[LINK] Charlie Stross: Federov's Rapture

Pythagoras was a vegetarian; does it follow that all geometers must be vegetarians?

This is a weaker argument than the last one (which wasn't that strong to begin with). The only way Transhumanism's roots in Russian religion is relevant to evaluating it is if one suspects that modern Transhumanists share any of Fedorov's wrong beliefs. Other than Transhumanism itself, I mean, because assuming it's wrong is begging the question.

As one of the people here who is less sympathetic to transhumanist views... yeah this looks like guilt-by-association with some interesting historical tidbits thrown in. The history is interesting. The argument made, not so much.

The singularity as faith (extended abstract)

Selmer Bringsjord and Alexander Bringsjord, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic

We have on hand a framework for classifying the bases of belief in things that are at once weighty and unseen. Here, we apply the framework to belief in The Singularity, and conclude from this application, and the absence of both rationalist and empiricist evidence in support of this belief, that believers in the doctrine are fideists. While it’s true that fideists have been taken seriously in religion (e.g., Kierkegaard in the case of Christianity), even in that domain the likes of religious believers like Descartes, Pascal, and Leibniz find fideism to be little more than wishful, irrational thinking — and at any rate it’s rather doubtful that fideists should be taken seriously in the realm of science and engineering.

Link: singularityhypothesis.blogspot.com/2011/07/singularity-as-faith.html

The article is a comment hook.

Does he think transhumanism is bunk? Maybe, but he doesn't say so. Does he think it's a scientifically realistic extrapolation? Maybe, but he doesn't say so. Does he think it's a cool idea for writing fiction around but not scientifically plausible? Maybe, but he doesn't say so. All of the above? None of the above? Maybe, but he doesn't say so. I would have to already know his views (which I don't) from other sources to be able to read them into this article, and even then, I would be reading them in, not finding them there.

If he had said any of these things straight out, that would have framed the subsequent conversation as "What Stross Said: Right or Wrong?" Instead, by creating a frame for conversation instead of asserting his own views, whatever they are, he gets a comment column full of friendly exchanging of views that everyone who participates enjoys participating in. By posting comment hook articles and largely playing King Log in the comment threads, he creates and nurtures that community, which is what the blog is for.

In the particular article, I would have appreciated in the comment thread some talk of evidence, and some near-mode talk of death and disease, but the fact that there is none is really a fact about the community around the blog. I did spend the obligatory five minutes trying to think of a way to post something along the lines of the evil of death, disease, and suffering being absolute no-brainers for any atheist materialist, and about how tracing an idea back to religious roots is pretty much like tracing humans back to apes, but I failed to compose anything that would have fitted into the conversation. That is my failing, not theirs. What I would have had to do is solve the problem of Archimedes and the chronophone. What could I write there that would not sound like a proselytising Christian writing here? Having a bottom line that "you're wrong!" and sending in the soldiers is not the way.