Mormon Transhumanist Association Opinions

Peter Thiel Recognizes the Antichrist

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:00:00 -0600

In an interview with the New York Times, Peter Thiel discussed his perspective that Western society has exhibited decades of technological and cultural stagnation, with only digital technologies like blockchain and AI providing any substantial progress. Thiel attributed this stagnation to cultural anxiety about growth, leading to increased risk aversion and regulatory barriers since the 1970s. He criticized Transhumanist ambitions as falling short of the transformative vision of Christianity and warned that escalating fear of existential risk could lead, in the name of safety, to a totalitarian world order. Throughout the interview, Thiel expressed both skepticism and hope, asserting that human agency and openness to radical change remain essential to positive futures.

I don’t entirely agree with Peter’s perspective on stagnation. Judging from the history books, culture seems to be evolving faster than ever before. And technological evolution certainly hasn’t stopped. Although risk aversion has surely slowed advances, many probably also underestimated the complexity of advances (perhaps flying cars, to use an oft-repeated example) whose absence continues to disappoint them.

I also disagree with Peter’s criticism of Transhumanism. Although, to the best of my knowledge, he identifies as a Christian Transhumanist himself, maybe he does’t know enough Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists aspire to approximations, secular or otherwise, of Christianity’s vision of embodied immortality and exalted minds. And even most of those who value mind uploading still anticipate embodiment of those minds in substrates that function to empower those minds in our shared world, making “brain emulation” a more accurate description of their vision.

Despite those disagreements, it appears that Peter and I would agree on another matter. That is, he recognizes the Antichrist. And, no, it’s not a dude with horns – except perhaps symbolically. It’s this, Peter said:

“… if we’re going to have this frame of talking about existential risks, perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as the one-world totalitarian state. Because I would say the default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance.”

The Antichrist, as characterized in the Bible, is that would-be-god who would raise itself above all else called “God,” declaring itself “God.” It contrasts with Christ, characterized as that God who would raise us together as joint-heirs in the glory of God, if we’re willing to suffer together. The one is a profoundly egotistical centralization of power. The other is a profoundly altruistic decentralization of power, and shared risk.

I’ve spoken and written about this and adjacent matters many times in the past. Decentralization is essential to human thriving, I contend. The only God worthy of worship is decentralized Godhood – not merely an abstraction, but rather a decentralized embodiment in Gods. And centralized power is dangerous enough for war even among the Gods.

As a practical matter, I’ve encouraged engineering of decentralized reputation networks. I’ve warned about the risk of centralized currency. And I’ve advocated blockchain as means to defend against that risk.

Peter went on to associate 1 Thessalonians 5 with the Antichrist:

“But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

From this perspective, the Antichrist is a seductive imitation of Christ, not an overt enemy, but a counterfeit savior. It promises “peace and safety,” a world without risk of suffering. But its method would actually lead to destruction. Subsuming individual agency and any genuine pluralism beyond superficial appearance of diversity into an enforced unity within its centralized power, it would enslave and essentially annihilate the rest of us.

Of course, the very technologies that could empower us against centralization, particularly AI, could also empower centralization. So it’s not enough only to reject excessive risk aversion. We must also also reject indiscriminate acceleration of technological and cultural evolution. System architecture and governance matter a great deal, and must be intentionally and actively steered toward decentralization.

Toward the end of the interview, Peter rejected fatalism, even the kind of fatalism that some associate with Christian theology. “Attributing too much causation to God is always a problem,” he said. And I want to echo that point.

We shouldn’t regard prophecies, of the Antichrist or anything else, as inevitable fortune-telling. The purpose of prophecy, in the Hebrew tradition that’s reflected throughout the New Testament and Mormon scripture, is more practical. Its purpose is to provoke us to engage actively in shaping our shared future, away from the frightening dangers of which it warns us and toward the beautiful visions with which it would inspire us. The Antichrist is a warning.

Here again is the warning. As cultural and technological evolution persist and accelerate, we must be increasingly vigilant in resistance against the many ideologies – secular and religious, progressive and conservative – that would centralize authority and power. Some of us will be increasingly tempted to cede agency for promises of “peace and safety,” while some of us will be increasingly tempted to cede agency for spectacles of “progress.” Yet we should recognize both as temptations of the Antichrist.

May we risk more for genuine love, the active decentralization of power, than for nihilistic security or egotistical progress. This is our sublime duty.

Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation

Tue, 27 May 2025 18:00:00 -0600

Most of us first encounter the Simulation Hypothesis through science fiction, often experienced as something of a metaphysical thrill-ride. But as computational theory and cosmology advance, serious thinkers – philosophers like Nick Bostrom, physicists, computer scientists, and even theologians – have begun analyzing the feasibility of computed worlds. Recently, Franco Vazza published “Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for this Universe: why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a simulation.” In this paper, he provides a scientific analysis of the Simulation Hypothesis.

Vazza’s analysis is impressive in both scope and detail. He incorporates influential contemporary hypotheses about the relationship between information, energy, and the structural constraints of our universe. These include the Holographic Principle, Landauer’s limit, and astrophysical energy bounds.

From them, Vazza reasons that any simulation of our universe (even on reduced scales) would require astronomically large amounts of energy. So large, he judges from his calculations, the energy requirements would be greater than anything feasible within our universe. Not even black holes instrumented as computers, at what he deems to be the bounds of theoretical speculation, could handle the demands of a low-resolution real-time simulation. Thus, he concludes, energy requirements render the Simulation Hypothesis practically impossible for any simulator that may operate within physics like our own.

Of course he doesn’t know about physics unlike our own, which he admits. But he points out, rightly, the practical triviality of speculation about physics unlike our own. The more alien the imagined physics, the less such imagination implies anything meaningful about our own potential. So alternative physics can’t save the Simulation Hypothesis.

Although I’m not expert in the related physics, I assume Vazza has accurately characterized the scientific hypotheses on which he calls. And although I haven’t carefully reviewed his logic and math, I assume they are valid and correct. However, even granting those particular assumptions, a model is only as strong as the ensemble of its assumptions.

As much as I appreciate Vazza’s audacity, I find his conclusion overstated and his apparent confidence unwarranted. He overlooks or glosses over foundational assumptions that deserve more attention. It’s premature to declare the Simulation Hypothesis “impossible,” or even nearly so.

Overestimating Costs

Perhaps the greatest overreach arises from assumptions that Vazza uses to calculate energy requirements. He acknowledges the Simulation Hypothesis doesn’t depend on simulating an entire universe, or even an entire planet at full resolution, although he focuses considerable attention on such ideas. And he does briefly consider the possibility of solipsism. But he stops short of fully considering minimal costs for supporting subjective experience.

Consciousness is not well understood by science or philosophy. Mind may emerge from or supervene on relatively coarse substrate, which resists easy quantification. We cannot say, at least for now, what a minimum necessary substrate for experience would be. But we can say, with the confidence of speaking from definition, that a simulation would need only provide whatever substrate proves sufficient for consistent and convincing experience.

To achieve that, a simulation may economize substantially. For example, it could leverage compressed statistical descriptions of substrate that, in turn, feed on-demand minimal-resolution rendering of substrate. Vazza suggests this would still be too costly due to the energy requirements of error correction, which he briefly characterizes in a footnote as being consistent across both irreversible (standard) and reversible computing contexts. However, competing hypotheses suggest that the cost of error correction may be considerably decreased within the context of reversible computing.

It’s worth recalling that, in calculations like these, small differences in assumptions can multiply into vast discrepancies between conclusions. We can see this across a diversity of approaches to the Simulation Argument. And that’s to be expected, as we can see this elsewhere. For example, small differences in values assigned to components of the Drake Equation yield wildly different estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.

Underestimating Superintelligence

Central to the Simulation Hypothesis is the idea that the simulators are, compared to us, vastly more intelligent – superintelligent. Vazza’s assessment of energy production possibilities, however, come merely from contemporary observations of transient natural phenomena such as supernovae. What about hypothetical technologies for sustainable energy that humans can already imagine, such as encapsulating stars in Dyson spheres, extracting energy from the rotation of black holes, or harnessing vacuum energy? And what if entirely novel methods for energy acquisition are discovered or created by superintelligence – intelligence that is, by definition, far superior at discovery and creation?

Contemporary engineers, of the intelligent but far from superintelligent variety, have already begun to take seriously energy production possibilities that their recent predecessors would have immediately deemed impossible, or even ridiculed. Recently, Google announced that its quantum computer performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years (vastly longer than the age of our observed universe). And they observed that this “lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes.” Such possibilities should temper our confidence in calculations stemming from strict energy ceilings based on present paradigms.

We Are Proof of Concept

Superintelligent possibilities may not be merely hypothetical. Whatever the metaphysics, something clearly has the energy to run the world of experience in which we now find ourselves. The very existence of our own consciousness-supporting world is proof of concept, whether or not superintelligence ever actually attains such power. And Vazza’s “impossible” conclusion may be construed as direct contradiction of this experience.

Moreover, possibility isn’t the most salient issue. Our world is clearly possible, at least once. The more salient issue is efficient cause. While those that Vazza considers may be impossible, at least one other efficient cause must be possible. And superintelligence may be capable of replicating it, computationally or otherwise.

Further, the regularity with which biology, culture, and technology converge on similar solutions across disparate moments in time and space should make us deeply skeptical that we (or our world) are unique, the first or only in kind. Proposing that our world of experience is unique, and that it cannot be computationally or otherwise artificially replicated, may raise more philosophical problems than it solves.

Conclusion

I sincerely commend Vazza for elevating consideration of the Simulation Hypothesis. But, in his own words, “the number of mysteries for physics to investigate is still so immense.” That immensity of mystery applies to the potential cost of simulation, as well as the potential capacity of superintelligence, even in worlds with physics like our own. And, contemplating repeated convergence in our actual world of experience, we should recognize Vazza’s “impossible” conclusion to be hyperbole.

If you’d like to explore my critique of Vazza’s paper at greater depth, check out “A Critical Examination of Astrophysical Constraints on the Simulation Hypothesis.” It’s a paper that I asked Google Gemini to generate, elaborating on and further substantiating these ideas. AI already has the ability to draw broadly (and yet still fallibly) on human expertise far beyond that which any of us can do individually. The immensity of mystery, it seems, isn’t destined to decrease.

Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation

Fri, 09 May 2025 18:00:00 -0600

Nick Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument is a rigorous reworking of what is, at its heart, an ancient question. Are we living in a created world? He distills the answer into three stark possibilities, a trilemma:

Doom: Almost all civilizations destroy themselves or otherwise fail before developing the capacity to create detailed simulations of their ancestors.
Abstinence: Some civilizations develop this technological capacity, but almost all choose not to simulate conscious agents, for ethical or other reasons.
Simulation: If our civilization survives and runs ancestor simulations, then simulated agents would vastly outnumber non-simulated agents, and, all else equal, our credence that we’re simulated should be very high.

In a critical analysis, Brian Eggleston highlights an unstated assumption underlying Bostrom’s formulation: we are not alone as technological pioneers. Specifically, Bostrom’s trilemma only entails the third possibility, that we’re simulated, if we assume that some other civilization – not only our future descendants – already ran ancestor simulations before our present. Without this assumption, we could imagine humanity as the first or only simulator, collapsing the trilemma into merely weak possibilities without force.

Principle of Technological Uniformity

However, I believe there’s an unstated intuition, yet another unrecognized assumption, behind Bostrom’s formulation. And that intuition, when identified and formally expressed as an assumption, fully addresses Eggleston’s criticism and maintains the force of the trilemma. I call that assumption the Principle of Technological Uniformity (PTU):

If a given technology is feasible, beneficial, and once achieved by a civilization, then, all else equal (barring radically unique physics or values), that technology probably has been or will be achieved by other civilizations operating within similar conditions.

PTU has at least three important characteristics. First, it provides rational grounds for supposing that becoming a simulator increases the probability that other simulators exist. Second, it reflects and extends many empirical precedents, including those broadly categorized as convergent evolution. Third, it maintains the strength of Bostrom’s trilemma, solving the problem that Eggleston identifies without appealing to exceptionalism.

Philosophical Support

PTU is grounded in the principle of mediocrity, or what people sometimes call the “Copernican” principle. As Copernicus removed from Earth the privilege of being the center of our conceptualization of the cosmos, so PTU would have us resist the temptation to privilege our human civilization uniquely in time or space or significance. Instead, given uncertainty and no evidence for our uniqueness, we should regard ourselves as typical. Human civilization on Earth is just one among many technological civilizations, subject to similar physics and incentives.

PTU is related to the anthropic principle. When considering the possibility of others developing technology like us, we shouldn’t default to flattering assumptions that would make us exceptional. To the contrary, as we observe ourselves developing increasingly detailed simulations, that should raise our credence that others have developed similar technologies before us. PTU is a meta-induction about technology diffusion, similar to but distinct from the self-sampling assumption.

Eggleston’s criticism hinges on the possibility that another civilization has already become a simulator. PTU invites us to assume this possibility has a significant probability, both for the philosophical reasons mentioned above, as well as empirical reasons shared below. We should assume that, where potential and incentive align, scientific discoveries and technological developments propagate, not deterministically, but frequently enough to warrant inductive reasoning from specific observations to generalizations.

Empirical Support

PTU is not merely a philosophical abstraction. Biological, cultural, and technological evolution are replete with convergence. Life and intelligence within similar constraints repeatedly arrive at similar solutions to similar problems.

Biological examples abound. The camera eye, constructed from radically different biological materials, appears to have evolved independently in both cephalopods (ancestors of the octopus) and vertebrates (ancestors of humans). Powered flight apparently evolved independently in insects, birds, and bats, reflecting similar constraints in aerodynamics. Where an environment rewards a particular function, nature finds a way to achieve that function, often more than once.

Cultural examples also abound. Agriculture seems to have begun independently on multiple continents, perhaps millennia apart. Writing systems appeared at disparate times in Sumer, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica with little to no evidence of direct transmission. Even intricate toolmaking, such as fluted point technology used for projectiles like arrows, appears in archeological records on separate continents, despite a paucity of evidence for contact or common inheritance among them.

Today, we can observe technological convergence in the rapid global proliferation of computation. Moore’s Law (and its generalization into Kurzweil’s Law) is not just a local phenomenon. Countless independent groups have, motivated by shared incentives, moved computation and simulation technologies forward at accelerating rates. Now we construct virtual realities, whether for entertainment or science or otherwise, as if echoing an ancient call to create new worlds.

Saving the Simulation

Eggleston is right to caution against hidden assumptions. If, in actual fact, humanity were to become the only civilization to reach the simulation threshold, Bostrom’s trilemma would collapse. And the force of his articulation of the Simulation Argument would evaporate. PTU solves this problem, recognizing another hidden assumption, by insisting that when technology is both feasible and valuable, history predicts independent rediscovery.

It would be extraordinary to claim that human civilization will become the first and only simulator, uniquely lucky (or uniquely destined) in our technological potential. The probability that we are or will be the only civilization with our particular potential in any given technological domain shrinks against the weight of empirical precedent in the biological, cultural, and technological evolution that we have already observed or discovered. Assuming we eventually become simulators, the probability that we ourselves were simulated rises accordingly.

Backed by PTU, the Simulation Argument trilemma stands strong:

Doom: Almost all civilizations perish before becoming simulators.
Abstinence: Almost all civilizations choose not to become simulators.
Simulation: We almost certainly live in a simulation – one among unimaginably many.

To assert that humanity is a unique exception to PTU would be radical anthropocentrism, inconsistent with logic and history.

Conclusion

The Principle of Technological Uniformity is deeply rooted in both philosophical reasoning and empirical evidence. From that dependable ground, it resolves the problem that Eggleston identifies in Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument. If we recognize ourselves as neither central nor exceptional, but rather as part of the grand convergent patterns of the cosmos, then we should also recognize that we could not have become simulators unless other simulators already exist. Thus, Bostrom’s trilemma persists with full force.

Distorting Transhumanism at Meridian Magazine

Tue, 06 May 2025 18:00:00 -0600

Meridian Magazine positions itself as a publication for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination. I don’t know much about Meridian or the people behind it. But today I learned that they’re willing to publish a fear-mongering distortion of Transhumanism, “Human 2.0 Is Here — And You Didn’t Even Notice” by Alexis Tarkaleson. Despite their positioning, I wish to make make clear that such behavior is not aligned with the values that the Church advocates.

Tarkaleson says “mind uploading” is an outlandish tale. What’s her take on tales of transfiguration and resurrection? Are those equally outlandish? Surely she’s aware that those doctrines require the possibility of mind (or spirit body) moving from one physical body to another, consistent with hypotheses of mind uploading.

How about cryonics, yet another outlandish tale she identifies? I’m curious to know what she thinks about the Church’s advocacy to collect genealogy and preserve family history, with intent to facilitate redemption of the dead. And what about proxy rituals that we perform for the dead? Most of the world probably thinks the Church’s practices in these areas are at least as outlandish as those of cryonicists.

What about “the god-like ‘posthuman’”? She says that’s outlandish too. Is she aware that Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church, claimed that God “was once a man like us” in his last general conference sermon? If Joseph was right, as I trust, that would literally make God a posthuman.

If these Transhumanist ambitions are merely “crazy sci-fi,” as Tarkaleson suggests, then the doctrines of the Church are crazy religious fiction. You see, the biggest difference between these ambitions isn’t their audacity, which detractors would disparage as mere fiction. Rather, the biggest difference is the narrative esthetic in which these ambitions are commonly expressed. Esthetics do matter, but not so much that we should willfully distort common underlying functions.

Tarkaleson echoes someone else’s professed concern with Transhumanism’s “obsession” with anti-aging and perfectionism. That seems hypocritical coming from a member of a Church, in whose buildings one can hear, just about any Sunday, that human immortality is part of the work and glory of God.

But Tarkaleson has bigger concerns with Transhumanism, she says. She identifies those concerns as “gender ideology,” “reproductive technology,” “abandonment of religion and family,” and “diminishing value of human life and human relationships.” Let’s look at what she says.

Gender Ideology

First, Tarkaleson addresses gender ideology. And she starts by criticizing a strawman of the concept of morphological freedom. She characterizes it as “unlimited freedom to transform your body … on a whim,” while mentioning but not fully taking into account the fact that most Transhumanists actually would limit that freedom to be “so long as it does not harm others.” I wonder if she doesn’t like the doctrine of agency, as advocated by Mormon scripture and the Church? Whether we like it or not, morphological freedom is a kind of agency.

Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists have given morphological freedom “the ultimate position of sacredness by placement in the Transhuman Bill of Rights.” As it turns out, Mormon scripture has done functionally the same thing with the doctrine of agency. Our scriptures even go so far as to claim that Satan “sought to destroy the agency that God had given to His children.” Whose side is she on?

To emphasize her concern with gender ideology, Tarkaleson aims her criticisms at two prominent Transhumanists. One is Martine Rothblatt, who is transgender. And the other is Fereidoun M. Esfandiary (FM2030), who advocated for androgyny and asexuality. Such Transhumanists are, Tarkaleson correctly points out, natural allies with the transgender movement.

Yet some Transhumanists have concerns with how some expressions of the transgender movement have harmed others, going beyond the limits of morphological freedom. Some of us think gender is a blessing rather than a curse, and more likely to extend into than disappear from our posthuman future. And some of us know that secular persons and values are hardly the oldest forerunners of Transhumanism, which can actually trace its history back through deeply religious proto-Transhumanists and beyond to ancient religious analogs of Transhumanism.

Reproductive Technology

Next, Tarkaleson addresses reproductive technology. Here, she starts with asserting that Transhumanism finds its roots in birth control and abortion. This claim is absurd to the point of being stunning. The best evidence she can muster is a quote from a non-Transhumanist advocate of artificial reproduction.

Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists cry out, “More, more, more,” as society speeds ahead with unethical reproductive technology. Again, she has no evidence for this claim regarding Transhumanists in particular. But she does again try to support this characterization of Transhumanists by citing stats about non-Transhumanists. I wish I didn’t need to say that her reasoning is vague and poor.

As it turns out, Transhumanists probably do generally support ethical approaches to the use of reproductive technology. And they’re far from alone. Another organization that supports ethical use of reproductive technology is the Church. Here’s the official Church policy on children conceived by artificial insemination or IVF:

“Children conceived by artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization are born in the covenant if their parents are already sealed. If the children are born before their parents are sealed, they may be sealed to their parents after their parents are sealed to each other.”

Tarkaleson criticizes IVF in particular, along with other reproductive technologies. She claims, “future generations will be detached from all the benefits that come from a natural conception and birth.” I wonder what she thinks of countless members of the Church who wouldn’t be alive, or whose posterity wouldn’t be alive, if they had not benefitted from reproductive technology. Whatever she thinks, many of the rest of us think these technologies can be blessings from God.

This leads her to eugenics, with which she charges Transhumanists. She does allude to the fact that most Transhumanists actually oppose eugenics because it entails coercion. But then she blithely dismisses this problem with her charge. Apparently Tarkaleson thinks people shouldn’t be permitted to do things she doesn’t like, even if those things don’t hurt anyone.

Tarkaleson has concerns with anyone “destroying embryos that don’t check the box.” I know Transhumanists who have intentionally proceeded to give birth to children with known genetic abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. But beyond that discrepancy with her indignation, is she suggesting that we shouldn’t even attempt to know or take responsibility for the well-being of our as-yet-unborn children? Isn’t that intention toward ignorance and impotence just as malicious as careless destruction of embryos?

She is particularly alarmed by reproductive technologies that would permit single persons or groups of persons to procreate. While I would likely agree with her evaluation of the general benefits of traditional families, I wonder if she has thought much about the nature of spiritual procreation entailed by Mormon theology. And how does Mormonism’s history with divinely-sanctioned polygamy fit into her view of these matters? This matter is more complex than she has acknowledged, even if it’s rightly recognized as an area with significant risk.

Beyond her general hand-waving about reproductive technology, Tarkaleson completes her criticism of Transhumanism, finally, by returning to an actual Transhumanist, Zoltan Istvan. He apparently predicted that traditional childbirth will be eradicated within 50 years. She thinks his claim is sufficient to conclude that Transhumanists think there’s nothing to be gained from tradition or Mother Nature. Unfortunately for her, or fortunately depending on your perspective, some of us actually think there’s much to learn from tradition and Mother Nature, even while continuing to create using all the means that the grace of God provides.

Peacemakers

That’s it. Tarkaleson doesn’t explain her concerns with Transhumanism’s supposed conflicts with religion, family, relationships, and humanism. Would she be surprised to learn that Mormon Transhumanists love our religion, families, relationships, and humanity? She threatens to write about those things in part two of an article series that Meridian Magazine should never have started publishing in the first place.

I mentioned in my intro that Meridian’s choice to publish this article does not align with the values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I’ve suggested some reasons for that, ways in which Transhumanism aligns with Mormon values, throughout the body of this article. But there’s a bigger reason, particularly bigger for Meridian and its audience.

Current president of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, has encouraged members of the Church to be peacemakers. “Replace belligerence with beseeching, animosity with understanding, and contention with peace,” he urged in a recent general conference. And, he continued, “make any adjustments that may be needed so that your behavior is ennobling, respectful, and representative of a true follower of Jesus Christ.”

By choosing to publish a fear-mongering distortion of Transhumanism, Meridian has engaged in exactly the opposite of the behavior that President Nelson encouraged. As a consequence, many of its readers will misunderstand and fear Transhumanism, like many people misunderstand and fear members of the Church. And some who misunderstand and fear the Church will misunderstand and fear it even more as a consequence of their article, thinking it representative of the Church. It’s a vicious cycle.

To those reading this who may not know much about Transhumanism, about Mormonism in general, or about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in particular, please know that there are far better sources than Meridian Magazine for information on the relationship between Mormonism and Transhumanism. Some members of the Church actually identify as Transhumanists. And some of us organized the Mormon Transhumanist Association two decades ago. That would be a good place to start, where you can read charitable accounts of both Transhumanism and Mormonism, and the Church, from people who understand them well enough to make peace.

Marek Wójtowicz on the New God Argument

Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:00:00 -0600

Philosopher Marek Wójtowicz recently published a paper in Roczniki Filozoficzne titled “Lincoln Cannon’s Transhumanist Argument for Faith in God,” offering a formal critique of the New God Argument. While the paper identifies some valuable opportunities for elaboration, it also affirms key strengths of the argument and mischaracterizes others. This article summarizes Wójtowicz’s core analysis, shares my responses, and outlines directions for improving the New God Argument.

Wójtowicz recognizes several merits of the New God Argument. He describes it as an “original manner” of approaching the question of God’s existence. And he highlights it as a “pioneering attempt to adapt transhumanist ideas to the format of research conducted within the realm of the philosophy of religion.” He also affirms the validity of the logical structure and the benefit of clearly identifying assumptions in advance.

Wójtowicz offers an admirably thorough formal analysis of the logic of the New God Argument. But, in the second half of his paper and particularly toward the end, he misinterprets the assumptions and intent of the argument. Several clarifications are in order to set the record straight, in hope of advancing discussion constructively.

Clarifications

The New God Argument is prospective and empirical in the sense that its assumptions and conclusions lend themselves to experience-based verification or falsification, even if that experience belongs to future or non-human natural observers. This contrasts with classical arguments for God that rely solely on a priori reasoning. While Wójtowicz questions this empiricism, the distinction remains fundamental to the argument’s philosophical orientation – Pragmatic rather than Platonic.

As part of its logical structure, the New God Argument employs disjunctions in the Compassion and Creation arguments. The disjunctions aren’t necessarily exclusive. The logic holds whether or not the disjuncts are mutually exclusive, and even if more than one disjunct is true. Wójtowicz’s concern about disjunctive ambiguity is thus formally irrelevant.

Wójtowicz observes that the New God Argument depends on defining “probably” as a probability greater than 50%. This clarification is true, important, but not problematic. Consistent with Bayesian reasoning, the strength of the argument scales with how probable one finds its assumptions. For example, Nick Bostrom, whose Simulation Argument informs part of the New God Argument, uses similar references to probability.

Wójtowicz also claims the argument becomes circular when it concludes that superhumanity is both our descendant and our creator. This is a misunderstanding of generational recursion. Just as humans can be both ancestors and descendants across time, superhumanity can exist before and after us in different instantiations. This does not entail logical contradiction.

The New God Argument uses the term “God” to describe a superhumanity that is more compassionate than we are and that created our world. This concept is not a departure from religious tradition but rather an authentic characterization of the ancient doctrine of theosis, perpetuated today as exaltation in Mormonism and divinization in Catholicism, among others. This characterization also lends itself to integration of divine attributes with a naturalistic frame of reference.

Opportunities

Wójtowicz’s critique is most helpful in identifying where the New God Argument would benefit from further development. Definitions of words like “superhumanity,” “compassion,” and “creation” merit more elaboration. Such elaborations would emphasize observable behavior and technological capacities rather than inaccessible emotions or antinatural theological positions.

I should frame the Faith Assumption, and the assumptions in the Compassion Argument and the Creation Argument, within greater emphasis of contemporary scientific and philosophical literature. That would include referencing Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument, as well as discourse in AI ethics, computational epistemology, and cosmic evolution. Embedding the New God Argument more deeply in existing literature would facilitate more productive deliberation.

Logical transitions within the Compassion and Creation arguments merit more explanation. Wójtowicz shows the value of thoroughly analyzing the inferential logic. This would make the argument more accessible to both critics and advocates. And that, in turn, would help orient our shared focus toward more salient features of the New God Argument.

I should explain recursive creation in more detail. Narrative accounts of ancestor simulation or evolutionary emulation could clarify how humanity may both originate from and lead to superhumanity. This would help dispel confusion about logical contradiction and highlight the plausibility of cyclical or branching cosmologies.

Finally, I should consolidate and present, in secular philosophical terms, my reasons for esteeming superhuman compassionate creators as “God.” These would include elaboration on superhumanity’s potential creative superiority, ethical authority, and epistemic advantage relative to humanity. God, in the superhuman sense, is worthy of our trust and emulation without appeal to antinaturalism.

Conclusion

Wójtowicz’s paper is a valuable engagement with the New God Argument. His formal analysis affirms the validity of its logical structure. And his critiques highlight opportunities to strengthen its presentation. Most importantly, his work shows that the New God Argument deserves and is increasingly gaining serious philosophical consideration.

The New God Argument is an original, provocative, and evolving contribution at the intersection of theology with secular futurism. More revisions are coming. In the meantime and always, I welcome continued dialogue, well-informed criticism, and elaborative assistance.

Ordaining Priesthood for Resurrection

Sun, 27 Apr 2025 18:00:00 -0600

Occasionally, I receive questions about the relationship between Mormon Transhumanism and priesthood. Generally, the questions come from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which we esteem priesthood as the authority of God. Implicit in the questions, or sometimes explicit, is concern that our esteem for priesthood would be rendered meaningless in a world where miraculous technology is generally available. Who needs a priest when an algorithm can raise the dead?

Although I’ve responded to such questions in public interviews and private conversations, I’ve also been meaning to publish some thoughts in writing. Now seems like the perfect opportunity. Yesterday in conference, my stake (a group of local wards or congregations) voted to sustain me as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. And, despite what some assume about Transhumanists, I’m grateful for their expression of support.

My Ordination

A few weeks ago, my son Spencer approached me with a request that I ordain him as a high priest. His stake had called him to serve in a position that requires this ordination. Traditionally, when this need arises, the person to be ordained asks someone he knows, who is already a high priest and authorized by the stake, to perform the ordinance.

Of course I was pleased that Spencer would ask me. But there was a problem. Decades ago, as a teenager, and at the invitation of the Church, I had been ordained successively as a deacon, teacher, and priest in the Aaronic priesthood, and then as an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. But I had never been ordained, nor invited to be ordained, as a high priest

In this case, the Church wasn’t asking. But my son was asking. And I wanted to accept his invitation. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the Church?

A passage of scripture came to mind. In the Pearl of Great Price, we read the following in the voice of Abraham (chapter one, verses two through four):

“And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness⁠, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge⁠, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations⁠, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest⁠, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

“It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn⁠, or the first man, who is Adam⁠, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.”

Look how many times the text indicates that Abraham intentionally seeks for ordination as a high priest. “I sought for the blessings … and the right whereunto I should be ordained,” begins Abraham. He proceeds with several indirect expressions of desire for ordination. And closing, he says, “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood.”

Encouraged by this passage of scripture, I reached out to the bishop of my local ward, as well as the president of my local stake. After explaining to them my son’s request, I asked. Would you please consider authorizing my ordination as a high priest, so that I may ordain my son?

My bishop and stake president both warmly welcomed my request. And, subsequent to completing the requisite interviews, they authorized my ordination. Then I got to invite someone to perform the ordination.

As a teenager, I had asked my father, Layne Cannon, to perform my previous priesthood ordinations. He had been ordained as a high priest. And I would have liked to ask him to perform this additional ordination. But he’s dead – for now.

So I traveled to Spokane, Washington, where my maternal grandfather, James Plumb, lives. In his nineties, he’s my only living ancestor who has been ordained as a high priest. And he had happily accepted my invitation to ordain me.

With my stake president as a witness via webcam, my grandfather and his son (my uncle, also named James Plumb, and also a high priest) performed my ordination. They placed their hands on my head. My grandfather spoke:

“Lincoln Connelly Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.”

He then proceeded to speak additional words, blessings, as he felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience.

A few days after my return from Spokane, I visited an office in the building where my son attends Church services. His local ward and stake authorities were present. Family was present. With my hands on Spencer’s head, I spoke:

“Spencer Layne Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.”

Like my grandfather had done for me, I spoke those words and others, blessings, as I felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience. Maybe sometime I’ll share with you more about the emotional part of the experience. For now, I want to tell you more about why it was practically meaningful – and was illustrative of what will, I trust, remain practically meaningful experience for as long as humanity and our evolutionary descendants endure.

Practical Priesthood

When I address the practical benefits of traditional religious practice, such as priesthood, I try to do so in ways that resonate with both believers and non-believers. I want believers to see ourselves genuinely reflected in my words, even if my perspective isn’t exactly the same as theirs. And I want non-believers to see the functional consequences of religious practice in new light, independent of preconceptions they might have about any supposed inherent anti-naturalism in religion. This balance isn’t easy, but the effort reflects who I am and how I do actually value my religion, including priesthood.

Priesthood provides a framework for governance within the Church, to promote reconciliation and solidarity among its members. We need governance, whether we like it or not – whether we recognize the need or not. Where we lack explicit governance, implicit governance emerges, too often tyrannical. When functioning well, as I often but don’t always observe in the Church, governance serves to facilitate cooperation within a community.

Priesthood enhances the efficacy of religious practice. It infuses rituals with a stronger sense of purpose, and renders them more tangibly consequential. Scientific evidence shows that authority plays a crucial role in generating placebo, which, although not yet well understood, is a very real and quite natural power for healing and well-being. I have observed and experienced from time to time throughout my life that priesthood can be a particularly effective form of authority for channeling the power of placebo.

As articulated in Mormon scripture, priesthood fosters the ethical accumulation and exercise of power. Power isn’t inherently good or evil, in how we gain or use it. But it can be powerfully evil, as it can be powerfully good. In what I esteem to be among his most inspiring words, the prophet Joseph Smith explained that priesthood authority is only the possibility of power (or even less) until we use it with compassion to promote trust and cultivate reciprocal compassion that willingly gives us power (D&C 121):

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile …

“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.”

Priesthood facilitates the integration of theology with technology. Without priesthood, or its functional equivalent, theology is merely analytical ideas and words. Priesthood implements theology into the act of ritual, which gives body and life to the theology. And ritual, over time, converts aspiration into reality, words shaping the world through arts – the literal etymological meaning of “technology.”

Particularly as practiced among Mormons, priesthood encourages an aspirational and co-created approach to divine authority. We esteem priesthood as the authority of God, which we participate in distributing throughout humanity. Consequently, the authorized purpose and potential of God increasingly becomes our shared purposes and potential, as we live up to the covenant relationship. On this matter, Joseph Smith expressed these (D&C 84):

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

“And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

“And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

In summary, we need not believe in anti-natural magic or adopt any superstitious stance toward the world to recognize and appreciate the functional consequences of priesthood. It provides us with structure for governance, promoting cooperation and enhancing the efficacy of ritual. It educates us in the ethical accumulation of power, facilitating a progressive expression of theology into technology. And it would align us with that which we understand and sense to be the purpose and potential of Godhood.

Keys of the Resurrection

In addition to the practical benefits of priesthood in our lives today, I envision an apocalyptic purpose for priesthood in our future. Sometimes revelation is passive observation. But the revelation, the unveiling or exhuming, to which I now refer is quite the opposite. The apocalyptic purpose of priesthood will be an active authorization to re-create everything that matters and has ever mattered to humanity – the resurrection.

I frequently comment on how to raise the dead, not as an anti-natural fantasy but as an aspiration toward a practical technological project. Recently, with intentional provocation, I’ve been suggesting that the resurrection will begin within the next couple decades. When commenting on this, I have usually focused on how to approach imagining such an event as technically possible. But there are also social requirements for positive versions of this possibility.

We may soon live in a world where it’s harder to stay dead than alive. That’s to say, you may still be able to destroy your body – accidentally or otherwise. But we may also have ample means for reconstructing your body, your brain, and its association with your mind, all from backups. So far, so good.

But, to some terrifying extent, it may prove difficult to constrain use of technology for reconstructing that which … appears to be you. Deep fakes in photos, audio, and video can already be deeply disconcerting. And the risks of unethical use of these technologies seem poised to grow well beyond that which we even have the anatomical capacity to imagine presently.

What, if anything, can we do about that? I have repeatedly contended that we should advocate decentralization of power and build decentralized systems of governance. Decentralization naturally promotes cooperation, which makes our relationships more dependable. This is a good start.

Looking beyond a good start, however, our gaze rises toward the limit – the limit of human potential in the superhuman. At that limit, how might superhuman intelligence govern itself? How might superhumanity maintain within itself a coherent sense of identity? What will ensure decentralized agency, and requisite capacities for consent, privacy, and security?

No matter their form, all systems of governance have authority, explicit or implicit – the concepts require each other. And governance at the limit of humanity will require authority at the limit of humanity. As it’s hard to imagine superhuman governance, it’s hard to imagine superhuman authority. But that’s never stopped me from trying.

To remain effective among agents of extraordinary esthetic complexity, superhuman governance must enshrine its authority in superhuman esthetics. And that’s just a wordy way of saying that the Gods must be nothing short of religious about their authority. In function, religion is communal esthetics. And it’s the most powerful social technology.

Religious governance is priesthood. Priesthood is the authority through which the Gods govern themselves. Authority enshrined in sublime esthetics is how superhumanity, that which I trust now exists and that which I trust humanity may become, governs itself. And nothing less than this authority at the limit will be required of humanity at the limit, if we are to survive and thrive.

In that world, where it’s harder to stay dead than alive, we will need each other – superhuman versions of each other – to maintain a coherent sense of identity. You see, we don’t individually own our identities. Identity is a psychosocial construct. And we will need to anchor that construct in the most trustworthy community, the most sublime, the most divine.

Here, then, is the apocalyptic purpose of priesthood. The Gods must authorize resurrection. If it’s not authorized, raising the dead is just making copies, clones, doppelgangers, and deep fakes. If it’s not psychosocially sufficient, if we don’t fully consent both individually and socially, leveraging governance at its limit through authority at its limit, it’s not resurrection.

Ordinance of the Resurrection

Joseph Smith once prophesied that, in the “last times,” we will gain the keys of the transfiguration (or “translation”), transforming living mortals to immortality. And he said that transfiguration would be an ordinance of the priesthood. Some have supposed that to mean the functional capacity (technical or antinatural, as the case may be) to end aging will eventually become available exclusively to priesthood. Maybe.

“Now the doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to this Priesthood. There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last times. Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but his is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings 170)

But Joseph didn’t say the requisite functional capacity to end aging would be exclusive. Priesthood may control technical aspects of transfiguration no more than we presently control technical aspects of baptism. Just about anyone can dunk a body in water, but only priesthood can authorize that event as baptism. Likewise, just about anyone may be able to apply powerful anti-aging technologies to a body, but only priesthood could authorize that event as transfiguration.

Looking a bit farther ahead, Brigham Young once prophesied that we will eventually also gain the keys of the resurrection, raising the dead to immortality. And, reminiscent of Joseph, Brigham said that resurrection would be an ordinance of the priesthood. As with transfiguration, some have supposed that to mean the capacity to raise the dead will eventually become available exclusively to priesthood. But again, he didn’t say the requisite functional capacity would be exclusive.

“I have friends on the earth, for God would raise them up for me to do my work. That is not all; by and by the Lord will say to the sleeping dust, awake and come forth out of your graves. I am on hand; the Lord wakes me up or sends somebody to do it that possesses the keys of the resurrection. My dust is waked up; my spirit is re-united to it, and it is made a celestial body filled with immortality and eternal life.” (Brigham Young, Addresses 2: 100)

I’ve suggested that transfiguration may be analogous to baptism. More persuasively, Joseph Smith explicitly taught that baptism is analogous to resurrection. Here are his words on the matter (D&C 128):

“Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life — The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead.”

Baptism is symbolic of resurrection. It’s a ritual that increasingly transforms theology into technology, words into reality. As we do our family history, gather records of our dead ancestors, and perform temple ordinances such as proxy baptism for them, we imagine their restoration to life with increasing detail.

Someday, perhaps sooner than most of us are anticipating, our imagination of the dead will be newly empowered. Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first, humanity will develop technology to gather and organize information about the dead to magnitudes of detail that will overcome any practical distinction between simulation and re-creation. We will raise the dead. And we will need a powerful system of governance with powerful authority, as esthetically compelling as it is technically capable, to authorize the ordinance of resurrection.

As an important aside, I certainly don’t mean by this that we need a tyrannical system of governance. And I certainly don’t think any centralized system of governance (even a centralized Church governance) will prove capable of cultivating the limits of cooperation, practically indistinguishable from compassion, that will be necessary to avoid hellish future scenarios at the limits of technological power. By “powerful,” I just mean powerful. And the most dependable way to perpetuate compassionate power is decentralization, I trust, even for the Gods.

Finding Transhumanism in the Scriptures

Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:00:00 -0700

The Mormon Transhumanist Association in Africa recently invited me to speak. Because of their strong motivation and inspiring work, their membership has been growing rapidly. My understanding is that, since inception about a year ago, the African area of the association has grown to around 1000 members. Below is a lightly edited transcript of my sermon, which I delivered to them remotely.

Friends, it’s good to be with you today.

What I’d like to do is speak with you about the scriptures. In fact, I’d like to read the scriptures with you today. If you have your scriptures, I encourage you to get them because we’ll be looking at them together. So if you could grab your Bible and your Book of Mormon, we’ll be using those.

What I’d like to read about in the scriptures together is the Gospel of Christ and how it relates to transfiguration, to the ideas that we teach and proclaim and share here at the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

Become Christ

If you would, let’s turn together, first of all, in the New Testament of the Bible to the First Epistle of John, chapter 3. That’s where I’d like to start. Right there at the beginning of the chapter, let’s read the first two verses together.

“See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:1–2)

Think about that for a moment. Think about what it says. Think about what it implies about the relationship between us and Christ.

It says that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. Imagine what kind of change is required for that to happen. Imagine the kind of people we will be when that happens.

All throughout the New Testament, this idea is taught – this idea of transformation or transfiguration, of profound change. We must become as Christ is. We must become Christ with Jesus.

Do the Works of Christ

Let’s move on to the second passage of scripture. This one is in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 12.

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things.” (John 14:12)

Again, I invite you to think about the words that are written here by John. What’s he saying? He’s saying that we should do the works of Christ and even greater works than those that are talked about in the New Testament.

This is Jesus speaking in this passage. He says that whoever believes in him will do the works that he has done. And they will do even greater things.

This extends the same message we received in the First Epistle of John, where we’re told that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. How will we be like Christ? This scripture tells us we will be like Christ because we will do the works that Jesus showed us, and even greater things.

That’s a stunning idea. It’s a big idea – one that should sober us, cause us to reflect, to think about what potential we have, but also how far we have to go.

Create Heaven on Earth

Let’s go to another passage of scripture. This one is in the Book of Revelation, or the Apocalypse of John, which is the last book of the New Testament. We’ll go to chapter 21 and start at the beginning, verses 1 through 4.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” (Revelation 21:1–4)

In this passage, John is describing the future of Earth – this place where we now live – when it has been transformed and become a heaven, and God lives on Earth.

How will God live on Earth? Well, we’ve already read in other passages of scripture that when Christ returns, we will be like Christ. So, when Christ returns, we will be God with Christ, with Jesus.

We will be like Jesus. We, as God with God, will live on Earth. This will be our heaven transformed.

It’s a beautiful idea – an idea worthy of our hope and worthy of our work. It’s an idea not just about power, but about compassion. It’s about becoming the kind of people who, as the scripture says, will wipe every tear from the eyes of our family and our friends and everyone else. It’s about seeing their suffering and helping to relieve it, about becoming the kind of people that Jesus Christ exemplifies.

When we do that, this Earth will become our heaven. And God will dwell here with us.

God Inspires Technology

Let’s turn to the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. We often call it the Book of Hebrews. We’ll look at chapter 11, verse 7.

We sometimes wonder how we will achieve these great prophecies of the future – that we will become like Christ, that heaven will come to Earth, and that Earth will become heaven. Hebrews 11 has something to say about that.

“By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family.” (Hebrews 11:7)

When Noah heard the prophecies of the future, when Noah was confronted with the challenges of his day, he was inspired. He was moved by the Spirit of God.

And in his inspiration, what did he do? He built. He created. He used the technology of his day – with inspiration of God – to build a boat, an ark, and save his family from impending disaster.

We, today, find ourselves in a similar situation, confronted with the challenges, the risks, and the potential disasters of our day. We have been inspired by God to act, to become like Christ. How do we do that?

Well, it starts with prayer. It starts with inspiration. It starts with revelation.

But it proceeds from there to action, and from action to building and creating and using all the means God has given us. And that includes technology. We must use the technology of our day, as Noah used the technology of his, to create and build so as to save our family and friends and our world from potential disaster.

Change to Avoid Destruction

There’s another scripture related to this idea that’s important. I’d like to turn with you to the Book of Jonah in the Old Testament, going to Jonah, chapter 3. Jonah was a prophet called by God to go to Nineveh and proclaim the word of God. We’ll read what the scriptures say about him – Jonah 3, starting with verses 3 and 4, then skipping to verse 10.

“Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’”

“When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the destruction He had threatened.” (Jonah 3:3-4, 10)

How often do we hear of prophecies of destruction, of the end of the world, of terrible things – of frightening things, of tempests and earthquakes and fires and destruction and death and hell? How often do we hear these dark ideas? And yet these are not our fate.

We read in Jonah that Jonah was called by God to tell the people of Nineveh they would be destroyed. But they changed.

They repented. They became better people. And they were not destroyed.

Confronted today as we are by dark ideas and terrible risks, we too have the opportunity to change, to repent, to be better people, to create and to build better relationships, to use the means God has given us —- including technology —- to make the world better. If we do that, we have this scriptural precedent, this promise, that we will not be destroyed.

Despite great risks, like Nineveh, we can repent. We can change. And we can overcome.

Resurrection to Diversity

Let’s talk a little bit about what that future might look like in more detail. We’ll read together again in the New Testament, Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15. We’ll go to verse 35 to start.

“But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’ How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, fish another. There are also heavenly bodies, and there are earthly bodies. But the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another. And star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15:35–44)

As we think about overcoming the risks of our day and the future that awaits us, some of us might think that future will be the same for everyone, that there’s only one way we can become like God, only one way our bodies might be. This scripture says otherwise. It says that in the resurrection there will be many kinds of bodies – bodies like the sun, like the moon, like the stars. And star differs from star in splendor.

The resurrection of the dead to immortality will be a resurrection to diversity. And in that diversity, we will be beautiful.

We need not worry that everybody will be the same, living in a boring heaven where everything is just one thing. We have the opportunity to look forward to something beautiful, different, changing, and dynamic. Eternal life is not a boring, same-old-things life. It is a life of diverse beauty.

Resurrection to Embodiment

Let’s read more about that in Luke 24, starting in verse 36. Keep in mind the context: this is happening after Jesus died.

“While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’ When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it, because of joy and amazement, He asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence.” (Luke 24:36–43)

When we think about resurrection to immortality and all of the diversity of those bodies, we can keep in mind this passage. It reminds us that all those diverse, beautiful, immortal bodies are flesh and bone and tangible and embodied. We’re not talking about mere metaphors. When we talk about the eventual resurrection of our bodies, the bodies of our family and friends, and the bodies of all humanity, we’re talking about a literal embodied body, an immortal resurrection.

Jesus exemplifies that here to his disciples. His immortal body can be touched and felt. He says it is a body of flesh and bone. And he eats with his disciples to demonstrate he is as real as they are.

The resurrection to which we aspire is as real as the life we are living now – not just metaphors or abstractions, but flesh-and-bone resurrection to immortality.

Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead

Let’s go to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 10, verses 7 and 8. Jesus is speaking and tells his disciples:

“As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.’” (Matthew 10:7–8)

We’ve been talking about resurrection to immortality, to embodied immortality. But Jesus doesn’t expect us to wait around for that. Jesus has an audacious, big idea. He tells his disciples to work to heal the sick and even to raise the dead.

I don’t know how to do that exactly. I doubt any of us knows. Yet Jesus commands us to do so.

We have a lot to learn and a lot of work to do. And we had better get started. We can start by doing what we can to heal the sick. And while we’re doing that, we must learn how to raise the dead.

Transfiguration

More on that subject from 1 Corinthians 15, starting in verse 51.

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’” (1 Corinthians 15:51–54)

What a promise. What a vision – that this work of Christ, to which he commands us to heal the sick and raise the dead, will lead to a day when the dead will rise and the living will be transformed from mortality to immortality.

Perhaps you and I will be there. Perhaps we will participate in this transfiguration from mortality to immortality. Perhaps our friends and our family will as well. That is the end toward which we are called to work: to heal the sick and to raise the dead.

But if by chance we die before that day comes, we can yet have consolation that we will be raised from the dead to immortality and enjoy this new heaven on Earth with our loved ones. We could die. We don’t know our fate.

But we don’t work for death. We work for life. We work to heal. We work to raise the dead, to overcome that awful monster of death and hell, to join the work Christ calls each of us to do: to become Christ with Jesus and transform this Earth into heaven.

Faith to Action

One more scripture from the New Testament: the Epistle of James, chapter 2, starting in verse 14.

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:14–19)

We’ve talked about many big ideas —- about healing the sick, raising the dead, transforming our bodies and our world into immortality. There’s a temptation to do nothing, to relax, and wait on God to do all the work. But remember, that’s not what God has asked us to do.

Over and over in the scriptures, God invites us, even commands us, to participate in this work of transformation. We are called to change, to repent, to work, and to create and build and make that better world of prophecy. That is our faith, that such a world is possible. But as James tells us, our faith is vain if we do not work in accordance with it.

More Blessed

Now let’s go to the Book of Mormon for one more passage: 3 Nephi, chapter 28. As context, this is the appearance of Jesus to people in the Americas. He is talking to His disciples there – the 12 he calls to teach the gospel of Christ in the Americas. Starting at verse 1.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, He spake unto His disciples, one by one, saying unto them: ‘What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?’ And they all spake, save it were three, saying, ‘We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto Thee in Thy kingdom.’ And Jesus said unto them, ‘Blessed are you because ye desired this thing of me. Therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old, ye shall come unto me in my kingdom, and with me ye shall find rest.’

“And when He had spoken unto them, He turned Himself unto the three, and said unto them, ‘What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?’ And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto Him the thing which they desired.

“And He said unto them, ‘Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me. Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death, but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality. And then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.’

“‘And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow, save it be for the sins of the world. And all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me while the world shall stand. And for this cause ye shall have fullness of joy, and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fullness of joy. And ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one. And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me, and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men because of me.’

“And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, He touched every one of them with His finger save it were the three who were to tarry, and then He departed.” (3 Nephi 28:1–12)

This is one of my favorite passages of the Book of Mormon. Jesus is speaking with His 12 disciples. He asks them, “What do you want? What do you desire?”

Most of them – nine – say they want to go to heaven after they die. Jesus tells them they are blessed for this desire.

Three of them, however, don’t speak because their desire is different. And they’re worried Jesus won’t like it.

But Jesus discerns their thoughts. He understands their desire. And he tells them they are more blessed for this desire.

Did you get that? The three disciples are more blessed than the others for their desire. And what is that desire? They desire to live their life without dying, so they can continue teaching the gospel of Christ for as long as the world stands.

These three disciples saw a vision of the potential of humanity and the potential of Earth —- of the transformation that is coming. And they wanted to participate in every moment. They wanted to work. They wanted to express their faith through action.

They wanted to become like Christ. And Christ tells them they are more blessed for this desire. He tells them they will have the opportunity to work, to proclaim the gospel of Christ, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to participate in the work of God until Christ returns.

And in that day, when Christ returns, they will be like Christ. Christ is like God. And Christ and God are o

Don't Die Can Be Good But Thriving Is Always Better

Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:00:00 -0700

Celebrity biohacker Bryan Johnson recently sent a provocative email to his followers. “I am the healthiest person on the planet,” he claims. True or not, he probably has your attention.

I don’t have concerns with the sensationalism, at least not in itself. Hopefully Bryan is every bit as healthy as he claims. His data is impressive, to say the least. And I admire his courage and tenacity.

But I do have some concerns with the ideology that Bryan promotes throughout the remainder of his email. He calls it “Don’t Die.” It could be a good start – better than so many alternatives vying for our hearts and minds. But, at least so far as he has yet articulated, the ideology has practical limitations that must and will ultimately impede its potential for primacy, as I’ll explain.

Bryan first introduced the “Don’t Die” ideology in a 2023 book by the same name. The book repeatedly, both explicitly and implicitly, touched on Bryan’s relationship with Mormonism. So, at the time, I wrote about that relationship in particular. Now, while enjoying the provocation of Bryan’s recent email, I feel to write some more general thoughts.

Before I get to my concerns, however, I want to establish some personal context. I like Bryan. And I think his work is nothing short of momentous on a sociocultural level. So if you’re looking for a reason to hate him, make fun of him, or dismiss him, go away.

Don’t Die Is Not the Universal Game

After elaborating on his health claim, Bryan characterizes “Don’t Die” as the “oldest and most played game in human history.” He says religion, business, military, politics, and even procreation are forms of this game. “It’s the universal game,” he says.

There’s an extent of truth to this. In the most general sense, survival is a necessary condition for the achievement of any goal. That which doesn’t exist doesn’t have any goals, let alone any capacity to achieve any goals. Thus, some extent of survival must be at least an instrumental goal.

But survival in the most general sense doesn’t necessarily entail evasion of death. That may sound nonsensical at first. But hear me out. You’ll undoubtedly end up agreeing.

In practically impactful ways, you can survive your death. And innumerable people already have. They’ve done this by teaching their children, loving their friends, creating artwork and machinery, and organizing communities that outlast their bodies. In each of these and countless other ways, people have been continuing to achieve their goals even after they die bodily.

To my mind, this means that part of us can survive death. In the least, it’s our influence and creation. It’s our esthetic. We might call it our “spirit.”

Now of course I’m not content with this kind of merely spiritual survival. After all, I’m a proponent of (nearly) universal resurrection, understood in the most literal sense as embodied resurrection, and pursued in the most practical sense as technological resurrection. But despite my discontent, I could not rightly claim that nothing survives bodily death. That’s simply a false idea, even if we were to concede to those who are skeptical of more elaborate notions of a spiritual afterlife.

So, returning to Bryan’s characterization of “Don’t Die” as the universal game, we can see a problem. As it’s true to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood broadly, it’s likewise false to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood narrowly. And this problem has practical ramifications.

Countless people, as recorded in history and envisioned in myth, have intentionally died in the narrow sense to facilitate achievement of their goals. A parent may sacrifice her life to save her child. A soldier may sacrifice his life to defend his country. Of particular note, the most influential ideology on Earth, Christianity, epitomizes the perpetuation and even magnification of goal achievement after bodily death.

These observations reveal that narrowly construed “Don’t Die” is not the universal game, even if it’s a prevalent game. At least some of us have been playing a different game since the dawn of history, recognizing that narrow death doesn’t necessarily terminate and may even facilitate pursuit of our goals. Again, the other game might be a broadly construed “Don’t Die.” But, in that case, I think we can give it a less confusing name.

Some Things Are Worse Than Death

Bryan observes that, in this time of accelerating technological evolution, we’re “giving birth to superintelligence. And we “no longer know how long and how well we can live,” or “how expansive and rich existence could be.” Compared to our superhuman potential, we’re like our prehuman ancestors who couldn’t begin to conceive of contemporary science, let alone understand it. And yet we’re embroiled in “debauchery, greed and violence,” killing ourselves and each other.

He’s exactly right. Maybe it sounds like an exaggeration. But I tell you with all the confidence that I can muster, he’s exactly right. Such are our imminent risks and opportunities in the apocalypse of intelligence.

But consider, with me, how this applies to the ideology of “Don’t Die.” If death were the worst possible outcome, avoiding and even abolishing the possibility of death would make a lot of sense. But, unfortunately for us all, death isn’t the worst possible outcome. Some things are worse than death.

My father died at age 47 in 1998 from his third cancer. His body was wasted, both by the disease and the attempts to cure and mitigate it through therapies and surgeries. His mind was wracked. Especially with some temporal distance from the event, I can easily judge his death as better than any further perpetuation of his suffering.

Science fiction offers analogous warnings that should be more terrifying. For example, in Ring World, people become wireheads with nearly incurable addiction to the stimulation of brain-computer interfaces that render them socially inert. In Altered Carbon, people are repeatedly resurrected by others who repeatedly torture them to death. And in The Matrix, humanity survives into a superintelligent future by becoming mere biological resources, alive but less than slaves, for a machine civilization.

As we don’t know how expansive and rich existence could be, we also don’t know how oppressive and poor existence could be. As there appears to be no upper limit on the opportunity, there appears to be no lower limit on the risk. Bodily death, in any case, is clearly not the lower limit. Not even death in the broader sense is the lower limit, as we can imagine grim scenarios that would be worse than the annihilation of civilization and all of its capacity to achieve goals.

Furthermore, the death of my father actually inspired my work and the development of Mormon Transhumanism. That, in turn, has influenced many others, including Bryan. It’s admittedly a speculative counterfactual and may sound arrogant. But I wonder, in a parallel universe where my father doesn’t die and I don’t share Mormon Transhumanism with Bryan, does Bryan still adapt his post-Mormon life into a functional Transhumanism?

In any case, Bryan has deeply influenced my life. Without him, and without the challenges that influenced the person he is, I would probably be a much different person. In particular, I doubt that I would have had the courage to pursue my entrepreneurial ambitions without his example and the activation energy he provided to pull me away from the corporate world. I’m grateful for his influence.

Thriving Is Better Than Not Dying

Bryan proceeds to claim that “no existing idea of human thought or societal organization is robust enough to meet this moment.” No existing political, economic, or religious ideology is sufficient. We need something new. And that something new, he claims further, is “Don’t Die.”

To some practical extent, I agree with Bryan’s first claim. No existing ideology is sufficient for our time. Indeed, none ever has been for its time. Humanity has always needed better ideologies.

But of course the ideologies at hand have always also provided direction, for better and for worse. And while doing so, they’ve also always adapted to changing circumstance. The world’s most influential ideology is again an obvious example. Christianity has repeatedly adapted to syncretize with the science of its day.

Now, as much or more than ever, our ideologies must continue to adapt to help us meet the challenges of our day. Yes, even Christianity must continue to adapt. That’s among the reasons that we founded the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the Christian Transhumanist Association. And of course new ideologies may also help us, as they have so many times before.

But I disagree with Bryan’s second claim, that “Don’t Die” contrasts favorably against all other ideologies. To the contrary, “Don’t Die” is either the wrong ideology or a confusing name for the right ideology. As I’ve explained, avoiding death is demonstrably not the universal game. And some things are clearly worse, even much worse, than death.

What would contrast favorably against all other ideologies, or at least against the incompatible aspects of all other ideologies? What would be a less confusing name for the right ideology? The answer, it seems to me, is both simple and inexhaustibly complex. The answer is thriving, or even the hope of thriving, which is what makes life worth living.

Thriving can be understood as final goal achievement. When we understand it that way, it becomes the purpose of all intelligence, not merely hypothetically but by definition. Achieving our goals, whatever they may be, is the universal game. Thriving is the universal game.

Now of course we have tensions and conflicts between and within our goals. And unfortunately that results in much suffering, which risk in turn informs the construction of ethics. One person’s thriving clearly isn’t always another’s. But it’s most certainly both of their games.

Survival, like all instrumental goals, is only part of the universal game. We must survive, we must acquire resources, and we must maintain some sufficient degree of internal and external coherence to achieve any final goal. But these instrumental goals should not be confused with final goals, as they are rarely if ever one and the same.

Surviving lets you play the universal game. But all of the points come from thriving. Some of us think that we can all get many more points much more quickly when we help each other not only survive, but also thrive. Some of us even think that we will ultimately prove capable of helping each other thrive despite dying from time to time.

I trust that Bryan aspires to such thriving. Indeed, Bryan would probably be first in line, if able, to facilitate technological resurrection for everyone, so long as there’s any real hope for us to thrive. Contrary to much said about him, I know from observation of his interactions with friends and family that Bryan is a generous person, and that not just in matters of finance that might come more easily with wealth. He’s also generous with his time and concerns.

Proceeding from Misunderstanding

Bryan says we probably won’t understand what he means based on what he’s written. “It takes about two hours of intense conversation to just begin to understand it.” That’s because it challenges traditional knowledge and intuition. And, he observes, the predictable emotions, responses, rebuttals, and reasoning quickly demonstrate misunderstanding.

In deference to that, maybe I’ve misunderstood. I’ve known Bryan a long time. I’ve read his book and many of his articles. But I can still misunderstand.

Heaven knows people commonly misunderstand and mischaracterize my ideas. Often that’s accompanied by ridicule and demonization. But sometimes it’s accompanied by constructive criticism and questions. My intent, here, is constructive criticism and a question.

How have I misunderstood you, Bryan?

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.

Third Anniversary: Autonomy Reclamation Day!

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

Arrival Fallacies

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

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)