"all things in existence are physiologically connected"

IEET Rebuttal: The Relevance of God in a Transhuman Society

Dorothy Deasy asks the question if an electronically or pharmacologically induced sense of euphoria the same as spirituality? …And proceeds to define spirituality as:

Spirituality is “incorporating insight from peak experiences into our everyday lives”

“On-going, allowing access to that part of us that ismore fundamental than the I”

“That which creates the We”

“It is a call to action and interaction”

“Is the growing realization that we are connected to all of humanity, and that to do harm to others is to do harm to ourselves”

She said that we are “softwired” to want to belong and become social beings.

The greatest spiritual problem that I’ve noticed logically and phenomenological is that there is no definition. I’ve written about this extensively, and plan to make stronger ties in my next publication. While spirituality is acknowledged as non-physical entities interacting in our physical world/lives, when synthesizing its manifestations we often make illogical linkages like that of connectivity and empathy and even physical transactions.

Spirituality is not synonymous with empathy and cannot be “born-out by science” It’s lack of definition is it’s greatest strength as well as what cripples it as rational thought transforms a growingly secular society. The philosophies mentioned in the video/article by Dorothy are those of humanist egalitarianism, and although the ring wholesome and are desirable to those of use looking for connections of sorts (with humans and other physical beings, with and without sentience), they are far from achievable without a transhuman (or technological) solution to liberate human-kind from its cognitively astute, yet unavoidable, animal-istic reaction to scarcities of sorts. In my last book I write about this inability to achieve harmonies in an essay titled “competition is primitive”.

I’m of the group that thinks it clear that ancient theologies and ideologies won’t suffice in the existing world of realized exponential growth —> I don’t think it possible to use a humanistic ethic to critique transhuman (or human-plus) self-actualizations. Having stated that, this is not an effort to suppress the exploration of spirituality in it’s entirety, as it would be dangerous to suppress any engagement; further, spirituality needs to be defined by its users and “scientists” before philosophical exploration in order to provide a rather scientific methodology of tracking and creating information technologies (bodies of knowledge) from the on-going explorations. Considering the Physics here: If we’d like to use spirituality as our core rhetoric of human connection, then it cannot also be a representative of some non-physical manifestation—>visa versa.


  dorothy deasy wrote @

First, a couple of technical nit picks. There are are three typos in the quote. It should be “incorporating insight from peak experiences” and “more fundamental than the I”.
As for the ancient theologies and ideologies, I talk about the need for them to evolve. I think there is wisdom in these theologies, but that we need to move beyond current interpretations. Theologians have been in the process of doing this for centuries, but the pace is too slow at the moment for the changes taking place.
Right now I’m reading Newberg’s “Principles of Neurotheology” where he says “[i]f neurotheology is to be considered a viable field going forward, it requires a set of clear principles that can generally be agreed upon and supported by both the theological or religious perspective and the scientific one as well”. This seems close to your point and I agree with you both.
Also, it may also be that the timeframes most salient to you and me differ. I am less concerned about a truly post-human future and more concerned with a peaceful and just path through through the next few decades.
To comment further, I’ll need to first read your article. Thank you for engaging in this important topic. Your insights will doubtlessly help us all achieve better understanding to shape a positive future that values both science and spirituality. – dor

  JFKII wrote @

Please excuse the typos, I’ve changed them.

I’ll start from the bottom. You wrote:

“I am less concerned about a truly post-human future and more concerned with a peaceful and just path through through the next few decades”

My core opponent in Integrationalism is individualism. Spirituality, like so many other topical matters, I’m convinced stem from individualism inherent scarcity -> competition -> protectionism. In the pursuit of more happiness, I think that we all share the same goal, as you’ve stated at the end of the quote above… a “peaceful and just path”.

Just a bit of background on: I wasn’t a student of the seminal transhuman ideals and theories, but have (through an entirely separate path) realized my alignments with the integration of, technologies of sorts, and human-kind’s ability; in order to identify some potential for our goal – “peaceful and just path”.

Theologians of the three Abrahamic religions are tied fundamental spiritual ideal, those of non-physical ascription, as referenced in my original rebuttal. This ideological fact prevents them from “evolving” to meet some point of connectivity. I presented a logic model in Utah a few hours before you made your presentation to confirm this. While humanistic virtues are desirable to me, they are, in the real world a bit utopian and unachievable because of the lack of economic incentives for our goal… a “peaceful and just path”.

In Newberg’s exploration in neuroscience he will discover, develop, and deploy methods of documenting and measuring physical existences; further, providing no evolution in spiritual (or theological) understanding. What he and the other neuroscientists may do, is discover ways to emulate, simulate, and duplicate (please excuse the rhyming…lol…it’s not intentional) brain activity so that computer science can interact according. Per our “human-plus” future… our best hope is that we can map and manipulate brain design to connect every individual well; generating almost instant experiences like that of the sociopaths (not to be confused with psychopaths), who generating un-peaceful and un-just activity, retracting their efforts because of new understanding about those they oppress.

Few of us have the time to explore our individual selves so well, that we start to self-actualize. This is where individuality (not to be confused with individualism) is valuable. The sheer potential of a human-plus future would lessen (and potentially eliminate) the largely elitist gap between those of us wealthy enough (not necessarily a monetary value) to self-actualize and those of us who cannot.

To sum it all up, our theological efforts should be replaced with real efforts to create physical connections and understanding between individuals, by embracing our technological potential, and honoring a mortal code… Far more rigid than the relativity of morals, established by the judgment, forgiveness, and model theologies established and re-established by the Abrahamic systems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: