An Open Question for AI Researchers

Here's a question that has been bothering me for a couple of days now; it is directed towards anyone who is seriously studying/researching/developing AI:

Does an intelligent system need to be independent of outside influence?

Issue #1: Puppetteers (a la Spinoza)
Perhaps it is my lack of knowledge in narrow AI, but do narrow AIs require an external controller of some sort that determines the choices in computation? (e.g. human systems analyst who oversees the processing of the AI)

Issue #2: Stimulus (a la Descartes)
Perhaps this itself is a nonissue if Cartesian duality were not the case, but would a true "intelligent" system be able to exist in its own self-contained system such that the external universe does not affect it? (e.g. Dharmic religious teachings of liberation from material existence... kind of. More solipsistic, to be very honest, but nonetheless a question worth asking)

"Practical" Metaphysics for the Young Aspiring Transhumanist

With talks of AGI, destructive technology, and universal transparency during TransVision 2007, I have been seriously re-evaluating the Libertarian approach to things. The benefits of a free market (the most competetive and therefore, hypothetically, the strongest ideas) can only be ensured when there is free discourse running between different agents, diversity will be needed as diverse contributions will lead to greater degrees of input and quality control. In order to maintain diversity of opinions, freedom (in the Liberatarian sense) must be given. However, this freedom will allow also for destructive ideas to occur, which I am all for in the usual case, but with the power of self-assembling nanobots and AGIs strong enough to engineer cosmic projects, is such freedom wise?

During TV07, the presenter from the Lifeboat Foundation has noted this danger and suggested the creation of a universal surveillance network. If such a system is activated, then privacy is lost, something that is fundamental to a Libertarian such as myself. Of course, the loss of privacy on my part only affects me if my power or influence is based on confidential information (i.e. passwords, PIN numbers, etc.) and if sanctimony exists (not to mention the entire Gattaca deal with insurance companies, but that's another story). Benjamin Franklin declared that "those who sacrifice essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." But what if the little bit of security was your planet's stake or even the universe's?
Even beyond this, a question was asked during discussions after the conference: "if we had reached a 'perfect' state, how do we maintain it? How do we achieve Utopia?" At first I scoffed at the question, given that Utopias are based on absolutes and Platonic ideals, but I pondered about the modality of Utopia. Feeling like a Zen student, I answered in manner of a koan: "the only way to establish Utopia is to establish Dystopia. In order for us to maintain a stable state, we must have full control of a system, which would require full surrender of our individual freedoms to a benevolent AGI much greater in intelligence than ours." I was horrified by this notion, and I hope my reasoning is flawed somewhere or my premises are somewhat faulty, but I am currently evaluating this idea and developing a vision of the future with "Borg" mentality. Despite the antagonism the creators of Star Trek, however, is the Borg mentality such a horrible thing?

I hope my readers forgive me; I usually never do this, but I feel that this issue can be tackled using light metaphysics, specifically from Taoist and Dharmic ontologies. Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine suggested (in a joking, yet rather grave manner) during his presentation that perhaps the Borg state of existence is that of a Buddhist saint's. I can see where he makes the connections--Dharmic religions generally correlate salvation as freedom from pain and suffering and not necessarily as a transition to a state of perpetual happiness. Happiness cannot exist without sadness, so it is therefore better to escape the cycle of joy and pain through transcendence. My Star Trek knowledge is limited, I must admit, but Bailey listed several traits that Borgs share with Buddhas, which include a form of asceticism. Except for the forced assimilation part, I think Bailey's argument is quite convincing, as Borgs are detached from the shackles of suffering. Of course, this whole deal with assimilation is problematic to liberal theories as it is the theft of individuality. However, what exactly is the nature of this individuality? Is there something essential within it? Assuming there is an essential "me" and an essential "you," what makes it so sacred anyway?

This is where I introduce Taoist metaphysics, which argues a form of anti-essentialism (although at the very core, the Tao itself seems to be an essential idea... paradoxes, paradoxes). According to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu (the latter of which I am finishing reading), no ideas have permanence and their relative stabilities in a period of time and a boundary of space is due to the harmonies of universal forces which act according to "its own way" (the Tao). Like Heraclitus' river, all things change, compose then decompose, including identities. Of course, when we bring "Te" and essentialist functionalism into consideration, Taoism becomes an extremely H+ unfriendly philosophy (especially since it appeals to naturalism), but the non-interventionism of Taoism can be considered an ethic code that can be excluded from metaphysical consideration. But the key issue is mutability and transformation, which would therefore include identities. The archetypal "Eastern Mystic" who claims that "everything is an illusion," is half-correct; everything as its permanence and fixed form (i.e. Platonic ideal) is illusory, including individuality. Therefore, this individuality that we try to protect against assimilation is fleeting in the first place. Resistance is futile because you will be assimilated--if not into the Hive Mind, then back into the universe where your body decomposes and your consciousness to who-knows-what (we'll not go into Kantian distinctions, considering it would be almost too ambitious of a project to work on in this small amount of space). This sort of pantheism, curiously similar to many of Spinoza's ideas (which is a comparison also supported by the late Sino-Philosophy Professor Fung Yu-Lan of Beijing/Peking University), seems to be what many of H+ cosmological theories are headed towards (cf. James Gardner's "biocosm" and Stephen Wolfram's "digital physics"). In fact, the information paradigm prevalent in modern systems thought seems to correlate this information to "Tao" or "Te," depending on whose lexicon you accept regarding Taoist hermeneutics. Of course, this is pure speculation and none of the ideas that I'm providing is actually rigorously provided (bad Analytic! No British tea for you!), but it's an issue that I think is worth exploring.

Now, to address the compatibility between Hive Mind, Taoism, and evolution. When looking at the loss of individuality in the Borg model, competition ceases within the system and therefore there is no directed mechanism for evolution (of course, this is not accounting for internal change). Assuming that the components within the Hive do not themselves change, which can be accomodated through maintenance networks, evolution will then cease within the system. This meets the Hardy-Weinberg conditions: absence of competition will elimate selection, maintenance will blanket all forms of population change, and various mechanisms can address stochasticity, especially given the powerful abilities and cognitive capabilities of the supermind. However, taking a constructivist view of things, this Hive Mind system is still a subset of objects in the universe and will therefore have to adapt to its surroundings. This argument reintroduces natural selection, but care must be taken to identify the Hive Mind as an actor itself instead of the individual elements that make up the system. Similar to the rise of multi-cellular organisms, I see the Hive Mind as a multi-organismal "organism," akin to Gaia and Deep Ecology theories. James Gardner furthers this argument to the universe, thus coming up with the notion of the "biocosm": the universe itself as an organism. However, without going into anything beyond the Hive Mind, it is crucial to evaluate whether this Hive Mind will be subject to the same laws of guided evolution that we are accustomed to, not because it is a supermind, but because of the capabilities of a supermind that will allow for radical self-engineering. Another question to ask is if this Hive Mind is unique, or if it will have competition with other Hive Minds. This is probably a non-issue, given the transcience of identity that I have alluded to before, but it is nevertheless a question that is important for the "near" far-future (an argument against multiple guiding AGIs is war between these "gods"). What will the "natural" way such a situation will proceed, if such a question is necessary to ask? This leads back to Taoism and brings up the issue: should we as Transhumanists consider it as a purely descriptive philosophy, or should we take some of its ethical imperatives? Should we let alone and let nature run its course, given the many dangers of tampering with powers we do not understand?

Here, I hope to attack the interpretation of naturalism that seems to pervade modern Taoism (uh oh! an exegis! flee, my rational comrades! flee!!) The argument against development and modernization that comes from modern day Taoists seems stem from a false dichotomy between human and nature: anything synthetic is "unnatural" and will mess with the natural harmonies that are governed by the Tao. Modern medicine should be abandoned because it merely upsets the flow of material energy ("ch'i") using "energetically subversive" materials like chemicals (obviously water is not a chemical because it's "natural"). The internal inconsistency between naturalism and anti-essentialism in Taoism is quite clear--is the Tao itself subjected to the laws of Tao? If Tao doesn't change, then it's a Platonic ideal that is fixed, and it becomes describable, something that Lao Tzu vehemently denies. If Tao changes, it must change according to the Tao, which is formally a self-referential paradox. One might bring in "real time" arguments, such as Tao changes according Tao at that point. However, what happens when the Tao that changes Tao is such that Tao is not to follow Tao? This critique of Taoism might be crippling my advocacy of it, but I would like to emphasize its description: change. If this change exists and nothing is fixed, then there is no distinction between humans and nature, which totally destroys the naturalism touted by Chinese herbalists and New Age babblers. However, if the mode of Tao and Te still apply, then human beings should be let to do what they naturally do: create. Synthesis is therefore natural because that is what humans do. Adopting the ethics of Taoism, human beings have an imperative to create, which is an imperative to progress towards the many technologies described so eloquently by our futurists.

With this entry, I present a revised Taoist metaphysics for H+s. I hope that more is developed on this subject, although not as sloppily as I have done. I must be ill if I am suggesting this rather primitive form of pantheism as a paradigm to adopt (given my penchant for epistemology and strong dislike for metaphysics), but I nonetheless offer a system in which scientific naturalism and ethical imperatives of progress intersect. Perhaps it'll bring clarity to the H+ movement. If not, it'll at least provide interesting bits of texts to laugh at.

Finished!

I've finished my initial translations! Wooooooot!

Mini Glossary Finished

...really... tired... of... translating...

Humanity, Posthumanity, Transhumanity Finished

Instead of translating directly from Bostrom's FAQ, I decided to adapt his text, make it more concise, and add different materials. It is therefore a *loose* adaptation of his text.

I've added a section on the ambiguity of "trans" in transhumanism--I always that "trans" referred to the prefix meaning "to go beyond," which is what the Chinese and Japanese Transhumanists use, but Bostrom introduces FM-2030's term "transitional human" between humanity and posthumanity. However, in Korean, these concepts are phonologically and etymologically (when looking at Hanja) distant from each other, so I was at a loss.

I decided in the end that the "trans" in transhumanism is better served by referring to "transcendence," because of two reasons. On a practical level, we can't really say what is between human and "posthuman," especially since the term "posthuman" is ill-defined and extremely ambiguous. On a deeper level, I believe that transhumanism holds its strength in emphasizing the continuing change of the human situation. To claim that we are in a transitional state implies that there is an end that we are headed for (i.e. posthumanity) and therefore we have a final destination in mind. However, I believe that even if we've reached such a posthuman state where even fuzzy definitions will allow us to say we're definitely at a state of posthumanity that is qualitatively different from the current standards of human, we will still seek change and continue to better ourselves. Like a flowing river, our boundaries always change and we have the ability to constantly challenge and overcome these boundaries. Even if we're posthuman, we will still wish to transcend from any point of our (hopefully) never-ending development, so therefore I have chosen transhuman to mean "beyond human (limits)" as Kurzweil emphasized in his talk during TransVision 2007. Transhuman. 초인간(超人間). I hope this will be a reminder to ourselves in the future to never stop reaching beyond the limits of humanity and posthumanity.

WTA Korean Website Skeleton

Okay, so I've been working on translating some of the WTA literature into Korean, given the fact that Korea (Republic of) has the greatest bandwith in the world, and therefore (hopefully) the most receptive to H+ ideas. So far, I have a WTA intro, H+ intro, and the H+ Declaration down. I'm tackling the other documents as I go along.

So here is the basic skeleton I sent to James Hughes and the WTA:

We will maintain the WTA logo and frames at the top and left side of the
screen, and for the body, we will see these sections in
order:

About WTA:

Hyperlink=page of projects translated into Korean with appropriate hyperlinks to
English pages>

About Transhumanism:
Paragraphs of FAQ Section 1.1>
1.1 with hyperlink to html and pdf files of FAQ of Original Document and English
translations>

Transhumanist Declaration:
Korean and English. Korean and English pages are html of declaration with
a hyperlink to pdf at the bottom>

Humanity, Posthumanity,
Transhumanity:
English pages are html of Sections 1.2-1.3 of FAQ with links to pdf at
bottom>

Glossary:
are an adaptation of Section 2 with English-Korean lexicon with a brief
description in Korean of each term>

Currents in
Transhumanism:
5.2 without the Arts section, unless objections are
raised>

Translator's Biography and Invitation for Revision and
Further Translation
We will maintain the WTA logo and frames at the top and left side of the screen, and for the body, we will see these sections in order:

About WTA:



About Transhumanism:



Transhumanist Declaration:


Humanity, Posthumanity, Transhumanity:


Glossary:


Currents in Transhumanism:


Translator's Biography and Invitation for Revision and Further Translation

Transhumanism Intro Korean

Okay, so James Hughes wanted me to write a Korean introduction to the WTA site. What I have done so far is translated the first part of the WTA FAQ written by Nick Bostrom. Still a rough translation. What I'm planning, afterwards, is to possibly translate some of the WTA frames. However, I think a professional translator might be a bit more efficient, as I've been working on this translation for about six hours now, and it's barely two pages long. Anyway, here goes.

세계초인협회(世界超人協會)에 오신 것을 환영합니다!
Welcome to the World Transhumanist Association!

초인본주의(超人本主義)란?

초인본주의(超人本主義)는 현재의 인간상태가 우리의 발달의 끝이 아니라, 오히려 상당히 이른 발달 단계다 라고 주장하는 미래를 보는 사고방식이다. 형식적으로 정의를 하면:

(1) 인간상태를 응용 논리를 사용해 극본적으로 변할 수 있는 가능성과 그 변화의 바람직한 것을 받아 드리며, 특히 노화(老化)를 제거하고, 인간의 지능, 육체, 그리고 심리능력을 크게 강화 시킬 수 있는 과학 기술의 발달과 넓게 배포하는 것을 확언하는 정신사상과 문화운동.

(2) 기초적인 인간의 한계를 뛰어 넘을 수 있는 과학 기술의 세부(細部) 조항, 유망(有望), 가능한 위난(危難), 그리고 그의 대한 윤리적인 문제들을 연구하는 학문.

초인본주의는 인본주의(人本主義)에서 부분적으로 유래되어, 인본주의의 연장으로 볼 수 있다. 인본주의는 인간이 중요하고. 개인들이 중요하다고 주장한다. 우리는 완벽하지는 않지만 합리적인 사고 방식, 자유(自由), 관용(寬容), 민주주의(民主主義), 그리고 동료들에 의한 우려(憂慮)를 증진하면 현재 상태를 보다 우수하게 만들 수 있다. 초인본주의자(超人本主義者)들은 이 것을 찬성 하지만, 우리가 변화를 할 수 있는 가능성도 강조한다. 합리적인 방식을 이용하여 인간상태과 외부의 세상을 밖을 수 있는 것 처럼, 같은 방식으로 우리들 자신, 인간이라는 유기체를 진전(進展)을 할 수 있다. 이렇게 하면, 문화나 교육발달 같은 인본주의의 인습(因習)적인 방식으로 한정되지 않은다. 그리고, 또 과학 기술을 사용하여, 현재 몇몇 사람들이 “인간”라고 부르는 것 보다 더 이상으로 갈 수 있게 허용한다.

우리의 형태나 생물적인 설계가 우리의 중요성이 아니라, 오히려 우리의 희망이 나 이상(理想), 우리의 경험, 그리고 우리가 다루는 인생이 우리를 규정한다. 초인본주의자들에게는 많약 더 많은 개인들이 자신들의 가장 깊은 가치(價値)를 따라, 자기 자신, 인생, 그리고 남을 대하는 법을 맞춘다면, 개발이 이러난다. 초인본주의자들은 자율(自律), 즉 개인들이 자신의 인생을 계획하고 선택할 수 있는 능력과 권리에 대해 많은 중요성을 둔다. 몇몇 사람들은 물론 아무런 수의 이유가지고 자신을 발달을 시키는 기술없이 때울 수 있다. 초인본주의자들은 자율적인 개인들이 자신 발달을 선택하지 않은 것을 공경할 수 있는 세상의 창조를 향 한다.

가속하는 기술발달과 과학의 이해의 속도에 의해, 우리는 인류 역사의 새로운 시대를 들어간다. 가까운 장래에 실제적인 인공지능의 전망을 만날 수 있다. 인공지능과 인터페이스 테크놀로지를 결합 시키는 새로운 인식 기술이 발달된다. 분자 나노 기술(Molecular Nanotechnology)는 풍부한 자원을 제조할 수 있는 가능성도 있고, 우리 육체의 생화학 작용의 지배를 줘, 질병과 원하지 않은 노화(老化)를 없앨 수 있다. 뇌-컴퓨터 인터페이스나 신경약학 같은 기술들은 인간지능을 확대 시킬 수 있고, 정신건강을 늘릴수 있고, 장기의 계획이나 가까운 사람들에게 대할 수 있는 잠재력을 향상 시키고, 감정의 범위도 증가 시킬 수 있다. 사물의 어두운 면을 보면, 초인본주의자들은 다가오는 이 기술들 중에 인류에 큰 해가 끼치는 것들도 있다는 것을 안다; 인류의 생존이 위기에 처 있을 수 있다. 이 위험과 큰 재해(災害)을 예방하는 것도 초인본주의자들의 계획의 필수 부분이다.

증가하는 과학자, 과학에 박식(博識)한 철학자, 그리고 사회학자들의 수들이 초인본주의의 광범한 발전성을 진정하게 고찰하여 초인본주의는 대중문화에 등작했다. 빠르게 확대하는 많고 다양한 모임들과 세계에 펼처진 토론그룹들은 세계초인협회(世界超人協會—World Transhumanist Association)에 속하여 있다. 세계초인협회는 비영리 민주적인 회원 조직이다.

이글은 본래에는 Nick Bostrom(Oxford University)이 2003년도에 쓴 질문-회답의 부분이다. 2007년 7월 31일 최문형(Daniel M. Choi) 번역.

I've also realized that I've probably placed too much repetetive Hanja in the declaration. I'm debating whether I should remove the repeated Chinese or not, given that it's a formal declaration. Any comments?

Transhumanist Declaration in Korean

This is an initial and rough translation of the H+ Declaration in Korean. I think there are still a lot of kinks in it, given my rusty Korean and lack of sophistication I have in English.

초인본주의자 선언
超人本主義者宣言

1. 인류는 과학 기술에 의하여 미래에 철저히 변화가 된다. 우리는 인간상태를 변화시킬 가능성을 예감한다, 틐히 필연적인 노화(老化), 인간지능과 인공지능의 제한, 선택돼지 않은 심리, 고생, 그리고 지구에 대한 감금 등의 한계를 뛰어 너물 수 있는 것을 예감한다.
2. 다가오는 이 발달들과 그 발달들의 결과에 대해 철저한 연구를 해야 한다.
3. 초인본주의자(超人本主義者)들은 새로운 과학 기술을 일반적으로 받아드리면, 공학을 금지하거나 제한하는 것 보다 더 유리하게 전환시킬 것 이라고 생각한다.
4. 초인본주의자(超人本主義者)들은 자기의 정신 그리고 육체적인 능력(生殖권도 포함)이나 자기의 인생에 대한 통제력을 늘리려는 자들의 저작인격권을 주장한다. 우리는 현재 생물적인 제한을 지나, 개인적인 성장을 향한다.
5. 미래를 위해 예비를 할려면, 극적인 과학 발달을 참작해야 한다. 기술 공포나 불필요한 제한 때문에 가능한 이익이 실현하지 못 하면 비극적인 일이다. 반면에 진보된 과학 기술을 사용하여 재해나 전쟁이 지적인 생명체를 멸종시킨 것도 비극적이다.
6. 합리적으로 어떻게 해야 논쟁할 수 있는 토론회를 창조해야 하며, 책임적인 결정을 내리는 사회체계도 필요하다.
7. 초인본주의(超人本主義)는 모든 지각력 있는 존재(인공지능일지 아니면 인간들, 후(後)인간(Post-human), 비인적 동물들 등)의 복지(福祉)를 주장하며, 현대 인본주의(人本主義)의 많은 원리들을 포함한다. 초인본주의(超人本主義)는 구체적인 정당(政黨)이나, 정치인가, 정치사상을 지지하지 않은다.

다음 개인들이 이 문서의 최초 창작에 기부했다: Doug Bailey, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita More, Eugene Leitl, Berrie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, Doug Baily Jr., den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, Nick Bostrom.

이 선언(宣言)은 2002년도 3월 4일에 수정했으며, 2002년 12월 1일에 세계 초인협회 (世界超人協會)의 회원들의 투표로 재입양했다.

Ray Kurzweil! Posthuman THIS!!

"Ray Kurzweil! Posthuman THIS!!" So screamed Bill Dvorak, the self-described so-called "freedom fighter" and "ex-egoist," at Raymond Kurzweil on Thursday evening, the 26th of July. As Dvorak scrambled to run outside of the Simpson theatre in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the crowd laughed at him and cheered for Ray's awkward response of, "Well, I hope that I could possibly become post-biological..."

The past week was one of the most amazing weeks I've gone through, and probably the best of the summer. And not just because I wasn't in lab. TransVision 2007 was held this year in Chicago from July 24th to July 26th, ending up with a gala awards dinner that involved an embarrasing moment that I have decided to withold from the general public. I was volunteering for it, just as a member of the Democratic Transhumanists at the U of C, being mildly interested in the issues it presents, such as life extension, artificial intelligence, and other "future" technologies. However, this conference has changed me from merely a passive observer to an activist ready to mobilize for the cause of preparing for the singularity that is about to occur sooner than later. I am ready to face the future.

I first encountered Transhumanism when I was surfing the web last summer and finding myself on Wikipedia. The feature article that day was on Transhumanism, which was something that I had never heard of before, and I was intrigued, thinking that it was some sort of new age movement. After reading the article, I was somewhat disgusted by the notions of it, thinking that it is a new religious movement that is focused around using science as a basis for their mysticism. I didn't think much of it while I finished up my summer courses at Salt Lake Community College and I went to Korea to see my father before I began school at the Univ. of Chicago. Being separated for more than six years, we obviously had an awkward time trying to reconnect personally, so instead we talked about politics, economics, and technology--topics that provide stimulating talk but not requiring us to get any closer to each other than comfortable. Before he went on sick leave for his colon cancer, my father worked for the emerging sciences Science Advisory Board of Samsung, and was therefore extremely well-versed in different upcoming technologies. He was really excited about combining biotechnology and information technology and tried to explain "cognitronics," which he interpreted as enhancing psychic ability (something I have never found much online about, but judging by the name, it seems to refer more towards connecting the human brain to non-biological objects, such as a robotic arm that is separate from the body--this is why I believe that anyone dealing in the science industry should be expertly trained in the sciences, even if they are more administrators than developers). With these new ideas buzzing around in my head, I entered the Univ. of Chicago 2010, ready to embrace the changing world through interdisciplinary research.

After joining facebook, I have made a friend who had an interest in Transhumanism. I was fascinated by her, seeing that she had so much on her profile that deemed her to be cool, so I messaged her and friended her, excited that I had fun friends at the U of C. I started classes, yet I never saw her on campus, which discouraged me from further looking into Transhumanism. Meanwhile, I had a really cool molecular biology lab TA who was in awesome clothes and had a really chill, yet amazingly professional demeanor. I bonded with her instantly, but then halfway through the quarter I realized... wow, she's the Transhumanist on facebook! The next time I went to biolab, I jumped on her and started jibbering like a school girl, "I KNOW YOU! I KNOW YOU!!!" We've been the best of friends ever since.

Gradually, working with her and another Transhumanist friend who graduated from Northwestern in 2005, I took more of Transhumanism and slowly digested it. I was still skeptical, of course, because it seemed to me that the movement took too much on faith. First of all, I argued, any long-term predictions regarding the future are extremely imprecise, usually inaccurate, and always a long shot. Second of all, Transhumanism seemed to have this utopian dream of paradise brought on by diverging technological development. Of course paradigm shifts can always change the outlook, but that in itself defies prediction, which would discount any Transhumanist theory in the first place. I kept this attitude well into this summer and considered Transhumanism somewhat of a crazy-people movement, which I was quite interested in, but never fully devoted myself to. Even to the first meeting, I wondered if there was any value in volunteering for the TransVision conference, which was conveniently held in Chicago this year. I decided that I was attending out of convenience and convinced myself to commit since it was a nice break from work. However, starting from the very first meeting, I noticed that something very radical was about to begin.

I was met by a group of diverse opinions who have read texts in neuroscience, philosophy, and evolutionary biology far beyond anything I've encountered, and they were ready to tear my misconceptions about Transhumanists apart. Philosophers, artists, biologists, mathematicians, and sociologists all came to debate the future of evolutionary trends, and this was just the group of volunteers! As the event went on, speakers gave their talks while attendees and volenteers had intense conversations that resonated something inside my core; I felt that even though these were non-U of C peoples (although there were several people affiliated with the U of C), we were all reaching for that same level of intellectualism that leaves most people behind, paddling along on driftwood. Admittedly, it was quite different from the general brilliance of the U of C (there were many mystics there with their new agey nonsense), but despite the self-taught individuals (some of whom, like Eliezer Yudkowsky, are more than brilliant), there was something here that is very lacking in pure U of C conversation--passionate conviction. Of course I like to quote Nietzsche: "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truths than lies," but the imminence of radical change and the acceptance of needing to take action for not just betterment, but for self-preservation, really materializes the relevance of these discourses. I am now also an active Transhumanist.

It's a bit of a gamble, I admit, to associate myself with a fringe group of thinkers. Although you have mainstream people like William Shatner or Ray Kurzweil (although some might argue against my standards of mainstream), Transhumanism really is an extreme paradigm that will undoubtedly shock the general public. However, regardless of whether or not Transhumanists' specific predictiions come true, it is inevitable that great changes due to social, technological, and biological evolution are always in front of us. Therefore, I too have jumped the bandwagon. These issues are real. These issues are relevant. These issues will decide whether or not we as intelligent life will survive. I think it is time to take action. As Ray Kurzweil wrote in my copy of The Singularity is Near, Welcome to the Singularity.