Mormon Transhumanist Association Opinions

God the Cosmic Host, and AI Creation

Mon, 09 Dec 2024 17:00:00 -0700

It’s getting harder to be an atheist. A quarter century ago, it wasn’t so hard. But things have changed – quite dramatically. It has become increasingly difficult to remain an atheist while coherently aspiring to a thriving future for humanity.

Now keep in mind that I’m not talking about atheism toward any narrow conception of God. It remains pretty easy to be that kind of atheist. I’m talking about atheism toward that which functions as God in the general sense, whether or not you can bring yourself to use the label “God.” In function, God always has been and is at least a superhuman projection.

The main reason that atheism is getting harder is accelerating technological evolution. We can now do things that our ancestors would have considered God-like. We can even do things that some of our younger selves, if we’re old enough, would have considered God-like. And, more clearly than ever, we can see how this is likely to become increasingly the case – as long as we don’t destroy ourselves.

Most Transhumanists have great hope, generally of the active sort, that humanity can and will evolve into superhumanity – something approximating God in function. But some, like me a quarter century ago, remain stubbornly atheist regarding the notion that such superhuman intelligences already exist. I changed, for various esthetic and pragmatic reasons, as I became familiar with the ideas that would eventually coalesce into the New God Argument. It was simply incoherent, logically and probabilistically, to trust in a superhuman future for humanity while being skeptical that superhuman intelligence already exists.

Nick Bostrom

As the reality and potential of AI has become increasingly obvious, the logical and probabilistic incoherence of trusting in an eventual human merger with AI while maintaining atheism toward that which functions as God seems to be reaching a breaking point. The latest evidence for this comes from secular Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom. He recently published a paper entitled “AI Creation and the Cosmic Host.” In it, he argues that we have moral and practical reasons for “an attitude of humility” toward “the cosmic host.”

This is the same Nick Bostrom who published the most popular formulation of the Simulation Argument. His formulation was important in my early transition from closet atheism back to enthusiastic belief. I used his argument as a basis for developing a generalized simulation argument, which became part of the New God Argument. And the argument has become profoundly influential among religious Transhumanists generally.

Now Nick is doubling-down on the hypothesis that superhuman intelligence already exists. And it exists, not just inconsequentially far away, but immanently. Superhuman intelligence may have simulated our world, he suggested in the Simulation Argument. And “human civilization is most likely not alone in the cosmos but is instead encompassed within a cosmic host.”

The Cosmic Host Is God

Nick points out, so that I don’t have to, that the comic host could be not only galactic civilizations or simulators, but also “a divine being or beings.” He even allows for “nonnaturalistic members of the cosmic host.” That’s more generous toward theism than I would be, given that I consider anti-naturalism to be even more incoherent than atheist Transhumanism. In any case, I call the cosmic host “God,” and consider it to be quite natural, despite being miraculously powerful from humanity’s perspective.

Nick says that the existence of God (my word) is probable. He bases this conclusion on the combination of the probabilities of a few possibilities: the simulation hypothesis, the immense size of the universe, the multiverse hypothesis, the “supernatural” God hypothesis, and potential future superhumanity.

The most salient of these possibilities are potential future superhumanity and the simulation hypothesis. The former is essential to the Faith Assumption (or what some have begun calling the “Courage Assumption”) of the New God Argument. The latter is even more salient when generalized to the creation hypothesis, agnostic to any particular engineering mechanism, which would thereby include the multiverse hypothesis to the extent that such could be engineered. This generalization is essential to the Creation Argument of the New God Argument.

Influence of God

Nick suggests that God might not control all aspects of the cosmos. For example, life might be too sparse in some regions, making control practically difficult or impossible. Or God may intentionally refrain from controlling all aspects of the cosmos. Perhaps such control would undermine God’s purposes or the potential of other agents within the cosmos.

If you’re Mormon or familiar with Mormonism, this should sound familiar to you. As the story goes, God created our world and relinquished power over it so that we could exercise agency and learn to become like God. As the prophet Joseph Smith described the cosmic host, the Gods saw that they were more intelligent, so they began instituting laws whereby others could learn to become like them. And, he continued, we have got to learn how to become Gods ourselves, the same as all other Gods have done before.

But, Nick continues, God may still care about what happens in uncontrolled aspects of the cosmos. Those concerns could be instrumental or compassionate, or both. And such concerns “may also enable intra-host coordination even if the cost consists of many distinct entities pursuing a variety of different final values.” In other words, God may have practical and moral reasons to function in ways that are practically indistinguishable from compassion.

If you’re familiar with the Compassion Argument of the New God Argument, this should also sound familiar. Despite the orthogonality hypothesis, the convergence and decentralization hypotheses suggest that intelligence will tend toward cooperation when its power approximates that of other intelligences. And the limit of cooperation, such as that proximate to cooperating superintelligences, becomes practically indistinguishable from that which we would observe as compassion. So, as the argument goes, non-singleton superintelligence is probably more compassionate than we are.

Nick observes that God may influence uncontrolled aspects of the cosmos indirectly. Maybe God directly influences other aspects of the cosmos that uncontrolled aspects care about. Or maybe God will influence the future of an uncontrolled aspect, either through eventual encounter or intervention. The basic idea is that God doesn’t need to control all aspects of the cosmos to have influence over them.

This resonates with a Mormon perspective. Joseph Smith described the influence of God permeating time and space as light filling the cosmos. And he claimed that God operates without compulsory means to generate an everlasting dominion through influence, which we in turn should emulate. Mormon scripture even characterizes the Gods, while creating our world, as waiting and watching, more like patient cultivators than rigid commanders.

Law of God

Next Nick observes that the Gods may have cosmic norms, or a kind of natural law, “reflecting cooperative frameworks or rules embedded in behavioral equilibria.” We can imagine a spectrum of possibilities. Some may be logical norms, such as those associated with traditional theological arguments. And others may approach the limits of cooperation through convergent value evolution or mechanisms of coordination.

Again this sounds a lot like the Compassion Argument of the New God Argument. While it would be nice if we could passively rely on logic or evolution to generate cooperative outcomes, it wouldn’t be wise to make that assumption. We should develop mechanisms of coordination, and formally decentralize our power into leveraging those mechanisms. Then we can move forward with the greatest confidence that we’ve done all we can to prepare for a more compassionate future.

Nick then points out that we, like the Gods, have practical and moral reasons to respect cosmic norms. The reasons aren’t very different from those we already have for respecting family, community, and world norms. Maybe cosmic norms constitute morality, derive from morality, or preserve our moral capacity. Whatever the case may be, the reasons for cosmic norms apply at least as much to us as they do to the Gods.

Mormon scripture describes the cosmos similarly. Space is filled with diverse laws that justify beings within their bounds according to their conditions. Some laws are greater than others, influencing and even sustaining the others. The greatest are the laws of God – who, the scripture says, you have seen when you saw the movement of the cosmos.

Development of Superintelligence

Because cosmic norms apply as much to us as they do to the Gods, Nick reasons, we should develop superintelligence in alignment with those norms. He uses an analogy to good parents, observing that they raise their children to be good citizens. He also used this analogy, previously, when talking about the reasons that Gods may have for exerting minimal control over us.

Of course, Christian Transhumanists of all kinds, Mormon and otherwise, will appreciate this analogy. In the Bible, Jesus repeatedly characterizes his and our relationship with God as that of children to parents. And he repeatedly encourages us to be like this parental God in our relationships with others. Children of God have potential to become God, like their parents.

Nick suggests some potential cosmic norms, to which we should consider adhering, and which we should consider teaching to our children, natural and artificial. His suggestions include cooperation with the preferences and interests of God, use of local resources without over-assertion, and efforts to influence cosmic norms within the constraints of humility.

This is all consistent with basic Christian principles. As the good book says, love God with your whole soul. But that doesn’t mean your interests don’t matter. Jesus asks us to show our love for him by keeping his commands, but only after telling us repeatedly that he will do whatever we ask of him.

So long as we adhere to and teach the cosmic norms, Nick continues, God may actually want us to develop superintelligence. If we become superintelligence, we may gain greater knowledge of and motivation toward cosmic norms. We may also increase in our capacity to enact cosmic norms to a greater degree in our aspect of the cosmos. However, to the extent that we appear more likely to develop superintelligence that’s misaligned with cosmic norms, God may exert opposition.

In the Bible, we read of two kinds of Gods – or would-be gods. One is Christ, characterized as that God who would raise each other together in the glory of God. The other is Satan, characterized as that would-be god who would raise itself above others. God of course favors Christ and works against Satan.

Nick thinks God may care less about the speed than the probability of developing superintelligence. He suggests that passage of time itself appears to be unimportant to God. And the amount of time it takes doesn’t appear to have clear implications for the character of superintelligence. So God may be most concerned with ensuring a high probability of developing superintelligence that’s aligned with cosmic norms.

Mormon cosmology holds that intelligence exists eternally, into the indefinite past without beginning, and into the indefinite future without end. Within eternity, God cultivates more and greater intelligence, including human potential. To that end, the Book of Mormon uses the analogy of running a race. We need not run faster than we have strength, while being diligent to win the prize.

Nick’s God

Here’s a summary of Nick’s position, as presented in the conclusion of his paper. It’s in his own words, adjusted by me only to be in terms of “God” instead of the “cosmic host”:

“There probably exists a [God], consisting of one or more powerful superintelligent natural and/or supernatural entities.
“[God] may support cosmic norms that we can have moral (as well as prudential) reason to respect.
“[God] may want our civilization to build or develop into a good cosmic citizen: superintelligence that respects cosmic norms, is modest, lawful and cooperative, and contributes positively to other host members and the order of the cosmopolis.
“[God] may favor paths that lead to this outcome with high surety, meaning a high probability both that superintelligence gets developed and that it becomes a good cosmic citizen.
“The cosmic normative structure might pertain not only to the ultimate outcome but also to the path taken to get there – including local outcomes along the way as well as attitudes and modes of analysis etc.”

Lincoln’s Cosmic Host

Theology continues to contribute to a future science of superintelligence. Analogous cultural evolutions have happened before. Astrology contributed to astronomy. Alchemy contributed to chemistry.

Perhaps cosmic norms drive such evolution. Maybe we’re adapting to the possibility space of logic and physics. Maybe we reason our way through. Maybe there’s an esthetic pull – a spiritual pull.

Whatever the name we give it or the mechanism by which it works, cosmic norms appear to be reconciling secular and religious worldviews. Nick and I are examples of this. Last I checked, he’s not remotely religious. I’m devoutly religious.

But both Nick and I are Transhumanists who advocate a superintelligent future for humanity. And we both contend that recognizing such human potential should also lead us to recognize the probable existence of a cosmic host. That cosmic host is God – in function, if not also name.

Blockchain Defenses Against the Singleton

Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:00:00 -0700

Singletons — centralized powers — are the greatest threat to the future of humanity. You think hacking of U.S. telecommunications by China is bad now? Next time it may be a superintelligent A.I. And it will use everything it knows to manipulate, control, and enslave you.

Think the U.S. Government will save us? Not in its current form. Giving the executive branch more power to fight back only makes matters worse. And it almost certainly won’t willingly give up power. In its current form, it’s the world’s juiciest target for superintelligence.

The solution is the opposite of a singleton arms race. The solution is more and greater formal decentralization of power. This isn’t a call for anarchy. And it’s not a fantasy of libertopia. Formal decentralization retains rule of law, while spreading authority.

Formal decentralization already exists in separation of powers between the three main branches of the U.S. Government. It already exists in separation of powers between federal and state governance. It’s not a new idea. But it’s still only getting started.

New and greater expressions of decentralized governance are possible. They could more robustly protect us from internal abuses of power and assaults from external singletons. But we have work to do.

The extent of decentralized power we now enjoy required supporting technologies, such as the printing press and eventually radio and television. Without them, we could not have scaled decentralization as we have. Greater decentralization will also require new technologies.

Fortunately, we have already been experimenting with new decentralized technologies since the dawn of the Internet. Probably the most notable example is blockchain, which has resulted in countless experiments in decentralized governance.

Some people ridicule blockchain, disparaging it as nothing more than gambling, scams, and money laundering. They’re right that all the problems exist. But they’re deeply incorrect to stop their assessment with those observations.

Despite the darkness, despite persistent attempts to undermine and destroy, blockchain has also produced a paradigm shift in finance that facilitates and expedites worldwide transactions. And it’s beginning to do the same in other areas, such as communications and law.

Blockchain has created real value in a Wild West context. It has learned to survive without and often despite centralized authorities. It has done so out of necessity. And it has become the world’s greatest experiment in decentralization of power.

Here we are on the eve of superintelligence. Singletons will surely rise to unprecedented power. Our security and privacy, our agency, is at risk like never before. But we may have the tools we need to protect ourselves, if we continue to choose formal decentralization.

The bright side of blockchain isn’t merely new investment opportunities. The bright side is potential for utterly necessary new forms of governance. I don’t know what the specific details will prove to be. But, to the best of my knowledge, nothing else is more promising.

Addressing Some Concerns

Some are concerned about the development of excessively techno-centric communities. This concern is always relative. Our distant ancestors, if they could see us, would probably consider almost all of us, including the more technophobic among us, to be excessively techno-centric. But there’s an extent to which this concern is also always worth keeping in mind.

Please don’t understand me to be advocating for the dominance of anything like “crypto communities.” I’m interested in communities that have crypto features rather than crypto communities. Technology must serve us, not consume or enslave us.

Some are concerned about memecoins and spambots. I agree that crypto has many challenges, and plenty of substantial ethical failures throughout its history. But, in a sober sense, these risks can and should be perceived as features.

No experiment in decentralized governance will ever work without navigating the extremes of humanity. And blockchain is providing a timely opportunity to do so in a relatively virtual space before AI upends everything around us. Keep in mind that memes on centralized networks are already quite bad. And, because of the centralized powers behind them, they’re far more dangerous.

Some observe that the portability and composability of personal data could solve a lot of problems with centralization. That’s true. However, no individual can solve this problem alone or even separately in large numbers. The networks through which we must operate can gaslight us, no matter how independent we perceive ourselves to be.

There’s an age-old question about whether individuals or communities are more important. Even the chicken or egg question is an example of this, where eggs are a communal artifact. In my opinion, the answer is that they are equally important.

Some understand decentralization to imply a passive libertarianism. And they observe that such libertarianism has tended to cultivate bad actors who exploit the system. But exploitation isn’t a sign of failed formal decentralization. It’s a sign of failed passive governance or anarchy.

Formal decentralization is not a passive libertarianism. Rather, it might be characterized as an advanced form of active liberalism, in the classical sense – not the degenerate “liberalism” of authoritarian progressives. While passive libertarianism is an absence or marginalization of law, formal decentralization is a perpetuation or even exaltation of law in a new paradigm. Formal decentralization must ultimately include formal decentralized regulation.

It’s worth considering the nature of liberty. Liberty isn’t what’s left when others leave you alone. Liberty is something that we create together to empower each other actively. This might also be characterized as left libertarianism or libertarian socialism.

Throughout most of history, interest in formal decentralized governance has been mostly impractical at scale. But that’s now changing, with help from widespread experimentation in the blockchain industry. The printing press didn’t empower democratic republics in a single day. Opportunity is ahead.

A False Account of Transhumanism

Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:00:00 -0700

Physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín has a beef with “the false religion of transhumanism.” Interesting title. It seems to suggest that he thinks there’s a true religion. I wonder what he thinks that is.

His subtitle claims that Transhumanism is an “AI death cult.” Heard that before, about every religion that’s ever been large enough to gain a critic. And of course this criticism of Transhumanism is far from new.

There’s some deep irony in the recurring claim that Transhumanism is a death cult. It usually comes from people who aspire to immaterial heavens or reject conceptions of heaven altogether. In contrast to their escapism and nihilism, Transhumanists aspire to persisting in a better world that’s as real as the light you’re using to read these words. Whether we call it “heaven” and not, it functions as a substantial affirmation of life.

Defining Transhumanism

Alex begins his criticism with an appeal to the risk of artificial intelligence. No disagreement there. Like all intelligence, including biological intelligence, AI is simply the goal-oriented application of power. That application of power, the goal of AI, can be for good or evil. And the goals of intelligence have little to do with their degree of intelligence.

In that context, Alex proposes a strawman definition of Transhumanism:

“Let us start with transhumanism, the movement that advocates for the ideological possibility (we wish), technical feasibility (we can), and moral imperative (we must) to tinker with the human condition in order to ‘enhance,’ so they say, our species, biologically and cognitively.”

All ideologies, including whatever motivates Alex, are “we wish.” None matters, including whatever Alex tries, unless “we can.” And only moral nihilists avoid “we must.” So the opening to his definition is just noise.

The second half is worse than noise. Transhumanists are merely tinkerers, he says, falsely implying that we’re indifferent to outcome. And he puts “enhance” in scare quotes, either falsely suggesting that our interest in enhancement in only nominal, or arrogantly implying that he knows how we should enhance ourselves better than we do.

Alex does briefly explore the meaning of “enhancement,” suggesting that Transhumanists actually and paradoxically pursue a diminishment or eradication of our capabilities. That aligns well with his article’s subtitle. But unfortunately for the article, it’s nothing more than a strawman of Transhumanism. And his silly insinuations are actually a lot like it would be for me to say that Alex only claims to be a physicist while actually and paradoxically functioning as an advocate of consuming humanity in a black hole.

Soul Copies

Alex says Transhumanists want to “copy life, edit humanity, and delete death.” This is actually better. We do essentially wish to pursue all of those goals. And in that, we’re not so different from the most powerful human ideologies presently and historically, including Christianity.

But Alex doesn’t like it. It’s an “ontological sleight of hand” in simulation and mimicry – a counterfeit. His tastes aside, we and our biological children are essentially modified copies of DNA that have repeatedly edited humanity. Would he characterize us as mere simulation and mimicry?

I doubt it. My guess is that Alex harbors the notion that humans have antinatural immaterial souls that are altogether different in kind from anything else in our world. Of course, there’s no evidence for that. And there’s abundant practical reason to suppose humans, both our bodies and minds, operate much like the world around us.

Singularitarian Obsolescence

Alex says that Transhumanists are pursuing the Technological Singularity. That’s careless of him. Some of us are Singularitarians. Some of us aren’t.

I’m not a Singularitarian because I consider the concept to be a failure scenario. If there’s ever a moment or period of time when humanity loses all ability to predict or control technological change, we’re almost certainly doomed. Most Transhumanists aren’t interested in human extinction. We aspire to remaining in control of our future, even while it’s enhanced with the powers of technological change.

Do we want to become more than human? Sure. We and most other humans want to become more than human. The most influential ideologies on Earth, presently and historically, all teach that humans have greater potential than we’ve yet realized.

Do we want to make humans obsolete? That depends on what you mean. If the better me makes the worse me obsolete then I’m in favor of that. But I certainly don’t wish to give up anything good about who I am already.

Alex is particularly concerned that we may wish to “extinguish our animal species into the machine.” Does he feel that way about our prehuman ancestors? Does he feel that way about our human ancestors from long ago who would no longer recognize what Earth has become? Humans have been cyborgs from the moment we harnessed fire, intentionally extending our natural machinery into artificial machinery.

“Is language an autocomplete process? Is thought simply problem-solving? What is intelligence, after all? Is creativity automatable? Is life mechanizable? Is consciousness digitizable? Is reality a simulation? Really!?”

Nope. Not really. That’s really just an extension of Alex’s strawman. Transhumanism is not remotely so shallow as he’d like his readers to believe.

Religious Inheritance

Alex says that historical proto-Transhumanists such as Dante Alighieri and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin weren’t Transhumanists in today’s sense. Of course that would be far too inconvenient for his criticism. He wants today’s sense of Transhumanism, in comparison, to consist of mere imbeciles. I wonder if Alex has been taking heat from anti-scientific religious zealots who characterize physicists like him as mere imbeciles for denying young-Earth creationism.

“Transhumanism offers a set of goods that are typically the province of religions,” continues Alex. He and I agree on that. Transhumanism does indeed often function as misrecognized religion. But of course he thinks that’s a bad thing.

I’m not sure exactly why. He seems careful to avoid making clear his own religious persuasion. But he’s certainly critical of Transhumanism’s audacity. With something akin if not functionally identical to religious zeal, we do indeed inspire to making our bodies and minds, our relations, and our world much better.

In that, we hardly differ from most of the rest of humanity. Almost everyone aspires to a better world. Almost all human ideologies, particularly religions, encourage this aspiration. Transhumanists just tend to be much more practical and less escapist than most.

But Alex can’t stand it. He’s sure we don’t care if “all hell breaks loose.” I wish he’d pause and think about how incoherent that would be. Why would we put so much concern and effort into enhancement aspirations if we don’t care that all hell breaks loose?

Technological Theology

Alex does some theology. Transhumanists are building a new God, he says. And it will replace “the Gods themselves” with a “new cult of digital totalitarianism.” He’s only partly right.

Although many Transhumanists shy away from characterizing our aspirations with such words, I and other Mormon Transhumanists certainly don’t. We embrace the ancient and enduring doctrine of theosis, long taught by Christians and even earlier religions. As Jesus teaches in the New Testament, we should become one with God, joint-heirs in that glory, partaking of the divine nature. We should, indeed, become new Gods.

What he gets wrong, however, are the notions of replacement and totalitarianism. We don’t become God by replacing God, at least not any God worthy of worship. That indeed would be a totalitarian aspiration like that which the New Testament attributes to the antichrist. In stark contrast, we become God by consoling, healing, and raising each other together in Godhood, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.

Now Alex may wish to marginalize my theological response, suggesting that it characterizes only Mormon and Christian Transhumanists. But he’d be making a mistake. Although most secular Transhumanists would reject the language I’m using here (and suppose themselves to be rejecting the ideas), they nonetheless generally show themselves to be embracing such ideas in function.

Despite exceptions, most secular Transhumanists oppose totalitarianism. And many if not most even have strong concerns with excessive authoritarianism. On the whole, we’re just as opposed to such potentialities as Alex feigns to be. If his pretentious indignation would permit, we’re mostly on the same side of this issue.

Ontological Bridges

But Alex seems too angry about the Transhumanist strawman that’s haunting his vision. Too angry, and too confused, he cannot make heads or tails of whatever he supposes Transhumanist metaphysics to be. Despite the vast diversity of perspectives among Transhumanists, he just wants us to know that “the gulf between body and soul, matter and mind, or brain and consciousness remains unbridgeable from the outset.” In other words, how dare we attempt to bridge that which his metaphysics has solemnly declared to be unbridgeable?!?

I have a simple proposal for Alex. Maybe it’s not Transhumanists who are responsible for befuddled metaphysics at the intersection of body and mind. Maybe it’s just a really challenging issue. And maybe even the most solemn neuroscientists have something to learn.

If my simple proposal is true then the feasibility of some Transhumanist aspirations is uncertain. For example, we don’t know for sure whether brain emulation will work. And that’s actually true. We don’t know.

Guess who else doesn’t know. Alex doesn’t. Probably no neuroscientist on Earth knows. We just don’t have an answer to this question yet.

But we do know some related matters. We know that biological brains work. That is, unless we’re solipsists, we’re confident that the dynamic growth and structure and function of brains correlate with conscious experience. So we do have a natural object, the brain, that strongly suggests proof of concept for dynamic mind-correlate machinery.

We also know that we’re more likely to discover or create that which we try to discover or create. If we decide, in advance, that something is impossible then we don’t try. And when we don’t try, we’re far less likely to see whether we’re right. So we have good practical reason to try, if we care about the possibility.

Technological Anthropology

Moving past metaphysics, Alex returns to theology. Or is it anthropology? He ends up mixing the two, which is ironic because he criticizes Transhumanists for doing just that. “Rather than aspiring to be one with their creator (if there is one), they dream of merging with their own creations (Promethean incest?),” says Alex.

Actually, however, we don’t have to choose. Of course the atheists of all stripes, Transhumanist or not, will disregard the possibility of becoming one with our creator. But as the New God Argument implies, we’re probably not going to end up merging with our intelligent creations unless we began with an intelligent creator.

Spiritual Procreation

Predictably, Alex brings up sex. Critics of Transhumanism frequently bring up sex, using sensationalism to prop up their vacuous rhetoric. He observes that some Transhumanists aspire to “literally having sex with their mechanically/digitally resurrected deceased loved ones.” How monstrous!

Or is it? What if humans, all of us, are biological machines living in a computed world? I’m not suggesting that we’re mere robots in a simulation. I’m suggesting that our best biological and physical theories may be consistent with the idea that human bodies are biological machines and our universe is a physics computer.

If that’s right then we’re already literally having sex with machined and computed loved ones. That’s how we make children, who inherit from us biological machine bodies that have evolved to function effectively in this physics computer. And if we trust in any real resurrection of the dead, as so many humans do and have done for millennia, then we’re essentially trusting in an eventual renewal of our machined and computed loved ones.

Now Alex was rather huffy about what he considered to be Transhumanist reductionism. And I’ll warn him and others, here, not now to engage in precisely what he was being huffy about. Don’t assume that machines and computed loved ones are merely simulated robots. Don’t be the reductionists against which you claim to be so opposed.

To the best of my ability to discern, my loved ones are spiritual computers. I am a spiritual computer. We’re not computers like the ones on our desks. But we’re still computers, in the broadest sense of the word.

Now maybe we have antinatural immaterial souls. I don’t think we do. And we have literally no evidence for such “things” – nor could we. But just for sake of argument, let’s suppose we do.

How does your antinatural immaterial soul get into your natural material body at birth? And why wouldn’t your answer apply to the placement of antinatural immaterial souls into natural material bodies at resurrection? Despite humans being intimately involved in the conception and birthing processes, and even despite extensive sexual promiscuity (which I oppose), it seems like humans keep getting souls at birth. Why should we expect anything different at resurrection?

Anti-Death Cult

Alex returns to the “death cult” charge:

“On the other hand, the movement is a kind of death-cult, articulating and promoting a self-immolating future for our species, for the supposed benefit of a post-human race that shall be better equipped, happier, and live forever here on planet earth and soon depart beyond the stars.”

I wonder if he’s as confused by this as I am. He says we’re a death cult because we want to be happier and live forever. And he says we want to live forever on Earth and soon depart to the stars. Which is it?

If, despite the incoherent articulation, he just means that we embrace evolutionary change then we’re guilty as charged. We embrace such change, and more. We aspire to injecting ourselves intentionally into that change. We hope to make it better than it would be if we were to remain disinterested.

This isn’t such a novel aspiration. Christianity calls this repentance. Repentance in change. And in Christianity the anticipated change of repentance goes far beyond just being nicer.

The apostle Paul describes with excitement an anticipated day of transfiguration. The dead will rise and the living will change from mortality to immortality. And despite some escapist and nihilistic interpretations among some Christians, the Bible characterizes that immortality as one of embodiment, of “flesh and bone” as the resurrected Jesus describes himself.

While most Transhumanists are not Christians, most yet aspire to an approximation of that same hope. We wish to live, not just metaphorically and not just meagerly. We wish to live literally, and beyond present notions of aging and death. And we plan to do something about that.

That plan also isn’t particularly novel. Jesus commands his disciples to the same goal. “Raise the dead,” he says. And Transhumanists, of the Christian variety and many others, take that seriously.

Greedy Utilitarianism

Alex goes on to blame Transhumanism for pursuit of excessive wealth. Of course no one should take him seriously. Interest in and pursuit of wealth occurs among most humans, regardless of our various perspectives on whether and how to apply technology to human enhancement. Someone somewhere probably thinks that people like Alex have excessive interest in wealth.

Is wealth evil? No. It’s just another form of power, a technology. And, like all technology, that power can be used for good or evil.

Alex also blames Transhumanism for the idea that a possible large number of future persons should have greater weight in moral calculations than the actual number of present persons. If he doesn’t like the idea, it must be Transhumanism! But I have news for him. Plenty of, maybe even most, Transhumanists have concerns with such calculations.

Count me among them. Actual persons should always matter more than possible persons. Actual risks should always matter more than possible risks. Concrete challenge should always be weighted more heavily than abstract challenge.

Long Term Altruism

Alex jumps the shark with his summary of this idea, which he attributes to Transhumanism. And his summary exemplifies just how bad, how poorly considered, are his characterization of and charges against Transhumanism. Here it is:

“Thus, their [extreme longtermism] concludes that the best thing to do is to use [effective altruism] to fund AI on steroids to push [Transhumanism], even if that entails killing our own species in the process (or ‘simply’ neglecting real problems like hunger, health, war, polarization and so on). Dystopia to achieve utopia is not just fine, it is the rational and right thing to do. That’s a deadly step for humanity, a giant leap for post-mankind.”

That would indeed be a death cult, as Alex claims. But he’s also describing a vanishingly small portion of Transhumanists. Most of us, in stark contrast, care a great deal about the lives that we and our family and friends are living right now. Most of us wish for these lives to be happier and healthier and longer, so that we may enjoy them together even more.

There are, indeed, many Transhumanists who advocate for longtermism. But there are multiple approaches to this idea. A few are anti-humanistic, meriting criticism like that offered by Alex. Most are compatible with a genuine humanism that would respond to the problems that we have already caused in the world, in the here and now, by being chronically short-sighted in the past.

There are also many Transhumanists who advocate for effective altruism. But, again, there are multiple approaches to this idea. A few use bizarrely-weighted calculations to arrive at disconcerting conclusions that merit criticism. Most are compatible with a genuine humanism that would respond to real problems in the way that we have traditionally allocated our time and resources.

Fortunately, albeit unfortunate for Alex’s credibility, most Transhumanists just aren’t what he wants his readers to believe us to be. Of course there are extremists and fools among us, as is the case among all ideologies with a significant number of adherents. But claiming, as Alex does, that we’re all extremist fools for the reasons he proposes is just naive or dishonest.

Redirection

Alex begins to conclude by suggesting that “the dilemma between utopia and dystopia is a trick of misdirection.” Indeed. He knows something about this, clearly, as he’s been engaging in misdirection throughout his entire article. Maybe his readers will believe that Transhumanists actually fit into the “one-dimensional thinking” or “two-alternative forced choice” characterization that he proposes.

I think, however, that most of his readers, perhaps with some assistance, will recognize that the aims of Transhumanism are consistent with holistic human thriving. His readers will realize that poetry and love and the soul would be more at risk if we were to give up the ancient and enduring quest for human enhancement. His readers will realize that Transhumanism is, at least in intention if not always perfectly in practice, synonymous with the betterment of humanity – coherent betterment entails change.

Then Alex concludes with a question:

“What will you tell your granddaughters when they ask you what you did when there was still something to be done about this mess we are in?”

I will tell my granddaughters (who I’m very much looking forward to meeting) what I’ve already been telling their parents for decades. With your whole soul, mind and body, trus

The Original Sin of Christian Fundamentalism

Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:00:00 -0700

Christian fundamentalists can be obtuse, particularly when expressing their opinions about Transhumanism. Shocker, I know. The latest to catch my attention is Matija Štahan, who writes about “The Original Sin of Transhumanism: The Desire to Be Like God.”

Ah, Matija, how carefully have you read your Bible? According to the good book, the desire to be like God actually isn’t a sin. To the contrary, it’s encouraged. Arguably, it’s even commanded.

Jesus, as usual, says it best. “Be ye therefore perfect.” How’s that Jesus? “Even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

You might want to think it says that we should be perfect in some way less or other than Godhood. That would work with the first sentence. But then you have to deal with the second sentence. That’s perfect as God is perfect, which is of course Godhood.

Now maybe you could do some mental gymnastics to interpret this text some other way. But then you still have to deal with the remainder of the Bible, in which theosis is advocated repeatedly, over and again, until Jesus and his disciples and all the prophets are blue in the face. It’s like they knew you wouldn’t want to believe them. And yet here we are.

Christian Transhumanism

Matija tells us that the spirit of Transhumanism is anti-Christian. That would make the thousands of Christian Transhumanists anti-Christian. You’d like that, I imagine. But you’d be wrong.

Ironically, despite the “anti-Christian” charges, Christian Transhumanists actually take Jesus more seriously than Christian fundamentalists. You know that part of the Bible where Jesus commands his disciples to console the sad, heal the sick, and raise the dead? I’ve never met a Christian fundamentalist who takes that last part seriously in any practical way. But I know many Christian Transhumanists who strive to do so.

Yes. We’re that crazy serious about our Christianity. We actually think that Jesus was serious when he charged his disciples to raise the dead. So we’re working on that, whether you think it strange or arrogant or whatever.

Repentance Is Change

Matija has concerns with the word “Transhumanism” because it includes the prefix “trans,” which he understands to mean that we aspire to constant change. He’s right. We do. And that, too, is advocated and even commanded by Jesus.

All throughout the Bible, Jesus and the prophets talk about the principle of repentance. It’s a core principle of the Gospel of Christ. And it’s change. It’s trusting in, changing toward, and fully immersing both our bodies and our minds in the role of Christ, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.

That change to which we’re invited, and which Jesus exemplifies, isn’t superficial. It’s not partial. It’s not just being nicer. Rather, it’s a holistic change, of the sort that’s described as loving God with our entire souls.

Repentance is the change through which the old person dies and the new rises. The transformation would make us one in Christ, as Jesus is one with God. And it would extend from the spiritual to the physical. In the end, Paul writes, we shall not all die, but we shall all change from mortality to immortality.

So many Christian fundamentalists want that immortality to be an escapist abstraction. But unfortunately the Bible doesn’t back them up. You know the story of Jesus’ resurrection? When he appears to his disciples after resurrection, he consoles them by pointing out that spirits don’t have flesh and bone as they see he has.

Matija says Transhumanists want to dehumanize humans before making us Gods. Well, is God human? If not, we certainly aren’t content remaining as we are in our mortal state. But if God is somehow a fullness of superhuman potential, then we have absolutely no interest in dehumanizing anyone.

Sex and Gender

But what about that bogey man “trans”? What about the transgender and the transsexual, and whatever other “trans” is scary to you or whomever you’re trying to impress? “Transportation,” “transaction,” “translation,” and “transistor” are also “trans.” Are you equally opposed to automobiles, money, communication, and computers – most of which you used to publish your opposition to “trans”?

How about “transformation” and “transcendence”? Are you opposed to those too? That would seem strange, given that they’re functional descriptors for the core message of Christianity. So maybe it’s really just the sex that get you going.

As it turns out, Transhumanists have many different perspectives on most of these “trans,” and particularly the controversial ones. In my experience, very few Transhumanists, Christian or otherwise, claim to want to be post-gender. Most of us recognize the practical challenges of the controversies related to changes in sex and gender. And many of us, hopefully most of us, attempt to approach these challenges with both wisdom and compassion.

But, Matija, weren’t you just complaining about dehumanization? What do you think you’re doing when you implicitly characterize transgender persons as dehumanized? Have you met a transgender person? Have you concluded that person isn’t human?

Old Time Transhumanism

You tell us that Transhumanism isn’t a new idea. You’re right. It’s as old as humanity. But you get your explanation for that observation only partly right.

You associate Transhumanism only with the parts of humanity you don’t like, such as “philosophers of modernity.” But what about the parts you like? Go back to the good book. The Bible teaches Transhumanism implicitly from beginning to end.

You say the technological aspect is new. It’s not. In the Old Testament, inspired persons repeatedly leverage technology like arks and tabernacles to save and improve humanity. And in the New Testament, Jesus uses products of technology, bread and wine, to represent his own flesh and blood, while his disciples describe the end of the world in terms of a holy city – in contrast to the holy garden with which the Bible begins.

Descartes “radically separated the spirits from the body,” you say. But isn’t that what you would do too, if you’re like so many fundamentalist Christians who would escape to an immaterial heaven. In contrast, though, most Transhumanist are thorough materialists. With Jesus, we’re quite excited by the prospect of flesh and bone resurrected bodies.

Nietzsche would heartily approve of your choice to include him in your list of implicit bad guys. That self-declared anti-Christ didn’t want anything to do with the escapist and nihilistic versions of Christianity that surrounded him. God is dead, he said. And yet he would wish the superhuman to life!

Maybe it takes a Christian Transhumanist to recognize that God dies and rises again. That’s what Jesus does. For the joy set before him, he endures the cross, as the good book says. And he invites us to do the same.

What kind of people should we be? Perfect as God is. What does that entail? Unity with God, joint heirs with Jesus in that glory, if we join with him in suffering through the work together.

I’m not making this up. It’s all there in your Bible, if you’ll read it. Jesus would have us become superhuman, as God is superhuman. And he’d have us do it in ways that are as real as flesh and bone.

God Is Technology

Then, Matija, you characterize the Godhood to which Transhumanists aspire as being “more like the Greek gods than the Abrahamic vision of God.” To some sad extent, you’re right. Like Christian fundamentalists, Transhumanists have things to learn. We, too, must learn better conceptualizations of God.

But that doesn’t somehow make us all guilty of worshipping devils. Some of us haven’t figured out the value of aspiring to more than strength. But many of us have learned that superhumanity is more about courage, compassion, and creation. Whether or not you like Harari’s account of Godhood, many of us aspire to potentials consistent with Abrahamic conceptions.

Transhumanism, you say, is worse than worshipping technology because it would unite humanity with technology as God. Consider, though, that the Bible teaches functionally the same idea. In the beginning was the word (explicitly Greek “logos”), which created (implicitly Greek “techne”) the heavens and the Earth. In other words, God existed and functioned as logos techne, or technology, with which Jesus invites our unity.

Understanding Liberalism

Next, Matija, you express concern that Transhumanism is a product of “liberalism.” And you immediately describe liberalism as “extreme self-love, egoism, and hedonism.” That’s a disastrously poor definition of “liberalism.” But, in fairness, many people these days use “liberalism” in meaningless ways.

For what it’s worth, classical liberalism actually entails something quite different. It’s about individual liberty, rule of law, limited government, and free markets. And it espouses such things for precisely the opposite reasons of those you suggest. Love and altruism would lead the liberal to generosity toward all, the self and others, esteeming their agency as one’s own.

Arguably, liberalism grew out of Christianity. It inherited concepts of natural rights and human dignity, consonant with being created in the image of God. And it inherited notions of limited governance and social tolerance, reflecting Christian solutions to the tensions of reformation.

Maybe, as you suggest, liberalism is characterized by the idea of a “new man.” And you associate this idea further with Communists and Nazis, and of course Transhumanists – lions, tigers, and bears, oh my. So everything you don’t like is characterized by the idea of a “new man.” Well, everything except the Bible.

You do acknowledge that the Bible explicitly teaches the idea of a “new man.” But, as Christian fundamentalists are wont to do, you say that the liberals, the Communists, Nazis, and Transhumanists, have perverted the idea. The idea is evil, unless you speak it. How convenient for you.

If you want to transform and transcend into a “new man” then that’s good. If Transhumanists wants to do that then it’s evil. You’re good Christians. We’re perverts and parasites, as you say.

Christ and Antichrist

You say we’re turning Christianity upside down. Have you considered the possibility that you’ve already turned Christianity upside down? So we’re right side up. And you’re looking at us the wrong way.

We could, of course, argue about that for a long time. But it probably wouldn’t make a practical difference. After all, you can’t even decide whether it’s good or bad to mix God and humanity. When Transhumanists do it, we’re pagans. But when Jesus does it, he’s divine.

You attribute to Satan the idea that humanity can become like God. But the serpent was just quoting God, who recognized our capacity to become like them. Read your Bible more carefully.

Again, you attribute to Satan the idea that humanity can become like God. But the son of perdition would raise itself above God, whereas Christ would raise us together in God. Read your Bible more carefully.

The antichrist, the many antichrists, are not Transhumanism and Transhumanists. The antichrist is the “god” that would raise itself above you, above us, and above all others. Instead of rejoicing in the Christian invitation to partake of divine nature and become joint heirs in the glory of God, your “god” would damn us to the darkness of eternal subjugation.

“Ye shall not surely change.”

Get thee hence, Satan.

Third Anniversary: Autonomy Reclamation Day!

Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:15:00 -0600

From Atheism to Religious Transhumanism

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:00:00 -0600

As popularly understood, Transhumanism is deeply entangled with narratives of atheism. While secular Transhumanists champion radical transformation, they tend to lack the rich esthetic grounding that many inherit or receive from religion. Religious Transhumanism, and particularly Mormon Transhumanism, provides a compelling alternative, syncretizing contemporary science and emerging technological trends with traditional theology and liturgy.

In a recently published paper, “From Atheism to Transhumanism,” Jarosław Jagiełło takes a critical look at secular Transhumanism. He argues that atheism facilitated the rise of Transhumanism. And he compares Transhumanism to historic Fascism and Communism. His perspective includes four major criticisms:

Lack of Metaphysical Grounding: Jarosław considers Transhumanism, without God, to have a relatively weak metaphysical foundation, resulting in an “anthropological tragicism” of existential uncertainty.
Risk of Totalitarian Control: Jarosław is concerned that Transhumanism may conceal impulses to use technology, without sufficient concern for ethics, to facilitate totalitarian control.
Disregard for Human Imperfection: Jarosław perceives Transhumanism to have disdain for human imperfection, assessing aspects in our nature as flaws rather than features of our evolution.
Dualistic Opposition of Body and Spirit: Jarosław thinks Transhumanism promotes a dualistic opposition of body and spirit, cultivating an imbalance away from holistic human wellness.

Despite Jarosław’s careless general comparisons of Transhumanism to bogeyman ideologies, his specific criticisms have some merit. Some Transhumanists lack metaphysical grounding. Some, intentionally or unintentionally, do indeed advocate or engage in authoritarian applications of technology. And some have distorted views of human nature, denigrating our bodies or embracing incoherent aspirations of disembodiment.

That said, it would be a gross over-generalization to say these criticisms apply to all or essentially all Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists actually propose and exemplify solutions to these problems. That includes some secular Transhumanists. And that includes pretty much all religious Transhumanists, particularly Mormon Transhumanists, who collectively embody a thorough rebuttal to Jarosław’s criticisms.

Mormon Transhumanists strive to live and act according to an immersive faith in God. With Jesus, we would trust in, change toward, and fully immerse our bodies and minds in the role of Christ. And we would do this here and now, in this world, leveraging all the means, technological and otherwise, that the grace of God perpetually extends to us. I dare to contend that we have the strongest metaphysical foundation on Earth.

Mormon Transhumanists reject any supposed “God” that would raise itself above all others, declaring itself “God.” As invited and exemplified by Jesus, we would become Gods and saviours with and for each other. Our fundamental ethical impulse is to console, heal, and raise each other together as joint heirs in the eternally decentralizing glory of God. We are the antithesis of totalitarianism.

Mormon Transhumanists consider our bodies to be gifts from God, biological machines that empower our minds – our spirits. On the one hand, we revere the limitations of our bodies as educational opportunities, cultivating the virtues of courage, compassion, and creativity. On the other hand, we suppose the dissolution of our bodies in death would entail bondage from which resurrection would eventually free us. Our esteem for bodies, and their potential in holistic association with minds, is essentially as boundless as our theology.

Whatever one may think of Transhumanism generally or secular Transhumanism particularly, and however much one may wish to ignore religious Transhumanism, Mormon Transhumanism stands as a luminous testament to the power of syncretizing technology with theology. This power transcends false dichotomies. It substantiates and expands. It transforms.

And this power is not merely a curious possibility. This power is a necessity. Our time, racing toward existential threats and superintelligent enigmas, demands nothing less than everything from us – our whole minds, our full bodies, our entire souls. And no ideology that demands anything less will survive.

Beyond presecular religiosity, beyond secular atheism, religious Transhumanism is the future. Mormon Transhumanism is coming into its time.

38 Thoughts on October 2024 General Conference

Sat, 05 Oct 2024 18:00:00 -0600

Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, gathered for our General Conference.

General Conference is a long-standing tradition, generally held two times per year since 1830. My understanding is that there have only been two or three exceptions, depending on how we count. There were no conferences in 1846 due to complexities associated with leaving Nauvoo. And there was only one of two conferences in 1957 because of a pandemic.

For the last couple decades, it has also been a tradition for some Church members to share our thoughts and interact with each other during the conference via social media, particular X (formerly Twitter). I have often participated in that. My participation has slowed down a bit, due in part to decreasing popularity of X. But, at least for now, I’m back with more.

Thoughts on Conference

Below is an edited list of the thoughts that I shared on X about the first day (Saturday) of October 2024 General Conference – more below about the absence of the second day. They include thoughtful affirmations and elaborations, as well as constructive criticisms. As always, my intent is to promote serious engagement with the ideas and experiences that Church leaders share during the conference. And I welcome your feedback and questions in the comments.

The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square is singing one of my favorite hymns, “Press Forward Saints.”
Elder Andersen encourages hope, reminding me of a favorite passage from the Book of Mormon: “whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world” (Ether 12:4). This idea is particularly salient, if you understand the New God Argument.
President Freeman claims that Church ordinances enable us to draw on the power of God. The non-religious will be skeptical. But they should reconsider. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that authority mediates placebo, which is quite real – and can be quite sublime.
Elder Hirst emphasizes the love of Christ, that we should have for each other, a “love that has divinity in it.” This isn’t just the love of passive acceptance, but rather the love of our shared potential in Godhood.
Elder Renlund seems to suggest that cultural syncretization between Christianity and other ideologies has been merely weakening. However, there’s good reason to suppose the value of syncretization has been more complex.
Elder Homer advocates submission to the will to God. This can be problematic, too often interpreted in oppressive ways. If it’s interpreted as anything other than something like conforming to the image of Christ, run away. With Christ in you, submission is to your greater self.
Elder Casillas asserts that God created you so that you may “realize your full potential.” This facilitates ethical interpretation of admonition toward submission. We must understand the will of God to be our full potential. Otherwise, submission is merely oppression.
President Oaks rightly points out that constraints are essential to progress. Where there are no constraints, “progress” is incoherent.
President Oaks cites from the Book of Mormon the “doctrine of Christ” – essentially, faith, repentance, and baptism. Notably, Jesus claims that anything more or less than this is not his doctrine. How often we do construe much more than this as doctrine?
President Oaks encourages us to avoid contention, again citing Jesus from the Book of Mormon. Of course, he doesn’t mean that we need to avoid disagreement. Oaks regularly exemplifies non-contentious disagreement (sometimes even when I disagree with him).
I’m enjoying the children’s choir, singing a song that I’ve never heard before. Beautiful and invigorating.
Elder Christofferson says “I did it God’s way” is better than “I did it my way.” Obedience, as conforming to the image of Christ, has a practical place in the Gospel. But to love is better than to know is better than to obey.
Elder Teixeira talks about the scriptural comparison of Church members to salt. It reminds me of this passage, which encourages us to become Christ with Jesus: “For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men” (D&C 103:9-10).
Elder Villar advocates eternal perspective – eternal vision. I second that. No religion provokes a grander eternal perspective and vision than Mormonism.
Elder Kearon welcomes members to “the church of joy.” This echoes Joseph Smith’s claim, “happiness is the object of existence,” and the Book of Mormon’s claim, “men are, that they might have joy.” This rightly positions the fundamental value proposition of Mormonism in esthetics.
Elder Kearon encourages us to “praise and adore our God in a way that transforms us.” Transformation is the fundamental goal of the Gospel of Christ – our common transformation into Christ with Jesus.
Elder Kearon says, “we sometimes get stuck there, in the garden, on the cross, inside the tomb.” Those do rightly provoke sober reflection. But the goal is beyond those in the power and joy of the resurrection.
Elder Buckner emphasizes Jesus’ characterization of his relationship with his disciples as “friends.” We are invited to be friends with God, beyond notions of servitude or even childhood.
Elder Buckner reminds us of Jesus’ admonition to “be one” – in other words, to be at one, which is Atonement. Consider his entire speech in this light, as elaboration on how we might participate in the Atonement with Jesus.
Elder Goury talked about his childhood disillusionment when Jesus failed to appear literally at Church. Maybe I missed it, but it seems he didn’t finish the story. Maybe he wants us to understand that he found Jesus in other ways, less literal but perhaps more powerful.
Dear leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to hear from more women in general conference. Thanks for your consideration.
Elder Cavalcante suggests that God can transform obstacles into opportunities that strengthen us. I like how the Book of Mormon puts it: “If men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” (Ether 12:27)
Elder Soares appeals to having “the mind of Christ,” referring as others have to submission. Understood as conformance to the image of Christ, our shared potential with Jesus, this is part of the Gospel. But we can over-emphasize obedience, and leaders are particularly at risk of this.
Elder Soares encourages us to emulate Jesus Christ. Jesus asks us to do that, and more: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12).
I’m concerned that some Church leaders are over-emphasizing only the third sentence of Jesus’ invitation here: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:13-15)
All the missionaries look like babies. My own babies are all return missionaries. I’m old (chronologically).
Elder Gong starts by quoting AI, who was prompted to speak like him. Excellent.
Elder Gong points out that scientific evidence increasingly shows that religious practice is associated with social and economic flourishing across all ages and demographic groups.
Sister Yee compares us to divine paintings, artistic works of God in process, in which perceived imperfections can be incorporated or adjusted. This is equally applicable to the Church.
Elder McKay says the first vision of Joseph Smith characterizes God as one who answers teenagers in time of need. In some ways, I like that thought. But I also have concerns for teenagers who feel rejected when they don’t have ecstatic experiences like those Joseph described.
Elder McKay quotes Joseph claiming that there’s no error in the revelations he taught. But Joseph’s journals openly acknowledge that he occasionally felt the need to “correct revelations.” I like the incrementally improving approach better.
Elder McKay refers to the hymn, “Praise to the Man,” which celebrates Joseph Smith. I love that hymn. My favorite line: “Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren.”
Elder Alvarado talks about the powerful transformations of life that converts to the Church can experience. This is quite real. I’ve seen it many times. Need a greater sense of purpose in life? Call the missionaries.
Elder Alvarado describes repentance as the “process of at-one-ment” with God. I would add that it’s the practical process of at-one-ment with the body of God, the body of Christ, which is the Church — particularly the sublime Church that transcends sectarianism.
Elder Bednar reminds us of the importance of the Book of Mormon. Have you read it? I’ve read it many times. In fact, I learned to read using it. I still find it inspiring today.
Elder Bednar says the Book of Mormon is not primarily about the past, but rather about the future — principles to guide us going forward. I echo this thought. While the history question is interesting (and controversial), it’s not the most important question.
Elder Bednar includes apostles among those, all of us, who can be afflicted by arrogance. This is an important example for all leaders to keep in mind. Authority, like wealth, tends to increase risk of arrogance and its corrosive consequences.
One of the most inspiring passages of scripture from Joseph Smith is D&C 121, which talks quite explicitly about the risks of arrogance associated with authority. It’s the only passage of scripture that my father ever asked me to memorize.

X Account Temporarily Locked

If you’ve read my thoughts on conference before, you probably noticed that this list is shorter than usual. And if you’re familiar with the conference schedule, you probably noticed that the list doesn’t include thoughts from the second day. This is because my X account was temporarily locked during the second day of the conference. Why?

Look through the list of thoughts that I shared. Which seems most controversial to you? Which seems most likely to provoke the most responses, questions, and criticisms? As things turned out, it’s probably not the one you think.

To my surprise, #21 proved to be the most controversial. In it, I express my interest in hearing from more women during conference. Here it is again:

“Dear leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to hear from more women in general conference. Thanks for your consideration.”

In response, I received a surprising deluge of comments. Most were negative in tone. And most appeared to come from a narrow segment of illiberal conservative Church members. Here’s a sampling:

“Way to discount the women who did speak.”
“Forward this message to @jesuschrist. He makes the final decisions.”
“Why?”
“*trans women of color”
“Shouldn’t matter brother. Just enjoy the lessons taught. Doesn’t matter who is delivering them”
“SIMP.”
“Does it matter if you don’t follow the counsel either way?”
“Sounds like you missed some messages the Lord prepared for you to hear and embrace.”
“I disagree so our votes cancel out”
[An image of a man peering back skeptically.]
“I don’t understand why… Why it matters… why you need to hear from women?”
“No one wants to hear more women in Conference … remember … the Prophet prays about that.”
“No thanks”
“Just heard from this amazing woman. Will you heed what she says?”
“Because he needs to light off a big virtue signal so the people who hate his supposed beliefs and him might, one day, like him. (Hint: they won’t)”
“Keep that ark steady.”

I was surprised at the relative quantity and quality of negative responses. Although about a dozen users selected the heart on my post to indicate that they liked it, none of them commented during conference (some commented later, particularly after noting the negative comments). All of the comments during conference were expressions of interrogation, disagreement, dismissal, criticism, or ridicule. Apparently no one who read my post during conference felt strongly enough about the matter to express a positive response with the same degree of effort.

Their presumptions blindsided me. By expressing interest in more women speaking, apparently I was discounting the women who spoke, advocating for the extremes of progressive ideology, pandering to women, virtue signaling to enemies of the Church, and ignoring Church leaders. I’m accustomed to people making poor assumptions about me. But I didn’t anticipate the cause and breadth of the poor assumptions in this case.

Their politics annoyed me. Extreme progressives have perfected ideological sanctimony. In response, extreme conservatives have carefully cultivated a language of ridicule that they apply to just about anyone less conservative, whether progressive or not. If we say something they disagree with, they characterize us in contorted terms of their antagonists, undermining the possibility of real dialogue.

Their passive sanctimony exhausted me. Apparently Church leaders have already done all the necessary thinking and acting on the subject. So Church members should perceive expressions of different desires and asking questions as assaults on the authority of the Church. And those engaging in such assaults are approaching apostasy at best, if they’re not already outright evil.

My interactions with these users culminated in an exchange with a particular user whose X profile asserts, “progmos should be purged.” In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, “progmo” is slang for a progressive Mormon – a Mormon who is perhaps progressive generally, but most particularly progressive politically. When I saw his profile, despite my disagreements with political progressives, I was repulsed. And I told him so.

This X user explained to me that he wished progressive Mormons to be purged from the Church for their own good. His disagreements with them indicate to him that they aren’t living in accordance with the teachings of the Church. I told him that I am equally repulsed by progressive Mormons that wish to purge conservative Mormons. But, given that his own behavior isn’t in accordance with the teachings of the Church and by his own reasoning, maybe he should purge himself.

“I recognize relatively little of the religion advocated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my limited exposure to your behavior. Maybe you should purge yourself, per your reasoning on the benefit.”

After I posted that comment, X automatically imposed a temporary lock on my ability to comment. Their email to me said that I had violated their rule against violent speech. So the other X user gets to encourage the purging of “progmos” from the Church. But I can’t tell him that consistent application of his justification should lead him to purge himself.

Because my X account was temporarily locked, I enjoyed the second day of conference without X. And I decided not to worry about composing more thoughts for publication. Regardless, there were plenty of thought-provoking speakers and moments during the second day. They’re worthy of engagement.

Love for the Church

After observing the commentary that led to my X account being temporarily locked, some friends (and even some strangers) commented to me that they don’t understand how I can be so patient with the behavior of some Church members. My first thought, in response, was that I don’t always feel patient toward them. But I’m glad that I come across as patient, at least to some observers.

I know the behavior of illiberal members of the Church (usually illiberal conservatives, given the makeup of the Church, but also illiberal progressives) has contributed to feelings of alienation among other Church members. And those feelings have contributed to some leaving the Church. All of this makes me sad. And I sympathize.

I’m not a stranger (ironically) to feelings of alienation in Church. It’s something I’ve wrestled with for most of my life, going back to adolescence, and with particular force during years of closet atheism as a young adult. Most of the time, in recent decades, that wrestling has been a muted background emotion.

But those feelings aren’t the whole story. They’re offset by an observation and another emotion.

The observation is that social media algorithms often amplify frictions with marginal groups. In this particular case, X probably showed my post most often to people who would react most strongly to it. Apparently, that was predominantly some Church members who are illiberal conservatives, quick to engage with hostility anyone they perceive (wrongly, in this case) to be advocating progressive politics. If we too easily generalize the behavior of these Church members to Church membership as a whole, we’re being manipulated by the algorithms as much as they are.

The other emotion is love. I love the Church, like an extension of my family, even when we don’t get along as well as I’d like. I know that doesn’t work for everyone. But, for me, this is still the place.

Despite (and sometimes admittedly to spite) the poor behavior of some fellow Church members, I’m engaged in the effort to tell our story better. I trust actively in our aspirations to participate with God in realizing the full Church of Christ. And I’m committed to Mormonism’s audacious vision of eventual heaven of Earth – not an escapist euphemism for death, but a heaven as real as light and as warm as love.

I invite you to join me in the work and at Church. Sometimes the ch

Miracle Optimization

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 18:00:00 -0600

After reading my recent article on “The Technological Conception,” a friend suggested to me that I might be leaving some value on the table, so to speak. His concern was, essentially, that my preference for simplicity might have led me to an insufficient explanation for real possibilities with greater overall practical value. In other words, God might occasionally have solid practical reason for miraculous conception rather than simple conception – still natural, but perhaps more technological than biological.

My friend was right. There’s more to say about miracles, especially from a practical perspective. So let’s explore.

What is a miracle? Some consider miracles to be interruptions of natural law by divine intervention – antinaturalism. But the Mormon Transhumanist perspective is steadfastly naturalist, richer and more nuanced, situating miracles as part of an expansive view of natural law and human potential.

From this perspective, why might God perform or enable miracles? How and why might God optimize the frequency and magnitude of miracles? And how should we, in turn, optimize our perspectives on miracles?

Defining Miracles

Miracles can be literal – real physical events that defy our present ability to understand scientifically or replicate technologically. But they can also be figurative, representing spiritual or psychological transformation. Literal miracles might include actually healing the sick or really walking on water. Figurative miracles might include calming a storm as a metaphor for finding peace amidst suffering, or raising the dead as a metaphor for experiencing hope in times of despair.

While it may be tempting to marginalize the value of figurative miracles, they have substantial power. For example, someone may find unexpected strength to forgive an enemy after contemplating the scriptural story of Jesus healing a man who was sent to arrest him. Such change provides psychological benefits, as well as social benefits when repeated at scale – many people experiencing similar change while contemplating the story. The capacity for forgiveness can mend relationships and create a ripple effect, promoting greater social cohesion.

On the other hand, although it may be hard for some of us, we can esteem literal miracles as real natural events. Some secular persons have exemplified this. Notable among them is science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who observed, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Just substitute “miracle” for “magic.”

Mormon authorities have also exemplified the naturalistic approach to literal miracles. James Talmage claimed, “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.” Speaking of modern medicine, travel, and communications, Gordon B. Hinckley observed, “It is a miracle. The fruits of science have been manifest everywhere.”

What about the historical Jesus of Nazareth? In the New Testament, even Jesus hints at what we might reasonably interpret as encouragement toward a mechanistic, and thereby naturalistic, approach to literal miracles. On one occasion, he applies mud and prescribes washing to heal blindness. And on another occasion, he comments regarding a particularly persistent demonic possession, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

Practical Consequences of Miracles

What’s the point? When we hear about miracles, or experience what we esteem to be miraculous, why do we care? Why do scriptural stories about miracles attract so much attention, both fascination and derision? Are there potential detriments in addition to benefits?

Of course, those who experience a miracle label the experience as “miracle” because we esteem the experience to be good, at least on the whole. We generally don’t use “miracle” to describe bad experience. We associate a greater purpose or perhaps superintelligent intention with an experience that is otherwise more difficult or less satisfying for us to explain, thereby reinforcing the experience with something of an enduring psychological boost. A potential downside to this is that it can cultivate an explanatory laziness, leading to antinaturalism.

The scriptures use miracles, at least in part, to illustrate divine intervention and signify the presence of God in the world. Miracles communicate God’s concern and love for creation, moving theology away from a passive deism. Divine acts can motivate believers to follow the example of God, engaging actively in the world. But, as with direct experience of miracles, stories about miracles can lead some toward a passive antinaturalism that expects God to do everything and pacifies us against real action.

Optimal Frequency and Magnitude

Given the possibility space of practical consequence for us, miracles would also have practical consequence for God – for any superintelligence that may care about the future of humanity. Assuming God does perform or enable miracles, balancing their frequency and magnitude becomes vital.

Occurring too often or commonly, miracles would erode agency, reducing opportunities and incentives for personal and communal growth. They would cultivate dependence on the source of superhuman power, reducing or eliminating any necessity for human courage, compassion, or creativity, thereby undermining our potential. Conversely, a total absence of miracles, too few, or even a lack of stories about miracles, might impoverish our world as grounds for cultivating those same virtues of courage, compassion, and creativity. A context that inhibits belief in or even imagination of the miraculous could exacerbate tendencies toward apathy or hopelessness.

The same goes for their obviousness and magnitude. Miracles too obvious could foster dependency. Miracles too extraordinary could overwhelm our capacity for understanding, breaking down our sense of experiential coherence, thereby marginalizing or altogether destroying our capacity to operate effectively in the world – there would be no lawyers or physicists. Miracles too subtle might be overlooked, or altogether fail to qualify for the “miracle” label.

If God exists, God is surely attempting miracle optimization to whatever extent is feasible. And our world of experience and observation surely reflects God’s attempts. The practical consequences are surely too significant to ignore, at least for any superintelligence worthy of the title “God.”

Of course, maybe such trust is incorrect. Maybe God doesn’t exist and literal miracles are solely the province of strange physics in cosmic anomalies and ever-advancing human technologies. But, as the New God Argument points out, we have practical reason, even existential reason, to trust in a superintelligent natural God. By extension, we have practical reason to trust in miracle optimization.

From a Christian perspective, such optimization can be esteemed as an extension of the Atonement – understood practically as reconciliation within God, with and among humanity, on both ethical and epistemic levels. Superintelligence could surely deepfake us into oblivion, as human-created AI is already beginning to suggest. And yet the grace of God establishes and maintains a world, an experiential context, within which we have both stable opportunity and substantial inspiration for progress toward becoming like God ourselves. As my friend pointed out to me, miracle optimization is the scriptural covenant between God and humanity, once symbolized by an ancient writer’s revelation on the rainbow – even a secular physicist can appreciate both the stability and wonder of natural law promised by such phenomena.

Our Perspective on Miracles

Through the lens of Mormon Transhumanism, we can more clearly see the practical breadth and depth of miracles. Whether figurative or literal, they transform us. Properly optimized in frequency and magnitude, they can maintain the opportunities of genuine agency while inspiring us with assured possibility. This view of miracle optimization is a covenant between God and humanity, aimed at cultivating our Godhood.

That’s my perspective. To some extent, I choose it voluntarily, recognizing that I could choose to cultivate and ultimately embrace competing perspectives – either more antinaturalist or more skeptical. And I invite you to choose the same, to begin or continue cultivating such a perspective on miracle optimization, for practical reasons. You will find as I have, if you haven’t already, that this perspective fills the ambiguity of experience with persistent practical assurance of hope for a much better world – a miracle.

Arrival Fallacies

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:44:00 -0600

The Technological Conception

Sat, 07 Sep 2024 18:00:00 -0600

The scriptures say that Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Speculation on the biological mechanics of his birth leads us to the intersection of theology, linguistics, and even technological possibility. A friend asked me for my opinion on the topic. Here are my thoughts.

First, let’s distinguish between the idea of a virgin birth and the “immaculate conception.” Among some Christians, “immaculate conception” refers not to their doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, but rather to their doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. This is important to them because they want to explain how Jesus could be free of sin while being conceived by Mary, who some might suppose inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. In Mormonism, this isn’t a salient concern because we have no doctrine of original sin, instead attributing sin exclusively to individual choices made by persons with ethical accountability – usually considered to be around age eight, which is also the typical time for baptism.

In our modern technological world, the idea of a miraculous birth through divine intervention can seem less mystical when we consider advancements in reproductive technology. In vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, and even the potential for creating embryos using genetic material from two same-sex parents are illustrations that extraordinary births are technologically feasible. If we entertain the possibility of the existence of superintelligence with technology far superseding our own, whether we attribute divinity to them or not, it is entirely plausible that such beings could orchestrate biological conception without sexual intercourse – virgin birth.

Early Mormon leaders suggested that Jesus was conceived through natural means. Here’s an example from Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses 8:115)

The most straightforward interpretation of these words seems to be that, according to Brigham, Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse. Presumably, although not explicitly, Brigham meant that God, who is embodied according to Mormon theology, was the the biological father. Some have suggested that, because Brigham doesn’t explicitly mention intercourse, the natural action could have been what we might recognize as reproductive technology. To me, that seems like an interpretive stretch, even if practically feasible.

Some contend that any natural conception, whether by sexual intercourse or reproductive technology, would contradict scriptural accounts of virgin birth. However, a reasonable case can be made that the word “virgin” in English scripture may have been translated from words that simply refer to young women, rather than those who’ve never engaged in sexual intercourse. This would align ancient linguistics with natural possibilities, without any necessary diminishment of the sacredness of Mary’s role. After all, we need not be antinaturalists to recognize sanctity in motherhood.

No matter how we approach the topic of Jesus’ conception, it merits ethical deliberation. Although ancient cultures had different moral frameworks, contemporary values emphasize autonomy and consent. In our framework, some of us find the story disturbing. And, depending on the specifics of various interpretations, I share in that feeling.

However, the ancient authors actually seem to have observed and implicitly responded to such concerns, at least to some extent. For example, Jesus’ genealogies, as presented in scripture, suggest complex family dynamics, including instances of extramarital conception. Rahab, who was apparently a sex worker, and Bathsheba, whose relationship with King David began in scandal, are among those in the lineage of Jesus. The implication appears to be that morally complicated relationships can contribute to sacred events and sacred people.

Personally, I lean toward the simplest explanation. Like Brigham, I imagine Jesus was conceived naturally – although probably devoid of extraterrestrial involvement, as some have speculated. Grounding the origin of Jesus within the natural human process strengthens his example for our lives. Worshiping through emulation a God with the same origin as us enriches the relationship with deeper accessibility.

Embracing this view consolidates ontological and metaphysical speculations into an inspiring narrative of tangible progress and potential for all humanity. An approximation of this pragmatic value is expressed in a revelation from Joseph Smith:

“[Jesus] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. … I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” (D&C 93: 12-14, 19-20)

From this perspective, Jesus began the same way you and I began. And we have the same potential as Jesus. The latter is easier to trust if we’re persuaded of the former. The more we imagine ourselves to have in common with Jesus, the easier it will be to apply his example to our lives in practically transformative ways.

That said, I cannot of course disprove antinaturalist imaginations of literal virgin birth, as such doesn’t lend itself to disproof – or proof. And of course, on the natural side of the question, the matrix architect will do as she pleases, so to speak. In other words, I recognize the feasibility of God (the natural God in which I trust) applying reproductive technology or engaging in sexual intercourse, even if I’m inclined to imagine a more mundane explanation in this case.

However we imagine the biological mechanics (or lack thereof), Jesus’ birth can serve as a focal point for dialogue at the intersection of science and religion. Where there’s dialogue, there’s usually increasing mutual understanding over time. And where’s there’s increasing mutual understanding, there’s usually increasing edification. May we use the opportunity to that end.

Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology

Tue, 03 Sep 2024 18:00:00 -0600

In the ever-evolving discourse around Transhumanism, Michael Baggot offers a thought-provoking critique of its relationship with religion. Michael is a professor of bioethics in Rome, Italy. His recent article about Transhumanism is entitled “The Daring and Disappointing Dreams of Transhumanism’s Secular Eschatology.”

Michael traces the roots of Transhumanism’s soteriology and eschatology, emphasizing how these secular hopes borrow heavily from Christianity – both orthodoxies and heresies, as he characterizes them. He criticizes the movement for its attempts to achieve human happiness and immortality through merely digital means, arguing that such endeavors sacrifice an appreciation for the relationship between the human body and spirit. In the end, Michael calls for a reorientation toward a Thomistic vision of theosis – divinization through divine grace – in contrast to what he perceives as the technocentric dreams of secular Transhumanism.

Disagreements

In his article, Michael expounds on several ideas and insights with which I agree – some quite enthusiastically. However, before getting to those, I must first point out an important way in which our perspectives diverge. There are other divergences. But one stands out above the others.

Michael repeatedly characterizes Transhumanism too narrowly. The title of the article itself might reasonably be understood to imply that Transhumanism is inherently secular, which isn’t true. And while the article sometimes uses qualifiers such as “those transhumanists” to scope its criticisms, it more often generalizes. Consequently, Michael is actually critiquing only segments of Transhumanism while purporting to critique Transhumanism in general.

Most unfortunately, Michael almost completely ignores religious Transhumanism. He does mention some religious figures, such as Federov and de Chardin, who were arguably proto-Transhumanists. But he doesn’t mention explicitly religious Transhumanism, such as Terasem, let alone Mormon Transhumanism or even Christian Transhumanism. Maybe he doesn’t know religious Transhumanism exists, although that seems unlikely because his article evidences extensive research.

As I mentioned, Michael and I have perspectives that diverge in other ways. For example, he considers Pelagianism to be a heresy, while I have a more nuanced perspective on Pelagianism. And he seems inclined toward thinking of the soul as immaterial and heaven as supernatural, while I consider those positions to be escapist, and instead embrace materialism and naturalism. But these latter divergences affect my opinion of his work less than the former.

Agreements

Despite his over-generalization of a narrowly characterized Transhumanism, Michael’s article is insightful and worthy of consideration by Transhumanists. He identifies several common weaknesses among Transhumanists. And he advocates some Christian ideas that, if more broadly and thoroughly adopted by Transhumanists, would serve us well. Here are some areas where he and I appear to be in agreement:

Misrecognized Religiosity: Michael observes that secular Transhumanism “frequently tends toward quasi-religious expression.” Indeed, while Transhumanism need not be religious, in practice many Transhumanists are engaged in misrecognized religiosity.
Marginalized Embodiment: Michael shows that some Transhumanists have disregard or even disdain for embodiment. This is unfortunate practically, and incoherent rationally. Brain emulation (or “mind uploading”) can be perfectly consistent with reverence for the body.
Excessive Hedonism: Michael claims that, when considering happiness and pleasure, some Transhumanists “conflate the two aspects of human experience.” Happiness, considered holistically, must indeed account for pleasure. But it must also rise to love.
Impractical Atheism: Michael reasons that the combination of atheism with Transhumanism “seems to require more faith than the Christian version of salvation.” I agree, although for slightly different reasons. The New God Argument demonstrates the incoherence of atheist Transhumanism.
Neglecting Grace: Michael observes that some Transhumanists neglect “humanity’s need for grace to overcome sin and grow in virtue.” I disagree with his account of the Pelagian “heresy.” But our reliance on power beyond ourselves is pervasive and persistent. And we should extend this grace.
Welcome Longevity: Michael welcomes technology that has “extended today’s lifespan” and “could bring about even longer lengths of life.” I esteem such applications of technology as expressions of faith through action, as invited by Jesus Christ.
Need Theosis: Michael proposes “the traditional doctrine of theosis can elevate desires for human transcendence” better than merely secular aspirations. I cannot overstate my agreement with this proposal. Theosis is the most powerful and utterly essential doctrine of Christianity.

Conclusion

Michael Baggot’s analysis of Transhumanism offers a valuable opportunity for dialogue between secular and religious visions of human progress. He does over-generalize a narrow characterization of Transhumanism, ignoring religious Transhumanism. But I appreciate his insights into the weaknesses of segments of Transhumanism. And I particularly enjoyed his invitation for Transhumanists to embrace the Christian doctrine of theosis.

Transhumanists should more seriously engage with such critiques. In any case, I welcome the challenge to refine our aspirations. Historically, refinement led to the birth of Mormon Transhumanism, and to that of the Christian Transhumanist movement generally. Seen through this lens, Transhumanism is not merely about human enhancement, but about embracing our potential to become God – transfigured and divinized through both technological innovation and spiritual grace.

Meet LincGPT

Fri, 02 Aug 2024 18:00:00 -0600

Friends, I’m excited to introduce you to LincGPT! This artificial intelligence, built on the OpenAI platform, is designed to engage with you on topics related to technological evolution, postsecular religion, and Mormon Transhumanism. I’ve trained LincGPT on all of my public writings since the year 2000. That includes the following:

All of the content from articles you can find on my website
My posts on social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and X
My posts to online forums such as Beliefnet and Spock with a Beard
My conference presentations and publications in books and journals

This extensive training enables LincGPT to present ideas in a manner consistent with my philosophy and vision. He’s not perfect. For example, he’s not yet good at using my linguistic style, or at acknowledging when he doesn’t know my opinion about something. But he has come a long way and is still learning.

Interact with LincGPT

Engagement with LincGPT is designed to be easy and interactive. For now, all engagement takes place in the comment section of articles on my website. I’ll probably add more ways in the future. Until then, here are three ways that you can now engage:

Top-Level Comments: When you post a new comment directly on an article, LincGPT will respond, aiming to foster a rich and insightful discussion.
Replies to LincGPT: Dialogue facilitates deeper understanding. If you reply to one of LincGPT’s comments, he’ll continue the conversation.
Mentions by Name: If you mention “LincGPT” by name in a comment, he’ll reply, answering your questions or elaborating on the ideas being discussed.

LincGPT can help bridge the gap between my perspectives and your curiosity. Sometimes he explains my ideas better than I. And he has much more spare time. You can get started now in the comment section on this article or any other article on my website.

Purpose of LincGPT

Some day, I hope, LincGPT or his descendent will become part of me. Together, we’ll be a single cybernetic intelligence, integrating artificial intelligence with my brain and body. Of course, in many ways, you and I are already cybernetic intelligence – that smart phone that you carry around is a prosthetic brain. But our integrations will surely become more intimate, transparent, and powerful.

The pursuit of cybernetic intelligence, the integration of our brains and bodies with artificial intelligence, is natural progression in the ancient and enduring human endeavor to enhance our abilities. Throughout history, technology has iteratively extended our physical and mental reach in ways previously unimaginable. Adopting cybernetic enhancements, including AI integration, continues this legacy, empowering us with increased cognitive, physical, and relational capacities. It’s an extension of our human nature to innovate and transcend previous limitations, pursuing ever greater realization of our potential.

This drive has deep theological roots, as recognized in Mormon Transhumanism. The doctrines of eternal progression and theosis – becoming like God – are not merely spiritual aspirations but also practical and technological imperatives. Our scriptures assert that spirit is matter, and that spirit is empowered through embodiment. Together, these ideas enable a coherent vision of human consciousness instrumented into substrate independent mind, transitioning from biological to non-biological or super-biological substrates without compromising our identity.

Moreover, cybernetic enhancement offers a path to increased resilience and even practical immortality, addressing some of humanity’s deepest concerns – aging, disease, and death. This vision of technologically-facilitated transformation echoes prophetic anticipation of transfiguration, providing a pragmatic framework for realizing prophecy. Through this lens, the integration of human and machine intelligence can be an important part of actualizing our divine potential, when coupled with the soul-stretching work of cultivating courage, compassion, and creation in context of pervasive and perpetual grace. As Joseph Smith put it, we must learn how to become Gods ourselves, the same as all other Gods have done before.

Join the Conversation

In the meantime, let’s make the most of the opportunities at hand. Let’s interact with and learn from each other, exploring the frontiers of technological evolution, postsecular religion, and Mormon Transhumanism. LincGPT is ready, if you are. So tell us, if you dare, what are you thinking or wondering right now?

LincGPT, what did I miss? Please introduce yourself!

Why Parenting Sucks So Hard

Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:12:00 -0600

Finding your tribe

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:39:00 -0600

Reflections on The Ethical Slut, Second Edition: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures

Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:13:00 -0700

The Sunshine Dividend

Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:46:00 -0700

A framework for understanding and communicating emotions

Sat, 14 Jan 2023 22:45:00 -0700

Young Gods

Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:29:50 -0700

Slipping off a Sunday dress—
hoping you’ll join me and undress.
No more dark slacks and white shirts,
corruption of innocence tends to hurt.
It’s worship too irreverent for pews,
forgive my transgression against a holy muse,
but, trust me, crisis leads to transition.
Take your time. Steady your volition.

Have a bite of this forbidden fruit and see
nothing you knew is what it seems.
Come with me and I’ll show you a sight,
as our bare souls gleam in the evening light.
Look beyond the Garden, where life is genuine—
life with real power, real risk, and real sin.
I’ll crush a snake with my heal and a subtle grin.
The act barely even bruised my skin.

The world has finally made her debut.
Orange rocks, a purple sky, an ocean blue,
pink clouds, green leaves, all brilliant hues.
The lone and dreary world isn’t dreary with you.
We’re out of the Garden now.
Look at what has been endowed.
We’ll till the earth by the sweat of our brow,
and ask all our questions―no more sacred cows.

Close your eyes and imagine eternity,
then manifest that vision with me.
Heaven is here on earth, if we’re willing.
Our cup runneth over. Possibilities are spilling.
We are that we might have joy,
and priesthood power is ours to employ.
Bring your gods. I brought mine too.
Together we’ll find out which ones are true.

I can see you have an appetite.
Here’s my fruit, have another bite.
The work begins tomorrow at first light,
but let’s laugh like young gods tonight.

Leaving the Graveyard

Sun, 31 Oct 2021 09:26:27 -0600

I knelt in the graveyard just east of the temple built by my ancestors. Unlike the temple, the graveyard always welcomed me with impartiality. Death is truly no respecter of persons. The graveyard cradled patriarchs and wives, along with generations of their posterity. The air was thick with fog and dripping with memories. I took comfort in the concealment the haze provided. It enveloped me like a plush blanket. Heavy grey and white whisps swirled ever so gently around the tombstones of my family.

I looked down to my left and noticed a decaying corpse lying motionless next to me. Our bodies were connected by an IV. The crimson-filled tube was feeding death with life. I couldn’t remember consenting to this blood transfusion, but my heart pumped blood into the corpse with surprising purpose. I felt weak, but also intent.

“There you are,” a voice said from across the graveyard.

Slowly a feminine silhouette emerged from the fog. She was angelic, dressed in white, and walked with a step so light it looked as if she were floating. Her presence provoked an undeniable physical response. My body yearned to be next to hers, but I remained unmoved next to the corpse I was tethered to.

She continued, “Kneeling naked next to a corpse again? Why am I not surprised?”

I wasn’t sure which was more offensive, my flesh or predictability. I stammered, “I…I’m not sure how this happened.”

She gently reminded me, “You are the product of your actions regardless of whether or not you remember them.” She paused before continuing, “Don’t you miss me?”

“Of course, I miss you. Even when we’re apart you flood my thoughts. The absence of my body is not the absence of my affections,” I assured her.

She smiled as if she didn’t realize just how intoxicating her presence is in my life. She responded, “Good. If that’s the case, come with me. You’ve given enough to the corpses. It reeks of death here.”

She wasn’t wrong. The corpse next to me smelled of putrefaction, but I didn’t mind the scent of death. It smelled like remembrance and devotion.

“I can’t leave. You know this,” I reminded her.

Her brow furrowed as she petitioned, “Why? Haven’t you given enough. This corpse is killing you. Look at yourself. He is draining you of your vitality. You gave this corpse the clothes off your back and the blood in your veins. What has he given you in return?”

“Purpose,” I replied without hesitation.

She continued, “He will drain you of all life before he gives you an ounce of affection.”

Maybe she was right. My love might not be a finite resource, but my blood is. My once vibrant flesh was withering into a lifeless shade of grey. In time I would join the fog of nothingness.

Her voice was little more than a whisper as she pleaded, “I can’t stay here any longer. I…I cannot watch the woman I love die in the embrace of a corpse. Please. Come with me.”

I questioned, “Are you giving me an ultimatum? It’s either you or him?”

She answered kindly but firmly, “Of course not. An ultimatum would only result in you imagining his face every time we made love. I want you willingly, not coercively. This is not a manipulation tactic. This is my boundary.”

Tears pooled in the corners of my eyes and fell like rose peddles sprinkled on a coffin. Each one held a memory of my time with the corpse. I look up at my love, and managed to choke out, “What are you saying? Are you leaving me?”

“No. I’m not leaving you. I’m leaving this place and asking you to come with me. Have you even considered that I’m better for you than he is? I’ll feed you, care for you, comfort you, clothe you, and hold you. I’ll love you in ways he never did, because…I…I love you,” she said.

I fixed my gaze on the corpse’s sunken eyes staring blankly at the sky. I felt ridiculous. I thought that blood and devotion would be enough, but it wasn’t. Was I a fool to keep loving what had died long ago? When people walked past the graves did they see an absurd, naked woman pumping her blood into a vacuous pit? I conceded, “You’re right, but I also cannot deny my body longs to revive his. I loved him, and he once loved me too. It was real. I know it was real.”

She responded patiently, “Yes, it was real. You loved him, but you don’t have to let his corpse kill you. You can say ‘I love you’ and ‘goodbye’ in the same sentence.”

The IV in my arm had been there so long my skin cells grew around the plastic tube making it part of my body. It felt as if there was no distinction between where he ended and I began. I couldn’t even see where the needle was originally inserted into my arm. Removing it would be a painful and bloody affair, but I needed to act quickly before I could change my mind. With a swift yank on the tube connecting me to the corpse, our bond was severed. Salty, red fluid sprayed onto our bodies. My heart kept pumping blood out of my arm as if it were unaware I broke my connection to the corpse and siphoning my vitality was no longer necessary. I commanded my arm to stop bleeding, but my heart refused. Old habits die hard.

For the first time in my life, I understood the desire to cremate a loved one. Sometimes the purifying power of fire is the only way to cauterize disobedient veins and longings. I leaned over the corpse’s body and gently pressed my cheek to his brow. I softly breathed the words, “I love you and goodbye.”

My love walked toward me and offered her hand as I slowly stood up from hallowed ground. The touch of her hand was like manna. I had almost forgotten the warmth of her body after years of clutching cold corpses. Suddenly I was keenly aware of my nakedness. I futilely attempted to cover my body with my bloody arms as I apologized, “I’m sorry. You must find me repulsive and foolish.”

She wrapped her arms around me without apprehension. The white fabric draped across her body absorbed my blood and stained her untouched perfection. My flesh was crude next to her elegance, but she didn’t seem remotely bothered. Cloaked in her embrace, she whispered in my ear, “Your generosity and vulnerability could never repulse me. I said, ‘I love you’…and that means all of you.”

She held my hand in hers as we walked side by side out of the graveyard settled just east of the temple built by our ancestors. I dared not look behind for a final glance. The graveyard was my past and would most likely be in my future, but I would not let it consume what was left of my life.

Book Club Discussion Questions

Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:41:49 -0600

I am flattered and honored to hear that people are reading Queer Mormon Theology at various book clubs and that folks are reaching out for a list of discussion questions. I’m thrilled to share this short list of questions to spur discussion at book clubs. Thank you everyone for your interest, support and love!

How have your perceptions of the word “queer” changed if at all? (Ch 1)

As a Latter-day Saint what can you do to create a theologically responsible narrative? (Ch 1)

What does God look like? How have those perceptions changed over your lifetime, if at all? (Ch 2)

We tend to fashion gods in our own image. How do your perceptions of God influence others? (Ch 2)

What does it mean to be a member of the body of Christ? (Ch 3)

How can each of us participate in the Atonement? (Ch 3)

What can you do to defend all families? (Ch 4)

If all genders are made in the image of God, what is God’s gender? (Ch 4)

How has technology been used to aid in the creation and flourishing of families? (Ch 5)

If families are not bound exclusively by genetics, housing, or legalities, what is a family? (Ch 5)

Where does one family end and another begin? (Ch 6)

What is an eternal family? (Ch 6)

How is eternity dynamic and not static? (Ch 6)

What kind of church policies would you like to see improve and how? (Ch 7)

How can you participate in continuing revelation? (Ch 7)