is Mormon or a Mormon who is Atheist. There are times when an oxymoron is simply moronic.
                    No, arguing about definitions or labels is neither profound nor interesting.

                    He's atheist in that he doesn't believe that God exists. He'd never claim to be fully 'Mormon', but he calls himself culturally Mormon and likes the idea of eternal progression. His idea is interesting, I think.
                    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
                      I'm interested that there aren't any scientists among their officers. I guess there is an MRI guy and a few people who have dabbled in science or have bachelors degrees in science, but I don't think that really counts.
                      Hey SoonerCoug, this is Carl Youngblood. I'm a board member of the MTA. We actually do have a neuroscientist and a physicist on our board, as well as quite a few different flavors of engineers. In addition to the board members, there are other scientists among the membership, some of whom have spoken at previous conferences of ours:

                      http://vimeo.com/transfigurism
                      http://pc2009.confreaks.com/

                      If you're interested in this stuff, be sure and come out to our upcoming conference on April 6th in the SLC library.

                      Cheers,
                      Carl

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by cayblood View Post
                        Hey SoonerCoug, this is Carl Youngblood. I'm a board member of the MTA. We actually do have a neuroscientist and a physicist on our board, as well as quite a few different flavors of engineers. In addition to the board members, there are other scientists among the membership, some of whom have spoken at previous conferences of ours:

                        http://vimeo.com/transfigurism
                        http://pc2009.confreaks.com/

                        If you're interested in this stuff, be sure and come out to our upcoming conference on April 6th in the SLC library.

                        Cheers,
                        Carl
                        Carl, thanks for dropping by and sharing this info! Don't be a stranger.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                          No, arguing about definitions or labels is neither profound nor interesting.

                          He's atheist in that he doesn't believe that God exists. He'd never claim to be fully 'Mormon', but he calls himself culturally Mormon and likes the idea of eternal progression. His idea is interesting, I think.
                          Seems profound and interesting to me, but I'm a simpleton.

                          It's profound to me because of the implications it has on traditional Mormonism and scriptural events. If God does not yet exist, then what did JS see? Who did Moses talk to face to face? It seems to imply that prophets have seen the Platonic form of humans, basically what we would look like if we became perfected. They saw this instead of seeing God, who doesn't exist....yet. They basically saw what man can become and that is what has fueled their doctrine and teachings in a way to perfect man. I guess I find that profound and interesting when coupled with some elements of Mormon thought.
                          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                            Seems profound and interesting to me, but I'm a simpleton.

                            It's profound to me because of the implications it has on traditional Mormonism and scriptural events. If God does not yet exist, then what did JS see? Who did Moses talk to face to face? It seems to imply that prophets have seen the Platonic form of humans, basically what we would look like if we became perfected. They saw this instead of seeing God, who doesn't exist....yet. They basically saw what man can become and that is what has fueled their doctrine and teachings in a way to perfect man. I guess I find that profound and interesting when coupled with some elements of Mormon thought.
                            God claims to have numberless creations. If God isn't really God then God is 99.9999999% of the way there. I don't see where the fractional difference presents anything of real distinction or value.
                            Everything in life is an approximation.

                            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              scientists

                              Hi, my name is James L. Carroll. I have a PhD in computer science, I do research on artificial intelligence at LANL, I taught institute for many years, and even taught PofGP, Isaiah, and BOM at BYU for a while... and I am a member of the MTA. Just wanted to clarify on the whole "they have no scientists" comment earlier.

                              As for our "atheist", he is an interesting person. Obviously I disagree with him about whether there is a God "yet" or not, but we accept all people whether they agree with us or not.

                              As to whether it is an "oxymoron" for someone to be both an atheist and a "Mormon", in this case, as I understand what he has told me, the person in question attends all his Mormon Church services, holds a calling, and keeps all the commandments. He simply has doubts. If someone had to have a 100% sure testimony before we could call them a Mormon, then a lot of good Mormons wouldn't qualify. This person may have more doubts than most, but as long as he continues to go to Church and serves in the Kingdom, who am I to say that he isn't a "Mormon"?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next
                              Working...
                              X