The Singularity as Religion (yes/no links)

I would hope this is simply a case of both of these individuals joining any singularity-related FB groups for PR, and the original admin seeing this and granting them admin privileges.

Does anyone know where the 2045 figure came from?

Is there anything more to it than "hmm, we need a date that's distant enough to not strain plausibility but close enough that most people expect to still be alive".

I was similarly somewhat alarmed by that when I found it, but I think for the most part it's just one very (um...) enthusiastic person. (curiousepic (below) is almost certainly correct about why some non-crazy persons are administrators of the Facebook group.) I'd bet that nobody actually does the monthly 20:45 SINGULARITY MESSAGES thing.

Admin on Facebook isn't opt-in, it's more like they clicked "yes" when invited to join the group and then the group creator set them as admins in order to increase the status of his group.

"The Singularity is my retirement plan" is actually a rational attitude to have given a slight possibility of a successful singularity. This should be a motivating factor not an excuse for slacking. "You can't take it with you" and "you're going to die anyway" stop being legitimate excuses. It prompts desperate action.

And if I'm right, then this isn't a particularly important question to devote energy to.

You're forgetting the most important aspect of the issue. If there is a problem with technology-related existential risk, then it's important to get high-status people to understand it and take it seriously. However, if the issue is automatically associated in the public mind with low-status people and presumed crackpots, this will become far more difficult. It doesn't matter how good a case you have that the problem is serious, if its very mention will trigger people's crackpot heuristics and make them want to distance themselves from you for fear of low-status contamination.

Whether "X is a religion" is not a very substantive query, particularly if category-membership is not clear. It's an argument about definitions, a rube/blegg question. An interesting question would be, say, whether lesswrong/transhumanists/rationalists are on an epistemic death spiral and will end up (or already are) comfortably compartmentalized (or not) deluded lunatics, like so many religious people. But this statement would need arguments focused on it in particular, and not just general reference class tennis that assigns connotationally related categories.

See 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong and Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease.

So, a great deal has already been said about your reasons for concluding that "transhumanism is a religion," and I don't think I have anything especially useful to add to that discussion.

I'm curious, though, as to why it matters.

That is... OK, suppose I accept your reasoning in its entirety. (I don't, but never mind that for now.)

That is, suppose I accept that soi-disant transhumanists who endorse certain texts (#10) and believe in an upcoming singularity (#9) and wear identifying symbols (#8) and dismiss those who disagree with them (#7) and believe it may become possible for human minds to join with a superhuman AI (#6/#2) and believe it's theoretically possible to extend human life and/or consciousness indefinitely (#4/#5) and to reconstruct human consciousness from brain cells (#3) and that they are better able to see the truth of these things than most people (#1)... suppose I accept that they are, by virtue of those things and those things alone, a religion.

To put this another way: suppose I accept extending the set "religion" to accept the intersection of those things.

What interesting consequences follow from my accepting that? Why should it matter?

Belief in the elect. Transhumanists feel that they alone are rational enough to see the truth, to the point that some of them believe that it is better that others are not told the truth.

Incorrect. Transhumanism and rationalism are different issues. Some people self-identify as rational but not transhumanist. And outside Less Wrong, most transhumanists do not consider themselves to be rationalist in any useful sense. If you simply mean that transhumanists think they've recognized something as important that others have not, then any movement thinks that, whether religious or not religious.

Belief in God. Transhumanists believe that they will make a Friendly AI that will take the place of God.

Again, confusing Less Wrong attitudes about AI with general transhumanism. But even then, making a deity would be very different than having a pre-existing deity (although I see why someone of LDS background would see less distinction there). But those who want to make a Friendly AI don't intend to worship it or the like. Moreover, many people here who don't think that an AI is likely to foom think that it is important to figure out how to make Friendly AI because non-Friendly non-fooming AI can still do a lot of damage.

Belief in Resurrection. Transhumanists believe in Cryogenics such that when they die they will be frozen and eventually resurrected.

This is only a superficial comparison, and many people who are into cryonics (note, not cryogenics- they are different things) don't self-identify as transhumanist. Moreover, this is very different because many of the people, even the proponents like Robin Hanson, estimate low chances of cryonics actually working. Could one imagine a major religion saying that "yeah, so if you do what we want, maybe, in a few centuries you might come back if people in that day and age get around to it?"

Belief in Immortality. Transhumanists believe in life extension to the point that eventually their bodies will be able to live indefinitely long.

One certainly has some transhumanists who think that the technology will soon be at that level. But that's not at all the same as it applying to current people. This isn't belief in immortality. This is belief that if our technology increases at a fast enough rate, then we will reach actuarial escape velocity.

Belief in Eternal Life. Transhumanists believe that eventually uploads will be possible such that even in the case of an unfortunate accident they will be able to survive.

Well, in so far as, if our current understanding of the human brain is correct, and one self-identifies with all functionally equivalent copies then they are correct.

Belief in Theosis/Exaltation. Transhumanists believe that it may become possible to become one with their AI/God

Same issues with the issue of comparing the AI to a deity as earlier.

Belief that everyone that disagrees with them is a heretic.

Really? I don't buy into almost any of the standard transhumanist claims. I've got a karma over 4000. I've made a lot of posts criticizing cryonics, the probability that AI will go foom, and Bayesianism, and almost all of them have gotten voted up. Indeed, I just made another post about AI not going foom and it is getting voted up as we speak and is now at +4 for, frankly, not doing much at all other than raising an issue with no details. I presume from your remarks that Less Wrong is the environment we are talking about. So if so, heretics apparently are treated very well here.

What would it mean in this context for someone to be a heretic? One common idea is that heretics will suffer or not do as well in a messianic age. Well, I've haven't gotten to discussing your notion of the Singularity as a messianic age, (which is #9 on your list) but let's say for now that that is a good analogy. Are heretics going to suffer? No. At worst, if cryonics works, then maybe some of the less damaged people who signed up for cryonics will still be around. Those who didn't sign up will yes get oblivion. That last part has nothing to do with transhumanism unless transhumanism now means anyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife. That's obviously too broad. Moreover, someone who signs up for cryonics but doesn't think Friendly AI is worthwhile, or doesn't meet any of your other criteria would be just as saved in that scenario. Now, another popular way of dealing with heretics is to kick them out of a community. That doesn't seem to happen either. I can't see any way in which anyone is being treated functionally as a heretic.

Aumann's Agreement theorem has serious problems in it, yet it is used in arguments as though it were true.

Um, Aumann's Agreement is a theorem. It can't have problems. You can argue that people are misapplying it, and I'd be inclined to agree.

This in spite of the fact that they may have additional information that is influencing their priors in important ways.

Yes, but that's exactly what Aumann says would be the expected problem among rational agents, lack of shared information, possibly some combination of information on both sides. There are, IMO, deep problems with how people apply Aumann's theorem here, but this isn't one of them.

Sacred Symbols. At least those that are signed up for Cryonics have symbols that they wear and use to spark interest in their beliefs or debates about their beliefs.

This is stretching. They need those symbols to signal to medical professionals that they are signed up. And as someone who isn't signed up for cryonics but is considering it, let me just note that if I see a cryonics symbol on someone I know that they are in fact likely to have interesting ideas, because they've gone and done something wildly outside the mainstream.

Belief in the coming of a messiah - the singularity.

So this is possibly the best argument. Among some transhumanists there is an extremely optimistic attitude about the Singularity and an attitude about it that can only be described as evangelical. There's been earlier discussion about this issue here, e.g. this. But that seems to be a small fraction of transhumanists as a whole, generally those of the Kurzweil disposition. But those people don't meet much of what you list, not caring generally about Friendly AI or Aumann's agreement theorem issues. Indeed, most of the people here who take the Singularity seriously consider it likely to be a very bad thing for humanity.

Holy Script - The sequences.

The sequences are a good set of essays that do a good job summarizing a lot of known scientific knowledge, some philosophical arguments, and a little bit of fun besides. For a set of holy scriptures they have a surprisingly large amount of people telling Eliezer when he's just wrong. Moreover, to fit with your earlier analogy, this would require these scriptures to have been inspired by what, the supreme AI that doesn't exist yet? That doesn't seem to work. Note also that many people here disagree with major points of the Sequences. MWI and the Eliezer's take on Metaethics are the two biggest ones. The person with third highest karma on the site, User:Alicorn isn't even a utilitarian, which amounts to a not at all small rejection of most of Eliezer's ethical attitudes.

I don't think that deep science or philosophy is required here, just not trying to shove groups into standard categories when they don't apply.

Professional golfers also satisfy points 1, 7, 8 and 10.

Belief in the elect: They believe that they are better golfers than others, and that only they are worthy of competing in the PGA Championship; lesser mortals must be relegated to less prestigious competitions and will be kept out of the clubhouse by armed security guards.

Belief that everyone who disagrees with them is a heretic: They laugh at and mock people who think that you should use a 9-iron when your ball is on the green, or that you should start off with a putter on a par-5 hole. These people are automatically assumed to be less skilled at golf than they are.

Sacred Symbols: They frequently carry around bags of golf clubs and wear special clothing; these can spark conversations with non-golfers.

Holy Script: Every two years, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews publishes a book called "The Rules of Golf"; this is accorded sacred status and anyone who refuses to follow it is expelled from the brotherhood of professional golfers in disgrace.

I maintain that insofar as we tick any of these boxes, we do so for reasons more like the reasons professional golfers tick them than the reasons the Catholic Church ticks them.

2,3,4,5,6,9 take a lot more explanation as they are unusual beliefs among secular groups, but all we can try to do is justify why we believe them. Have you tried reading the Sequences?

4.) Belief in Immortality. Transhumanists believe in life extension to the point that eventually their bodies will be able to live indefinitely long.

Hypothetically, if someone were to invent an immortality pill which was scientifically proven to work (I am not asserting that this is possible) then would you describe anybody who believed this pill worked as having converted to a new religion? Assuming here that the claim that this pill offers immortality is no more controversial than the claim that paracetamol relieves headaches.

Well, these "Abrahamic" traits could be taken to describe the biased epistemological dynamics of various other ingroups.