Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
In this lifetime, we will collectively witness the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). And with it, will come a certain reverence for and optimism about modern technology's role in the destiny of humankind. Among, amidst both inner and outer spaces.
Perhaps one early embodiment of this new spirituality are certain aspects of transhumanism? Certainly Cosmism and Gnosticism.
From this unusual spirituality will spring a new religion, where technology fulfills the role of both savior and extension of free will; the lattice upon which humanity weaves our own timelines into the stars and unknowns within.
With that said, there will be resistance to these developments. Entire swaths of the population, including individuals in high leaderships roles, will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. As they are motivated by rather techno-pessimistic religions and/or worldviews.
What is being described here may not become truly relevant for another decade, but one day soon this will become important. What are your thoughts on this dialectic?
Perhaps one early embodiment of this new spirituality are certain aspects of transhumanism? Certainly Cosmism and Gnosticism.
From this unusual spirituality will spring a new religion, where technology fulfills the role of both savior and extension of free will; the lattice upon which humanity weaves our own timelines into the stars and unknowns within.
With that said, there will be resistance to these developments. Entire swaths of the population, including individuals in high leaderships roles, will stop at nothing to prevent this from happening. As they are motivated by rather techno-pessimistic religions and/or worldviews.
What is being described here may not become truly relevant for another decade, but one day soon this will become important. What are your thoughts on this dialectic?
Comments (102)
Entropy is a fundamental law of the universe, so ultimately any non world-denying spirituality can only be tragic.
And psychologically a techno-utopia wouldn't even be desirable. We can only thrive if we have some challenges to overcome... this is how we grow as people.
It's the latest incarnation of plain old gnosticism, that promisses that the material world can be overcome for some truer ideal world. And that's a pernicious lie, because mind does in fact not rule over matter... faith in it could eventually destroy the natural world in an impossible attempt to attain its ideal.
According to legend, he was at death's door on the bank of a river when a milk-maiden noticed his emaciated condition and provided him with curdled milk (yoghurt) which, to all intents, prevented him dying. It was after that episode that he realised the futility of extreme asceticism and went on to realise Nirv??a to free to himself from continual re-birth in sa?s?ra, which is what he went on to teach for 45 years.
Gnosticism was also a severly ascetic movement in the early Christian period. The Gnostics saw the world as a prison, created by an evil demiurge, which they identified with the God of the Old Testament. They believed that through severing all desires and renouncing all human relationships, they could escape the prison of worldly existence and return to the Pleroma.
Neither would be of much interest to the technofuturist, I imagine. But what that kind of tech will provide is endless variety of imagery, synthetic experiences, and sensual pleasure, including incredible sexual adventures. Just don't confuse it with anything spiritual.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine ^
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/wireheading ^^
No no no no no! No more woo woo! I personally, assign a high credence level, to the idea that AGI will 'eventually,' prove to be more supportive and symbiotic to the flourishing, enhancement and growth of the human species, than possibly any other scientific breakthrough we have hitherto made. We will need at least AGI, to become a viable extraterrestrial species, but we don't need to further infect our species with new variants of theistic twaddle.
On the whole, I think reason is a better guide to living well than spirituality.
I dont find the idea of a techno-optimistic religion either realistic or enticing, but Im glad you started this discussion, because it prompted me to look into Russian cosmism, a weird spiritual-philosophical-scientific movement from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some argue that it was cosmism that influenced the use of cosmonaut instead of astronaut (although theres no particular reason why they should have chosen astro- anyway).
One cosmist was Alexander Bogdanov, a Bolshevik revolutionary who later formed a breakaway party independent of Lenins governing faction in the 1920s. He was a physician who experimented with rejuvenation by means of blood transfusions, hoping to attain eternal life, participated in politics, developed an early version of systems theory, and wrote a science fiction novel about a communist utopia on Mars, Red Star, which heavily influenced Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy.
The tone of some cosmism seems to be similar to your modern techno-optimism, though of course the technological focus has changed.
Its not a religion, but thats exactly its appeal: being so casual, unstuffy, and accessible.
Anyone can be a fanboy, drooling over the latest gadget that will make onlookers fall to their knees in ecstasy.
Even the ordinary person can bow their head in communion with their smartphone and hear the wisdom sent directly to their ears via earbuds.
In high towers, the elite consult cryptic pages to foretell if the new phone should have 5 cameras, or only 4; while in a dusty basement, a believer sacrifices a old HP desktop computer for good fortune.
And all over the planet, the huddled and hungry masses await the guidance that AI will lead us into the promised land called The Future, where we can finally enjoy simply being alive.
I think the big difference is that a technophile does not consider technology to be supernatural.
They also don't 'worship' such, in the ways demonstrated by religions, nor do they suggest that tech demonstrates or will ever demonstrate any of the 4 omnis.
A technophile also does not dictate moral edicts, regarding how humans must live, based on the claimed revealed word of tech (as compared to god), dictated to ancient or current prophets of tech (as compared to god) and then further warn all humans that they will burn in hell for eternity, if they don't comply with such tech (as opposed to god) dictated moral law.
The post was meant to be satire, sorry if it was too broad or amateurish.
But anyway the point of my post is that Tech is the dominant worldview (NOT a religion :snicker: ).
Some may play the victim (martyr?) and say that Science is in actual danger from religious zealots.
Science may get some bruises, but Tech rules uber all it even rules over the religious mob, except for the dwindling few still living in the desert eating locusts and using snail mail.
One could list differences of Tech to Religion for days, of course, just as one could imagine some humorous or interesting similarities.
:up: Thanks for your clarifications.
:victory: :smile:
But to elaborate on my techno-skepticism
The sheer physical fact of the living planet being turned into stuff at an exponentially increasing (and unsustainable) rate is reason enough for pause and wondering if science can discover a more efficient way
The suspicion that the Billionaires view and use Tech as the ultimate way to control, contain, monitor, and sedate the mob of people unofficially under their power is sometimes difficult to avoid for some cynics.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
There's a lot of techno-pessimism, as in The Lord of the Rings, which is along the lines of a contemporary epic. Contrast that with Bladerunner, the protagonist of which is probably a robot, but doesn't know that he is. I'd guess that if a new global religion appeared, it would contain both elements: pro and con. Religions that provide a forum for conflicting values have ideological dynamism. In other words, they provide something valuable in the form of a clear common ground.
Your concerns are widely held, understandable and must never be merely hand waved away.
It is up to those in the know, and those who 'investigate' and monitor and report, to inform us all, of all clear and present dangers.
But it is also your responsibility and my responsibility, to be determined, to be as active as we can be, in playing as significant a role as we can, as part of or/and a support for, that hopefully overwhelming, set of checks and balances that our history makes crystal clear, are so absolutely essential to our species becoming a net positive force, on this planet and in this universe.
Excellent, thanks! :up:
Quoting universeness
Sorry, this sentence is reaching for a conclusion, but seems too general and vague (?) to me.
Could you please reword it if possible?
How about. We are each either part of the problems or part of the solutions.
I think the human race can become a net positive. Each human can help or hinder that goal.
This is a general statement, yes. To give a specific statement, we would need to focus on a single current issue. We have already done so on this thread. I think a techno religion of any form is unwelcome and would be more of a negative that a positive. Do you agree?
Thank you for clarifying. :up:
Well, as a general statement Id generally agree, but part of the problem or the solution is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste.
Who decides? What are the criteria?
(Ah, the pesky details sorry. )
Quoting universeness
But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok
I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical religious attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience. (Because the crucial breakthrough is just around the corner! and then we will be cruising down easy street on robot power, or something).
Im even more concerned about whos driving the chariot?
Whos in charge, and where are we going, and why?
To assume an overall tech neutrality, or technologys benign character that is evolving naturally of its own accord, is no longer wise or really even an option.
Every tech advancement helps us, but it help the Rulers even more.
Until that fact changes, my skepticism remains.
As I mentioned above, tech can be used to control and contain us, but it also makes it harder for the bigshits to hide and operate without criticism and pushback.
I will be the technopope, so you can breath easy. :naughty:
So long as the devotees tolerate my techo-pessimistic sentiments, and they don't make me flagellate myself or others, or humiliate me for not being able to do math problems, and let me go outside sometimes, and let me be the bell ringer. It's not like I feel I have any control over my life now. I could just as well be an indebted brick maker (slave laborer) in Pakistan, had I not the courage to free myself.
Imagine AI telling me that euthanasia is an opportunity to change myself for the better. So long as it doesn't mandate it, ok. Does it do my thinking for me, by hidden carrots I cannot see?
Nature does what nature does, no matter how awful it appears. AGI just seems like a gift of weapons ("thanks mother nature") for the masters of the universe to have an arms race with, for power over others/resources, at great cost to the stability, harmony, simplicity of life on earth.
Something may rise from the ashes, but it may require our ashes in the mix.
Only if you take such a statement as offering a binary choice, and ignore all of the intended range of possibilities, that realpolitik tends to reveal.
Quoting 0 thru 9
No apology required. Most people will have similar thoughts. For me, the answer is 'we the people,' decide and/or those we democratically elect to represent us, and submit themselves to all checks and balances, that 'we the people' deem necessary, based on the historical databases of examples we have built up, since 'civilisation' began as a human goal. The criteria is whatever 'we the people,' decide it is, but that 'we,'must be a well informed majority of all stakeholders, and not a poorly educated, poorly informed, mostly duped mass of people, who can't even take their basic means of survival for granted.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I think we are talking past each other on this point. Yes, I agree, focus on one issue at a time and/or multitask where and when you are able to.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I don't think such an approach was ever, or is ever, wise, and I certainly don't advocate for it.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Me too, but I also don't advocate for a luddite approach to tech, or initially seeing all tech advances as evil, because of a knee-jerk reaction against probable initial job losses amongst humans, or the idea that AI overlordship is inevitable. Auto systems also have the potential to free humans from certain daily toils, and allow economic parity for all. We just have to stop the nefarious b******* from claiming all its benefits for themselves.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Good, well done! I think that is called being politically and socially aware.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I agree.
But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.
As much as consumerism, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, or TV do to the youth. Who are we to judge people who want to redeem themselves? I searched for the definition of zombifying, and Google says: Deprive of energy and vitality. For example: She will stare zombified on TV for 20 minutes.
Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? I don't think so. It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand.
Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what?
Sure.
Wel, religion has been called the opiate of the masses by no less than Marx - meaning that it may effectively stunt people's critical faculties and prevent them from trying to improve the current world (on the basis that the next one will be magnificent). Many people who embrace religions do see the world through a very limited and doctrinaire lens which is its own form of zombification.
Quoting javi2541997
Not sure that really means very much. What is 'something'? The issue with a belief is whether is is useful or true or good. Not just any belief will do. :wink:
But thats how you worded it. Either / or. And thats an invitation for purging the dissenters and foot-draggers.
Quoting universeness
Thanks for not actually calling me a luddite lol (which sounds like troglodyte :monkey: ), but what you wrote amounts to a polite way of labeling a critical stance towards capitalist-funded tech as being evil-fearing techno-phobe.
You do not speak like a skeptic of anything related to Tech or the owners of such.
Back to binary choices agree with our sketchy vision of Technotopia or be labeled as a suspicious and superstitious machine-smashing grunt.
I dont hate or fear technology for this is how we live now of course.
The promise of machines doing the work for us is a double-edged sword: they replaced humans and either put them out of work, or weakened their position.
How can auto systems allow economic parity for all? Please back that claim up with something substantial or unfortunately it seems hollow at best.
If you wanted to link to a previous post of yours, or to an article that shows this vision and its possibilities, I will honestly read it with an open mind.
Quoting universeness
We need more than checks and balances to defeat the nefarious few (as you aptly call them).
Been there, done that: they have gamed the system until their wallets overflowed.
Im not asking for specifics on how to defeat the 1% and pry the remote control out of their cold dead hand lol. I dont know either.
But as a very general direction saying we the people comes through as a platitude in a rote political speech.
Personally, it sounds like an afterthought to a plan already drawn up, or a rationalization for it.
We as a people are NOT the stakeholders now, if we ever were, and things are moving in the wrong direction.
You seem to be asking for a lot of faith in this system you are describing, and trust in Elon Musk and like visionaries.
Basically, it is the capitalist status quo in hip new clothes.
:smile: :up: Well said.
Patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion.
Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?
Most are fair and goodwilled not much different than any others that I know.
Political issues seem to be more divisive than strictly religious ones.
But of course, self-righteousness in any style is fuel for political fervor!
To me, absolutist Evangelicals and smug judgmental hardcore atheists are quite similar and can go fornicate with each other.
Maybe that will loosen them up a little. :blush:
This is probably straying from the topic though.
A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. I am not anyone to rant about them. It is my guilt that I have not found faith yet.
I agree. But as much as some people who embrace themselves in political doctrines and sectarianism.
Quoting Tom Storm
Although existentialism has been becoming less relevant in philosophy, it has key elements to understand our relationship and cause with life since we were born. I don't attempt to say that religion has answers to 'Who am I?' 'Why do I live well and others die in Gaza?' 'What is my destiny?' Etc. I understand that, in such a sense of uncertainty, some have faith. I am not referring to religious collectivism or the Church itself, but the aesthetics of 'experiencing' a belief individually.
Quoting 0 thru 9
:up: Thanks!
Sure, but that's an equivocation - it doesn't change the fact that the religious are often experts at it and I was answering your specific question about religions depleting people.
Quoting javi2541997
Existentialism seems to come in and out of vogue, like the hula hoop. I don't make a good existentialist, although I flirted badly with it when I was young. I tend to hold that life is a lottery. Luck determines most things, but you can roll with the punches, adapt and make opportunities even in adversity. But giving up is always a possibility... :wink:
It is true that some religious groups use the rhetoric of the Bible - or Quran - viciously. But this is far away from making people lose vitality. I think religion is one of the main causes of keeping people active. Let's see the Evangelists or Pan-Islamists.
Quoting Tom Storm
Where does 'luck' come from? It is a metaphysical thought, or we can only know it though spiritedness. Because it is obvious that some have more luck than others. Why does this happen?
Quoting Tom Storm
I hope you don't give up on believing - on whatever you wish -. I was close to that abyss, and it is not worth living in such a way. :smile:
No, I'm not making my point clear. Sorry. Religion as opiate of the masses, a soperific which has prevented people from taking revolutionary action for social justice and equality because life on earth is only a preparation for the next life. Religions often venerate suffering and passivity as god's will. This is certainly how much Christianity has operated, zombifying radical intent. But the caste sytem in India pulls similar stunts in relation to poverty. (Note - Yes, I am well aware that there is also religious activism for social justice.) But remember this was response to your line:
Quoting javi2541997
But we should move on from this since the act of bashing religion, while understandable, is dull.
Quoting javi2541997
Just a word we use to describe the dumb shit which happens. As a nihilist, I don't see reason to accept any transcendent meaning. These are bedtime stories, sometimes complicated and deep stories, which aim to provide succour and meaning.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yeah, and it is infantile. At least, I acted in such a way...
Quoting Tom Storm
I cannot conceive that an upright and clever person like you has no interest in life and existence - per se -
No. I consider some expressions of religion harmful. Not all. But yes, in relation to your later point I think this has often been true.
Quoting javi2541997
Nihilism has various expressions, for me it simply means I don't think there is a purpose to life or any meaning other than the meaning we manufacture ourselves. Meaning being human perspective. So there's plenty of opportunity to create meaning, both personal and in collaboration with others. Which is what people have done for ever, although some of us like to believe that meaning is ultimately derived from a transcendent source. But this belongs in a nihilism thread.
The fact that there is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to how much an individual is part of a particular problem or a particular solution, does not prevent each individual being assessed as falling into one of those two categories. Part of the problem or the solution, is merely a convenient way to put it, but, taking such to one of the more extreme but real examples, such categorisations of individuals should never mean that even those who just worked for an Aristo, also get their heads guillotined.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Then let me try to be clear. I support all tech advances and all attempts to create a tech advance but I do not support the private ownership or distribution of such. My broad goal would be to employ any tech only when it is proven as a net benefit to all existents it can affect, or at least to the vast majority. I do realise that this is a very difficult standard to reach for every example but it does need to be the main standard set, imo.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I disagree and I think adequate check and balances do exist and do work. The battle to prevent them being foiled will, I agree, always have failures but hopefully these will be further reduced by better and better checks and balances.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Such an opinion does not detract from the validity and just statement starting 'We the people,' especially when it will eventually refer to the majority of the humans alive at the time.
Quoting 0 thru 9
No offence, but I think that is just nonsense and ignores all of the efforts people are making every day to change the future for the better. They will eventually succeed imo.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I am a secular humanist and a democratic socialist. Elon Musk is a net negative as an influencer and unfettered capitalism is utterly pernicious and its practice needs to be ended. Only small capitalism can be contained, so that is all that should be tolerated, imo.
Quoting universeness
Ok good, thanks! :up:
You had mentioned in another thread that you leaned towards democratic socialism, and I was trying to reconcile that with what seemed to me like a pro-industry stance (or something similar).
I realize that one cannot say everything in one post, so what you say here helps me understand your positions.
Technology advancements are of course generally a good thing, although with some drawbacks.
If we as a society can really see the true cost and impact of everything we do, and base leadership decisions on that it would be a turn for the better.
But right now the entire world is playing a board game (with real money and lives at stake) that is a combination of the Monopoly and Risk games, and we are all losing.
Even the kings are captives in a gold cage, surrounded by swirling smoky chaos.
I joined the Labour Party in Scotland and their cooperative Labour Party section and their young socialists section, when I was 17. I had clause 4 of the Labour Party painted along the top of my bedroom walls (in old English script), so 'leaned towards,' made me smile.
I left the party, when I eventually understood what Tony Blair and his mob were about.
I eventually supported Scottish independence, as I saw a road from there to the possibility of Scotland becoming a truly democratic socialist nation. I have always been an atheist, so secular humanism followed, as I consider such to be symbiotic with democratic socialism.
I am now against all party politics, as I think party politics has failed badly at all levels. I now support democratic socialist, non-party based, secular humanist, global governance and a resource based global economy. Perhaps that will give you a clearer base, for any of my future/past posts you are kind enough to read and consider.
:ok: :cool: :sparkle:
That's an interesting perspective, in my opinion. I've heard the same echoed about Gnosticism by a number of reputable sources; that they would not have embraced a techno-optimistic religion.
I find much about technology to be a form of spiritual experience, or embodiment. I am not a proponent of a religion, or any specific of spirituality. But I know there is a growing community of seekers who are turning almost exclusively to modern technology for answers.
We live in fascinating times.
Alright. I will change the subject in future posts.
Indeed, the technological focus has changed. And with it, the distance between our species and the stars has shortened.
If I understand correctly, Cosmism directly inspired today's Transhumanist movement. One being the intellectual and spiritual predecessor to the other. What is even more astounding, if true, is that most Transhumanist haven't even heard of Cosmism.
That's interesting. I don't know what to say to that. I definitely respect your position here, but can you explain more about what I have described that confuses you?
Quoting 180 Proof
This is good. And is (IMO) a major part of what our planet will become. Just as T. McKenna would imply, we will be swallowing our computers whole in the near-future.
I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities.
:lol: Fair enough Bret!
I see now. Thank you for clarifying.
In my observations, Technopaganism is a legitimate form of religious practice. Likely with millions of participants; no belief required. The only paradigm shift that is necessary, is an embrace of universal Animism.
At the center of this underground renaissance are the EDM DJs. Legendary figures. Priests, some might say.
This spirituality was legitimized in the minds of many tens of millions of people via the international festival scene. We're entering a "stage two" for the emergence of a worldwide, techno-optimistic religion.
On the contrary, individuals in high leaderships roles will jump on any opportunity to rope in the masses, and with the help of GAI it could be easier than ever before in history.
Eastern religions dont focus on tradition? :chin:
Curious. There are conservative and liberal elements in the East and the West. Maybe it appears that Easter traditions are more liberal because you mostly see them from a Western perspective, where Westerners have freely adopted Eastern traditions, which is strongly indicative of a liberal bent. Cultural inculcation, on the other hand, would not be indicative of a liberal inclination.
Historically, humans have turned, from time to time, to inanimate objects for worship -- crop circles, UFOs, the Titanic (that billionaires paid to see), the stock market. They thought they're gonna get some deep answers to the questions of life. Nothing surprising here.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
An empty prophecy -- we've always overestimated the humans' capacity to do without intuition. And we've always failed. Technology is canned goods. We reach out for human contacts and human acknowledgment because this is what's natural for us. This is what feels good and comforting.
Open to change in what way?
In that Christianity is one of the fastest growing new religions in Asian countries?
I brought this up because in my experience religious people and especially the spiritual-but-not-religious types are like zombies, talking to them is like talking to a wall.
Another poster earlier in the thread commented that the image of the meditating robot was "grotesque". I, on the other hand, laughed, and thought what a fitting image. People "meditate" to zombify themselves, to robotize themselves. "It's all just thoughts ... let them go ... just thoughts coming and going ... let them go ... be a non-judgmental observer ... let go ..."
The modern trend in spirituality is all about robbing oneself of the vitality of being a moral agent and instead turning oneself into someone who doesn't even have opinions, who never takes a stand on anything (because that would be "judgmental"). Someone with an empty mind.
What is that? What does that mean?
It seems to me that the technology aspect in this is actually incidental, and a symptom of a common phenomenon in religion/spirituality.
This phenomenon is the conviction that by blindly following one's guru, unquestioningly believing the teachings, mechanically performing the religious/spiritual practices, one will attain the goal of the religion/spirituality. That by zoning out like that, detaching oneself like that, one will make religious/spiritual progress. Notice how people who approach religion/spirituality that way appear very optimistic about reaching the religion's/spirituality's goal (even when the religion/spirituality itself paints a bleak picture of the world).
Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality.
That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't considered this issue from that vantage yet. I might agree with you on most of what you're saying here; how technology would enable an unquestioning and optimistic approach to spirituality.
Didn't you ever experience pessimism or uncertainty? Each individual face these life states in many different ways. Some just make an effort to understand what is going on with living. Others don't care, and many explain it through religion. I don't attempt to defend that the latter is the best way. But I understand why some people 'shelter' themselves in it.
A free state of mind is a shelter to keep living. I guess this is why they want to redeem their souls.
The concept of the transient nature of existence is core to Eastern religion, sure, but I don't see how that supposedly makes them more open to change. Again I'll point out that there are both liberal and conservative practitioners in every religion, though particular traditions or sects may be more compatible with one or the other. For instance, Mahayana Buddhism is generally believed to be the more liberal branch of the tradition. In any case, Buddhists basically believe that sentient beings suffer because they can't accept change or realize the true nature of existence. There's the ideal and then there's the reality. Don't mistake the carrot for the moon, as the saying goes.
The true test will be in how they view real artificial intelligence. Will Western religions say they have souls? Will Eastern traditions say they are sentient beings who are reborn? I'm sure there will be no consensus East or West. Bound to shake things up a bit though.
That's a creative mix of two popular images!
What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do?
I understand your point, but it is complex to answer those questions. This is due to the individualistic sense of freedom we all have. An abstract concept such as 'free' or 'freedom' is difficult to define, and what means 'free' to me, can not mean the same to you. Maybe I used the incorrect word. Let's try it again.
A religious person - anyone who believes in God - uses his faith to find answers about life and getting a calm state. The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc.
Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. :eyes:
Both binary code and DNA use finite set of symbols or elements to represent a wide range of sequenced information.
Perhaps real artificial intelligence will make us further question if there is a soul and what sentience is.
Hi Javi! (You changed your avatar again! :smile:)
Quoting javi2541997
I don't think it is difficult to define and understand what freedom is.
I have recently replied to and explained in detail in the topic "What is freedom?" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/840566), that fredom is absence of obstacles. Simple as that. This is the essence of freedom. Based on it, you can explain all kinds of cases involving freedom, involving both sides of it: freedom from and freedom to.
Some people have great trust in technology, they trust it more than they trust people. So it's no wonder that the admiration of and reliance on technology can take on religious/spiritual connotations.
Sure. And religion/spirituality has paved the way for this already.
Quite ironically, religions/spiritualities themselves sometimes criticize such an unthinking, unreflecting approach to religion/spirituality.
Opiates can give you a calm mind, too. Or alcohol, or junkfood, or a number of other things, depending on your conditions.
Geia sou, Alkis! Yes, I changed my pic. It is a cover from a Murakami's novel. :smile:
OK. I understand your definition of freedom, and I partially agree with it. The notion of an absence of obstacles is applied depending on the circumstances. I would like to use 'freedom to' meaning in my example of religion. I think some believers profess their cult to just get redemption before they die. When they think their sins are forgiven, they can be accepted in heaven. Speaking in a general overview, I guess this is what they understand as freedom.
For example: Last summer, I read a novel by Kazantzakis about Assisi. He and his faithful cross through many difficulties and in one specific they were close to death because of sickness. There was not a doctor in the village, but a good person helped them to drive them to another city. When they got attended, one of them shouted: We crossed through a dilube, but without a pure image of Jesus it would have been impossible... - He quoted a psalm from the Bible - so, they experienced 'freedom to'
Of course, I have another sense of freedom! But I want to respect their faith.
Drugs are not the right way.
Quoting javi2541997
It's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out.
Yes, this is one of the many kinds of "freedom to" that one can feel. In this Christian frame of reference, sins are "obstacles" in going to heaven after death. So, people try get absolved, i.e. free of them, usually with confession and repetance. But it is also a "freedom from". Because doing that, one gets rid of guilt, they get free from their guilty conscience, from things that bother them and act as "obstacles" in achieving a calm mind.
Do you agree?
Quoting javi2541997
Nice. A "healthy" behaviour and thinking!
And I this is maybe an ideal moment to remind us of Kazantzakis' famous quote: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
Of course, I agree! :up:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Kazantzakis was a clever and original writer. Thanks to you, I discovered his works this year, and I recommend him since then. It is important to have a look at Kazantzakis's works because he discovers the religious prophets in a more realistic way: humanisation, rather than the metaphors we used to read in the Gospels...
:up:
This is very true and it is also very important for people to see.
I also believe that you have got totally into Kazantzaki's spirit. Myself, I have forgotten about this so characteristic Kazantzakian element. Thanks for reminding me of it.
This is an ignorant take on the value of meditation. Suffering folks might internalize their zombie nature far before they are driven to the mat (meditation). I've just had a mini breakthrough in my meditation practice. My stress level has diminished substantially. I've been waking up and wanting to do my work rather than avoiding it (like a good little robot).
But I'm still a working zombie, chained to the hull of a ship, rowing for someone else, burning boat loads of fossil fuels, that I may eat and sleep in comfort. Philosophers would tell us there is no free will either ( so who is responsible for making zombies or allowing us to see our zombie nature for what it is?)
If one can't escape being a robot, one might as well strive for robotic bliss (if it is real).
The zombie seeks to kindle the fire of its lost soul. Meditation might be a tool to do this.
omnes servi sumus
This assessment makes me very happy, friend. Kazantzakis has become one of my favourite writers. I will keep diving at his works. I have a little book - just 95 pages - which is called 'Symposium'. It seems to be very interesting!
Now I do see what you're saying. Those are excellent points. Thank you for clarifying. I will need to do some reflection on what you're saying here.
That's how I get when meditation practice is going well. No resistance to good robothood.
Quoting Nils Loc
I just finished reading baboon guys new book Determined and he makes a strong argument for no free will. He would say that no one is responsible for making zombies, we arise from what came seconds before, minutes before that, and eons before that. There are no causes that are uncaused, he suggests in a very drawn-out manner.
Zombie nature is Buddha nature: empty.
:up:
Serious Buddhist meditators meditate in order to realize nibbana, the end of suffering, through realizing paticcasamuppada. Statistically, this appears to be extremely rare.
In contrast, what usually goes on under "meditation" in popular culture is an act of zoning out, distracting oneself. And of course, distracting oneself, mentally checking out for a while can have positive effects. It's just not conducive to liberation from suffering.
That's a horrible way to underestimate life.
The question is whether the cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology will abate once they stop using the technology (so much).
Here I mean that those cognitive tendencies made worse by the use of technology like increased distractability, poor focus, lesser working memory, a decrease of learning abilities. Someone who relies a lot on technology will at some point become unable to function without it.
And when the power runs out ... you won't even hum.
A fairytale, in other words.
Fantastic song but it's describing 1958's outlook.
Not sure what you mean by this. If the bliss ever arrives then life will be less underestimated. It's not an all or nothing proposition, either. The smallest increment of positive change by habitual meditation may help to rework bad attitudes, so we become more at ease in this world. This is the hope at least. The prison ought to become more of a playground.
Quoting praxis
This makes it sound depressing and austere. Buddha nature must also be full of joy.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. - Jesus, Matthew 5:43-45
A reflective, contented mind is the best possession. - Zoroaster, The Gathas
In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man. - Ethics of the Fathers 2:5
Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see ones own acts, done and undone. - Buddha, Dhammpada verse 50
What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. - Confucius, The Analects
The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete. - Lao Tzu, Daodejing, Ch. 81
Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life. - Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas verse 58
Fr. Seraphim Rose said that Orthodox Christianity is the religion of the future. While I dont necessarily know if this statement is correct, I think that it points to the fact that traditional organized religion provides an ethical outlet for man to combat existential angst. Creating an artificial god would just be a downright lie.
That's not what Christianity already did?
Indeed. Would not all gods be the 'artificial' creation of humans? Like polyester. Begs the question, what is a natural god and how would we demonstrate it?