<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><div>On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:23 PM, david ish shalom wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Russel you write:..."</span>t</span>here's no rational reason for believing in the Singularity either (yes, like most myths it was inspired by some nuggets of truth, but the vast bulk of what's written about it, is as much a fable as Noah bringing two of each<br> animal aboard the ark).</span></b></p></div></blockquote><div>It is perfectly rational to note that > human intelligence is possible and quite likely in the not too distant future (unless we screw up badly). It is also perfectly rational to believe that a Vingean singularity will eventually result from such intelligence, especially if it is self-improving. Thus it is rational to be of the opinion that a Singularity is possible and possibly fairly soon. Thus the statement that there is no rational reason for believing such is demonstrably false. That some people get carried away is a different matter entirely. </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;"> I don't see you going around proclaiming this to be irrational.<span style=""> </span>David comment: for believing in the Singularity there are absolutely rational reasons, yet to all the rest of what you say here I heartily harmonize with, its wise and out of the box. i would add that this tendency of many transhumanist to go against religion is not contributing to transhumanism spreading to the vast masses of humanity and just holding this crucial meme as marginal and rejected by humanity at large. </span></b><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">i am much surprised at Samantha, who has taken a leading role in the transhuman religion group and now turns so vehemently against what she was supporting there ?!</span><br> <br></p></div></blockquote><div>Yes, I worked for some time to wield religion into a tool consistent with and leading to transhuman goals. I came to the conclusion that religion is far too broken and loaded down with poisonous elements to be used this way. YMMV but I will live by what I have found by my own investigation. I do not give a fig whether "the public" shuts me out because I don't automatically respect their "revealed truth" (aka authoritarian fantasies) or not. The memes that need to be spread are not spread by tiptoeing around massive systematic delusion. I can only stand for what I perceive as true as I understand it. When my understanding changes the particulars of what I stand for must change. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>At no time did I believe that religion is primarily responsible for most of the good in the world or for "things working" generally. I was out to rewrite religion, to create a new religion that was not based on perpetuation of some dogma bit that used all the best in spiritual practices and religion to different ends. I even attempted to convince myself and others that such could be seen as the fulfillment and refinement of that which was essential in religions. I came to disbelieve that most of this was so. I came to the conclusion that only a more direct tying of our best aspirations to the reality and reason without a lot of religious inflation, much less casting the work in terms familiar to existing religions, even less trying to make common cause with them, will make the kind of difference I dream of seeing. I came to see existing religion as largely that which is in the way of most of our best hopes and dreams. I cannot make common cause with those sworn to oppose most of what we care about without putting ourselves and our share dreams at risk. I cannot seek the highest that I can honestly conceive of by perpetuating such a web of falsehoods and pretentious ignorance.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><br> We all agree teaching science is important. I claim it is equally important<br> to teach that science is compatible with pro-survival value systems.<br> <br></p></div></blockquote><div>I don't believe religions are primarily pro-survival of anything especially but themselves. I don't believe that useful value systems are generally the invention or property of religions. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;">>Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god.<br> ><br> <br> Have you actually read any of Gould or Dawkins' recent works?<br></p></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Sure. They make some (partially flawed, partially reasonable) science based arguments about the very low probability of their being a God. That is not at all the same as a claim that science proves there is not.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>- samantha</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br></body></html>