[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Occult Transhumanism's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Sunday, June 13th, 2010|
For your respective viewing pleasure. My opinion is that what transpires here makes this look like a elementary school primer.
|Monday, January 21st, 2008|
|Thursday, November 30th, 2006|
A Near-Future Dream.
I was sitting cross-legged on my bed [which I am currently not physically capable of doing] using a laptop [which I currently don't have]. This machine was capable of printing things not only on the screen but on external objects. I would plug the object in the machine and use the mouse to control a program which changed the object's pattern and color.
I had a map of the USA made of something like cardboard. I was using the computer to color different sections of the map, and the paint on the map would rearrange smoothly and seamlessly as I manipulated it with the mouse. Then a glitch developed which caused the map to get squashed together into an unattractive shape, and the colors got mixed up. I tried to reset it by clicking the mouse, but it didn't work. I decided to leave it alone for a few minutes to see if the program would fix itself, and when I looked again the map was back to normal.
I was mystified at how something like this could work. I looked in the back of the room which was set up like an office, with some computer techs working there. I went over to the little office and said, "Is there a geek here? I need to ask some questions." Finally I succeeded in gaining the "geek's" attention. I told him about how the computer could rearrange the colors on the map, and how it got mixed up and then returned to normal. I asked him how the computer could control external objects as if they were mere images. I also had a potted plant which was built by the computer and which could be reconfigured in a manner similar to the map, only it was three-dimensional (and possibly living.)
The "geek" explained that the computer stored the external form of a three-dimensional image in a data structure called a "truplate", and the internal structure was stored in a similar data structure with a slightly different name, something like "tremplate". The computer would then reconstruct the object using a fractal pattern -- for example, it would "grow" the potted plant by attaching smaller branches to larger ones, etc. Each level of structure was stored in a different part of the database. He demonstrated this by taking the plant apart and putting it back together, as if it were made of plastic. The parts separated cleanly and rejoined seamlessly, though it was evidently made of organic material.
Well, what could this possibly be except nanotech? Paint molecules which reorganize themselves to form different patterns and which can be controlled with a computerized device (I'm sure the real model will use something better than a mouse, such as a fully-adjustable electronic paintbrush.) Reconstructible plants with detachable sections, which would be, in some manner, alive. Of course, real plants also have the property of detachability to some extent, since some types of plants can be grown from shoots. This technology would simply develop that property to its logical conclusion, making each part fully modular.
|Thursday, April 27th, 2006|
|Saturday, April 8th, 2006|
Hi. I joined this community after googling transpersonal psychology and coming across this site in my LJ. I have always had an interest in transhumanism in anime and movies and thought this community was interesting.
|Saturday, December 10th, 2005|
Indian Docs are Patenting Eastern Medicine.
Found on anthropologist
India hits back in 'bio-piracy' battle
By Soutik Biswas
BBC News, Delhi
In a quiet government office in the Indian capital, Delhi, some 100 doctors are hunched over computers poring over ancient medical texts and keying in information.
These doctors are practitioners of ayurveda, unani and siddha, ancient Indian medical systems that date back thousands of years. ( Read More...Collapse )
The purpose of this, incidentally, is not to restrict use by individual practitioners, but to pre-empt patenting by foreign firms. Hopefully, this will not only protect traditional knowledge but increase the legitimacy of Eastern medicine in the view of the West -- paving the way toward an eventual merger between conventional Western bioscience and a subtle-energy-based approach. Granted, it's likely to be a long way down the road before the AMA officially recognizes the existence of chi or prana, but it's a step in the right direction.
|Wednesday, December 7th, 2005|
|Tuesday, November 29th, 2005|
Threshhold of the Singularity, is where exactly?...
There are a few generally reckognized roadsigns to the singularity,
such as; Biological Immortality, Genetic Tailoring, Artificial
Intelligence, Uploading of Human Consiousness, Nanoproduction,
Nanocomputing, and Nanoeverythingelse. I see these things as occuring
within the next three decades and being perfected within the next five.
However a lot of people who think they are coming see a much longer
range for them, I'm curious what you all think will occur and when?
Does your foresight include all of these? just a few? have others I
didn't mention? Current Mood: contemplative
|Wednesday, November 9th, 2005|
I posted this in another community...
Ultimately godhood is what one makes of it. I personally define divinity as superconciousness. The correlation between the human mind and a superconciousness would be the same as that of an ant to a human. Trying to understand the superconciousness would be impossible right now.
That's not to say, of course, that the human species couldn't achieve superconciousness at some point in the future and become a divinity. The question would be how exactly this will be achieved. There appear to be many potential paths.
As an aside, I often wonder why many folks in this community balk at the idea of humans becoming deities. The last time this was brought up, the responses were depressingly typical:
"The gods wouldn't allow it"
"We should just learn to be happy servants to the gods, rather than try to be them"
"We'll all be dead before we can achieve godhood"
I honestly can't see a reason why we as a species shouldn't do everything in our power to hasten the transistion to superconciousness/godhood so we can blow this popsicle stand we call Earth. That sun in the sky ain't gonna be burning forever, you know.
Something that has always baffled me is why there are some folks in this world who are so averse to even entertaining the idea that humans could eventually become what I would consider "gods". It's so obvious that whether it happens in 100 years, 10,000 years, or a million years, it will happen. The question is how will it happen?
|Saturday, October 22nd, 2005|
Philosophy Post on Nature, Evolution and Human Progress
A very interesting post on philosophy.
The writer questions his previous views of man, technology and the ecosystem, and wonders how his personal feelings of connectedness to nature can relate to a world in which mass extinctions are evolutionarily common -- often giving rise to the evolution of new forms of life. Is human love for nature mere sentimentality -- particularly as the universe itself does not particularly "care" whether any particular species lives or dies? Should humans feel guilty about destroying other forms of life, or simply accept that as our natural role? The discussion on this contains some interesting points.
I'm curious what people here think of this, in particular those who practice some form of nature-mysticism or nature-oriented spirituality. How do you combine nature and technological advancement in your personal philosophy? What are your attitudes toward human destruction of the ecoystem? What role should caring for nature play in mankind's overall development?( My Thoughts...Collapse ) Current Mood: Joyful
|Friday, October 21st, 2005|
"Conditional Free Will": Can a Psychology of Freedom Be Combined With a Sociobiological Perspective?
Here is an excerpt from an article titled Biological Perspectives in Criminality.
Although the article is focused on crime, I find its analysis of biology and personal freedom quite relevant to human life in general:
The acceptance of biological explanations for human behavior has been thought by many to preclude the possibility of free will. This fundamental fear has resulted in a pervasive rejection of biological contributions to behavior. Although some behavioral scientists are deterministic in their views, attributing behavior to everything from socioeconomic conditions to neurochemical events, most individuals prefer to credit their own free will for their behavior. A compromise reflecting a more accurate position on the forces behind human behavior is widely accepted, however--the theory of "conditional free will" (see Denno, 1988, for discussion of "degree determinism," a related view).
In probabilistic or stochastic theories, numerous causes or alternatives are presented to explain an effect. Each cause has a certain probability of resulting in that outcome, in some cases a measurable probability. Because it is rarely the case that an effect can be associated with only one cause, some dynamic interaction of causes, working in concert, is frequently responsible for the final result. In the assessment of human behavior, a most complex phenomenon, it is particularly difficult to separate those causes to assess their relative contributions.
In accordance with probability theory, social human behavior is contingent on a countless number of possible decisions from among which the individual may choose. Not all of those decisions are feasible, however, nor are the resources available that are required to act on them. Choosing a course of action, therefore, is limited by preset boundaries, which narrows the range of possibilities substantially. Decision‑limiting factors include current circumstances and opportunities, learning experiences, physiological abilities, and genetic predispositions. Each one of these conditions collaborates internally (physically) and externally (environmentally) to produce a final action. The behavioral result is thus restricted to options available within these guidelines, yet it is "indeterminable" and cannot be precisely predicted. Stable individuals generally behave with some degree of expectability, however. In other words, certain patterns of behavior are a common individual characteristic, and some patterns are more probable than others in a given situation in a given individual.
The principle of conditional free will does not demand a deterministic view of human behavior. Rather, it postulates that individuals choose a course of action within a preset, yet to some degree changeable, range of possibilities and that, assuming the conditions are suitable for rational thought, we are accountable for our actions. Given "rational" thought processes, calculation of risks versus the benefits, and the ability to judge the realities that exist, the result is likely to be an adaptive response, that is, the behavior will be beneficial for the individual and the surrounding environment.
This theory of conditional free will predicts that if one or more conditions to which the individual is exposed are disturbed or irregular, the individual is more likely to choose a disturbed or irregular course of action. Thus, the risk of such a response increases as a function of the number of deleterious conditions. For example, a child with a learning disability may function well in society. With the addition of family instability, lack of appropriate educational programs, and a delinquent peer group, however, the learning‑disabled child may be more prone to maladaptive behavior, which may, in turn, result in actions society has defined as criminal. The child's range of possible decisions has, in other words, been altered.
* * *
This is quite close to my own philosophy on the matter. Where you are right now determines where you can go, what immediate paths you can take -- but the direction in which you go is up to you. If you on a mountain, you can climb down into the valley or follow the path over to the next hill. The fact that you cannot jump instantaneously to the other side of the globe (well, not with our current technology) is not a negation of free will, but simply a relative limitation of it.
This also raises interesting issues about personal responsibility. There is one extreme, sometimes called "blaming the victim" (New Agers like me are often accused of that), which involves giving a person full responsibility for bad consequences and outcomes even if he genuinely did not know of any better alternatives, and, in his then-current situation, had no way of finding any. (For instance: People in NOLA did not get out in time, although they presumably could have; therefore it is their own fault that they drowned.) On the other extreme, people are excused completely from responsibility due to whatever effects of heredity and environment supposedly "compelled" them to make the choices they did.
I think the middle position makes the most sense. One cannot evaluate someone's choices without knowing what she or he had to choose from -- not only externally, but internally. A person who lacks the IQ, knowledge, education or imagination to generate different possibilities, does, in fact, have less freedom of choice than a person with greater cognitive ability, even in identical external circumstances. We are only as free as we can imagine ourselves being. That is why I regard the enhancement of human consciousness as a necessary tool for freedom.
|Tuesday, October 18th, 2005|
|Friday, October 14th, 2005|
I am both happy and sad to see this community taking off so far. Happy because it looks like some great conversations will be taking place here. Sad because it looks like this will be another community where the volume out paces my time to keep up with it. :(
That said, I've been wondering whether any studies, scientific or otherwise, have been done regarding the effects of artificial implants (hearts, joints, pace-makers) on reiki or other energy working techniques? Or vice-versa?
What effect do you think the invent of true Artificial Intelligence would have on the concept of a substantial view of the mind? Concept of consciousness? Would mind be brought down to all in the brain, or would AI give birth to new "souls"? (minds that might begin in the brain, but form substantially on another plane with self-awareness and self-reflection or in some other way).
Howdy, and pleased to meet you all.
I don't know how well received I'll be in this community. When I was younger I was very much into religion and philosophy, and I delved deeply into all of it. I rounded it off with the occult as I finally decided that I, myself, am an atheist.
I'm an empathic aura reader, and I do not see these things as "supernatural." I choose to perceive all things from an objective viewpoint. In other words, if I don't know, I don't know, and I don't feel the need to make anything up for it, although I find the masses' collective imaginations fascinating. I believe that most psychic anomalies are just really advanced psychological faculties that we do not yet understand. Anything I do not understand, is innocent until proven guilty. In other words: I refuse to accuse any force of being supernatural, ever. On the same token, I don't accuse any forces of being natural, as definable by modern science until I can prove it as such. I'm fond of many, many sects of occultism, but just like any other high protocol belief system, there are people I can't stand from all of them.
Cyborgization is not a commonly used (or even accepted as slang) word but I opted to use it anyway, because I feel it is more specific than other references, and needed in a lot of situations. I'm glad that I was born when I was, because I get to watch some of the begining stages of it "just getting good." The majority (at least in the country that I live in) seem to have attempted to reject cyborgization at every turn, from refusing to research genuinely attainable new forms of male contraception because they wouldn't market well to the poor sales of personal handheld computers up until very recently (Thank you, mp3s), as they reject all new things. Fortunately, however, they don't have a name for it yet, other than "Technology," for which they have built the name of a god - one of the few things I can be proud of in my society.
I think the most important thing we need to watch out for is cyborg culture. We have a chance to keep it pure, and unviolated. There are hackers and geeks of all types including myself working hard on that. I'm big into privacy on my computer, because my computer is an extension of my brain. And although I'm a huge advocate of individual property rights of the PHYSICAL, I am opposed to where intellectual
property rights have been going lately, especially when they infringe upon my physical property rights. For example: we finally create technology that allows us to duplicate data with resources that are next to nothing, and then we're not allowed to do it anymore. Read also: imposing capitalism on a metaphysical level where it is not required, or even helpful. And believe me, once they start sticking their pigsnouts into metaphysics, they're not going to stop anywhere, and nothing will be off limits to them. We have to start drawing the lines now.
I do not believe that we should allow physical rule of law to restrict our technology. Our technology should be free. In the soaring eagle sense, not samples at Sam's Club. If we can do it, we should be able to do it. And if you can't make money simply because no one wants to buy your actual physical products from you, maybe you shouldn't have been making money in the first place. Our technology should not have to adapt to us with no compromises from us. It is an extension of ourselves and our world and a reflection of our superevolutionary growth.
I look forward to some interesting topics in this community, and I'm very glad to have found it. I love the idea of this community, the ideas it promotes, and I fully expect to meet some absolutely fascinating people with whom I may or may not always agree with. I'm open to debate, though I freely admit it's not one of my better skills. Just keep in mind that how you choose to present an argument will be judged much more critically than the actual argument you're presenting.
Greetings from Texas,
-Silent Current Mood: awake
|Thursday, October 13th, 2005|
i am fascinated by the idea that humans can improve themselves at a fundamental level. i am also, however, skeptical of the more extreme statements of both the transhumanist and occultist communities. i came here from nonfluffypagans
, so that should give you some idea of my general stance.
I've been intrigued with the possibilities of evolving or ascending to a higher level of being as long as I can remember. Spirituality, I identify as Suitheist (seeking godhood within the self, rather than outside) and Dark New Age (a Left-Hand interpretation of New Age concepts and paradigms.)
I am plural by choice, which means that I chose to construct my consciousness not just as a single identity, but as a collection of thoughtforms. I've always been making up "imaginary playmates", but in my early teens the pattern began which evolved into my current system. The first major divergence in my consciousness was between the parts identified, more or less, with Order and Chaos. These developed into the personalities now known as Marlana and Anomia, respectively. We've added other thoughtforms over time, each specializing in a particular quality, concept, skill, or set of interests.
Marlana and Mely will probably be the most active here. We usually don't bother to sign our posts individually unless we are in a forum specifically devoted to plurality or related issues (such as freedomofbeing
. )Mely and Anomia are most interested in the development of the individual as an autonomous, free agent, while Marlana and Susan specialize more in the study of collective consciousness as it emerges in biological & social systems. However, we are quite fluid and work together complementarily.
More information about plurality can be found on the multiplicity
community, for those who are unfamiliar with this type of consciousness.
We regard plurality as one of the possible paths of evolvement that consciousness can take. Some Transhumanists, in fact, think of mind in terms of many modules which can be selected, recombined, and reorganized. Thoughtforms, or memes, are the "software" of metaphysical reality. We're curious whether anyone else here has thoughtforms or something similar. (Some traditions refer to "using" thoughtforms, but since my thoughtforms are a living part of my identity, I don't care for that terminology. ) Current Mood: Joyful
I came here from nonfluffypagans
. That said, I imagine I'm pretty fluffy when it comes to the spiritual/technological link. I joined to read what everyone else has to say about it until I have opinions I feel are worth sharing. I haven't read anything pertaining to the subject.
hrm, an Intro Post.
I rather expect that humanity has crossed the Event Horizion twards the Singularity. From here on it's ascention or cinder ball, I think the difference between them will be matters of morals, ethics, and spiritual.
So I'm here hoping that the views and opinions of others will help me think, and vice versa.