Author Topic: Progressive Yahwism  (Read 874 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Progressive Yahwism
« on: October 12, 2021, 05:43:02 am »
Progressivism at its most dangerous:

https://roadtoomega.substack.com/p/savingtheworldwithscience

Quote


It took some time, but we are finally approaching a tipping point called a phase transition, which is a spontaneous jump to higher order and harmony, or the opposite, a collapse into chaos. Obviously the former is better for life than the latter, and what we should strive for collectively.

I disagree. A collapse would be messy, but at least it offers an opportunity for progress to be halted and hopefully even turned backwards. It is the jump that is the true danger because it will accelerate progress perhaps beyond our power to thereafter stop it, as we have long been warning about:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftists-against-progressivism/

Continuing:

Quote
Since phase transitions are known to occur at “the edge of chaos,” the social and political chaos we are experiencing currently indicates that such a transition is on the horizon. Too much order means a system is rigid and therefore unable to adapt or evolve, so an injection of chaos actually provides the flexibility the system needs to change its organization. If steered in the right direction by a unifying worldview, the imminent phase transition will push the social system we call civilization toward a state of higher order, control, and causal power. This is the goal of the Road to Omega movement, and also the goal of the cosmic evolution process, which is simultaneously Darwinian (involves natural selection) and teleological (goal-directed). The universe moves toward an increasingly complex state not because it is being driven to do so by some mystical force, but because life learns from its mistakes; in other words, progressive evolution proceeds through experiment and error-correction.

What our enemies call the "cosmic evolution process" is simply Yahweh (see below). This is why I call them progressive Yahwists. Basically, they not only recognize (as do we also) that natural selection is the dominant process in the universe, but they (unlike us) are happy that this is the case and want to help it along, whereas we consider natural selection to be the ultimate tyrant that systematically multiplies those too ignoble to see a problem with it (e.g. voluntary reproducers) while systematically exterminating those noble enough to despise it (e.g. voluntary non-reproducers). They also believe that repeatedly eliminating the noble in every generation results in improvement, which is only possible if they value ignobility.

Quote
This theoretical framework, being a merging of prior frameworks, is most accurately described as the Evolutionary Epistemology-Universal Darwinism-Universal Bayesianism (EE-UD-UB) framework, or Poetic Meta-Naturalism for short (an adaptation of Sean Carroll’s Poetic Naturalism), and the spiritual worldview associated with this framework is known as the Cosmic Perspective. This worldview views life as cosmically significant. What is the purpose of life in the universe? To perpetuate life and mind forever through constant learning and adaptation.

This is nothing but rebooted Yahweh-worship. As I have previously rigorously proven, perpetuation is by definition not a purpose. A purpose must have a completion point. Perpetuation has no completion point; no quantity of successful perpetuation brings the subject any nearer to a condition where further perpetuation ceases to be required. That our enemies nevertheless claim that this is the 'purpose' of life (by which they mean is it is what we should aim for) is testimony to their slavishness.

Quote
As David Deutsch often reminds us, the potential for progress and knowledge growth is infinite.

Here we see themselves explicitly admit that perpetuation has no completion point! Yet they not only see no problem with this, they consider this to be good news!

Quote
However, we should keep in mind that life cannot be separated from the universe it inhabits—adaptive complexity spreading through space is the cosmos waking up through a recursive process of hierarchical (multi-level) emergence called cosmic evolution. “You are the universe” may be the title of a Deepak Chopra book, but that doesn’t make the statement any less true. In his epic book The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil mapped out the major stages of the cosmic process in all its glorious detail.


Glorious? What is glorious about this? Only accumulationists would find this glorious. Anti-accumulationists (e.g. us) find this terrifying!

Quote
While some might believe this view to be in conflict with the almighty second law of thermodynamics—which says an isolated system must (on average) grow increasingly disordered—this website will show why this new cosmic narrative is in fact emergent from the second law. In short, the second law is the selection pressure for self-organizing systems, because it filters out the unstable configurations and selects the most resilient and functional designs. As a result, adaptive complexity (aka life as a whole) grows more computationally powerful as evolution proceeds, and better able to predict and control the world around it.

I do not disagree academically with this theory. I just disagree with letting it happen unopposed.

Quote
The founder of evolutionary genetics, Theodosius Dobzhansky, famously said “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Well, the Integrated Evolutionary Synthesis says that nothing in biology or evolution makes any sense except in the light of thermodynamics and information. It is the need to stay out of thermodynamic equilibrium—a state of death, decay, and disorder—that forces adaptive complexity to search the “design space” for adaptive solutions to the problem of survival. Solutions are adaptations that help the system avoid threats and extract the energy the system needs to sustain its ordered state.

We often call these 'solutions' sustainable evils. It usually involves anything stronger initiating violence on anything weaker (but not to the point of the weaker's extinction, so that the violence can continue without end).

Quote
This search for “fit” configurations is a form of trial-and-error learning that occurs through the evolutionary algorithm known as variation-and-selection. Through adaptation, an evolving biosphere reduces its ignorance or uncertainty about all the ways the world can surprise it.

Or as we put it, through adulteration, Original Nobility is lost. The more we become used to this world as it is, the more we are being cut off from the ability to feel how the world should be.

Quote
In other words, the information embedded in biological memory (DNA, brains, societies) is knowledge. As life adapts to its surroundings, natural selection generates predictive knowledge, and recursive self-organization generates increasingly complex, resilient, and intelligent cybernetic systems.

We call these prisoners increasingly incapable of resistance, or eventually even of feeling compulsion to resist (hence slaves).

Quote

This is evolution not towards the 'best' possible design, but toward the most survival-oriented possible design. For example, if at the "1st generation" "Design 1" for ethical reasons refuses to initiate violence in order to extract energy, it will be filtered out despite being ethically superior to "Design 4". Or if at the "2nd generation" "Design 4a" for ethical reasons refuses to initiate violence as part of competition, it will die out in competition despite being ethically superior. And so on.

The notion that "most survival-oriented" = "best" is a value-based declaration made by Yahwists and not shared by anti-Yahwists.

(By the way, another word for "energy extractor" is vampire. Are vampires the best?)

Quote
being unapologetic cosmic optimists

Here they admit it. They think whatever comes out of the design process will be great. We disagree. Whatever comes out will be at the very least less capable of Gnosis. (Which is the whole point behind Yahweh's process FFS!)

Quote
ROAD TO OMEGA is also a story about complexity, emergence, and collective computation—features of nature that suggest that such a revolution could be a natural part of an evolutionary process that eventually brings about the emergence of a global brain through the creation of an Internet and peer-to-peer technology. In the words of Wired co-founder Kevin Kelly, the technological trajectory we are on may have been largely inevitable.

No, all that would have been needed to evade it completely is if Western civilization had been killed several centuries ago. No other civilization at the time of the Renaissance was on track to independently develop the internet and P2P. Western civilization is Yahweh's vehicle.

We can still evade the present technological trajectory by killing Western civilization ASAP. But time is running out.

Quote
In the context of the decentralization movement, Omega refers to a state of hyperconnection among humans that is achievable through peer-to-peer technologies that are emerging today, like blockchains and decentralized applications (dApps).
...
By promoting the emergence of self-organizing social, political, and economic networks, decentralization and hyperconnection may bring about new levels of order and knowledge.

I academically agree that decentralization will optimize natural selection and hence Yahweh's plan. This is why I support autocracy, which is a form of centralization. A sufficiently powerful autocracy can temporarily hold off the selective pressure of natural selection and even temporarily implement alternative selective pressure, thereby temporarily enabling the demographic proliferation of genuinely better designs. This is National Socialism. These anti-Yahwist designs then have a brief time interval available to consciously identify and deliberately eliminate Yahweh's preferred progressive designs before natural selection reasserts itself (and hence eliminate us). This - ensuring evil dies before (or at the same time as) we do - is the true purpose of life.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 11:18:05 pm by 90sRetroFan »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2021, 02:40:36 am »
https://www.edge.org/conversation/stuart_a_kauffman-beyond-reductionism-reinventing-the-sacred

Quote
A great divide splits contemporary society between those who believe in a transcendent God, and those, including myself, who do not.

Indeed.

Quote
beyond the new science that glimmers a new world view, we have a new view of God, not as transcendent, not as an agent, but as the very creativity of the universe itself.

This is what we have always understood Yahweh to be.

Quote
Darwin taught us about natural selection and evolution. He did not know the basis for self reproduction or heritable variation. But given these, evolution by natural selection follows. Such evolving life forms would be subject to Darwin's law, which arises only for entities capable of self reproduction and heritable variation. This seems clearly to be ontological emergence, not reducible to physics. Like Anderson's computer able to run on transisitors or buckets of water, Darwin's natural selection can run on multiple physical platforms, where the entities under selection have their own causal powers, and natural selection cannot be reduced to any specific physical platform.

Indeed, it is possible that minor changes in the constants of the physicists would still yield universes in which life, heritable variation and natural selection would obtain. Note that while the physicist might deduce that a specific set of molecules was self reproducing, and had heritable variations and instantiated natural selection, one cannot deduce natural selection from the specific physics of any specific case(s), or even this universe, alone. In short, Darwin's natural selection is a new law operating on the level of self reproducing entities with heritable variation, regardless of the physical underpinning. In contrast to Weinberg's claim, here the explanatory arrows point upward from molecules to the evolution of living systems of molecules via natural selection.

Yes, this is why Yahweh can accurately claim divinity. Which is not to say he deserves to be worshipped.

Quote
I begin with Darwinian adaptations and preadaptations. Were one to ask Darwin what the function of the heart is, he would have replied, "To pump blood". That is, the causal consequence of the heart for virtue of which it was selected by natural selection is pumping blood. But the heart makes heart sounds. These are not the function of the heart. Thus, the function of the heart is a subset of its causal consequences and must be analyzed in the context of the whole organism in its selective environment. Again this says that biology cannot be reduced to physics, for while the string theorist might (actually could not) deduce all the properties of a given heart, he/she would have no way to pick out as the relevant property that of pumping blood. But it is that property that accounts for the existence of hearts in the biosphere.

What is the Darwinian function of muscle? Movement for escaping predators? Wrong! Did you know that the overwhelming majority of muscle fibres in the world are deliberately prevented from meaningful movement as an explicit condition for their carriers to reproduce?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Battery_husbandry

The actual Darwinian function of muscle in the pictured animals is to supply meat for consumption by mostly Westerners. It is for this reason that these animals are forced to keep reproducing, and hence their species guaranteed perpetuation (the suffering of the indiviudals is not a concern to Yahweh).



Quote
It is critical that virtually any extant feature of an organism can become the subject of natural selection in the appropriate environment, and typically, if selected, a novel functionality arises in the biosphere and universe. Now the critical question: Do you think you could say ahead of time, or finitely prestate, all possible Darwinian preadaptations of, say species alive now, or even humans? I have not found anyone who thought the answer was yes. I do not know how to prove my claim that the answer is "No", but part of the problem is that we cannot finitely prestate the relevant features of all possible selective environments for all organisms with respect to all their features.

But the failure to prestate the possible preadaptations is not slowing down the evolution of the biosphere where preadaptations are widely known. Thus, ever novel functionalities come to exist and proliferate in the biosphere. The fact that we cannot prestate them is essential, and an essential limitation to the way Newton taught us to do science: Prestate the relevant variables, forces acting among them, initial and boundary conditions, and calculate the future evolution of the system…say projectile. But we cannot prestate the relevant causal features of organisms in the biosphere. We do not know now the relevant variables! Thus we cannot write down a set of equations for the temporal evolution of these variables. We are profoundly precluded from the Newtonian move. In short, the evolution of the biosphere is radically unknowable, not due to quantum throws of the dice, or deterministic chaos, but because we cannot prestate the macroscopic relevant features of organisms and environments that will lead to the emergence of novel functions in the biosphere with their own causal properties that in turn alter the future evolution of the biosphere. Thus, the evolution of the biosphere is radically creative, ceaselessly creative, in way that cannot be foretold.

Tell me about it:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_of_egg_industry_by_Roee_Shpernik

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Foie_gras_production

And the next thing you know:



Or even more recently:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/msg8553/#msg8553

Quote
I find this wonderful.

Because you are a Yahwist. I, an anti-Yahwist, find this horrific.

However, while I agree that I cannot list all possible Darwinian preadaptations, I can list the one trait that will never be a preadaptation: anti-Yahwism. It doesn't matter which or how many other Darwinian preadaptations someone carries; this one trait is potentially enough to singlehandedly end them all. I find this wonderful.

Quote
this means that the technological evolution of the econosphere is also not finitely prestatable, nor presumably algorithmic. It too is ceaselessly creative, expanding from some 1000 goods and services say 50,000 years ago to perhaps 10 billion today.

I find this horrific too.

Quote
And human culture, in general, is ceaselessly creative as the biosphere and culture expand into what I call the Adjacent Possible.

I find this horrific too. (But no, it is not "human culture, in general". It is primarily Western civilization which behaves like this.)

Quote
In short, in wondrous ways, these our universe, biosphere, econosphere, and culture are ceaselessly creative and emergent.

Only Yahwists could describe ceaseless creativity as "wondrous".

Quote
God is the most powerful symbol we have created. The Spaniards in the New World built their churches on the holy sites of those they vanquished. Notre Dame sits on a Druid holy site. Shall we use the God word? It is our choice. Mine is a tentative "yes". I want God to mean the vast ceaseless creativity of the only universe we know of, ours. What do we gain by using the God word? I suspect a great deal, for the word carries with it awe and reverence.

Please call him Yahweh. The true God is the one trying to save us from Yahweh (ie. the Devil).

Quote
If we can transfer that awe and reverence, not to the transcendental Abrahamic God of my Israelite tribe long ago, but to the stunning reality that confronts us, we will grant permission for a renewed spirituality, and awe, reverence and responsibility for all that lives, for the planet.

I guessed you were a Jew from the very first paragraph you wrote. In actuality, you are merely putting a Western scientific dressing over the exact same Yahweh-worship practiced by your ancient ancestors, which is based on enjoying and being grateful for material existence.

Quote
I believe, I hope correctly, that what I have sketched above is true, points to a new vision of our co-creating reality, that it invites precisely an enhancement of our sense of spirituality, reverence, wonder, and responsibility, and can form the basis of a trans-national mythic structure for an emerging global civilization.

I am here to stop you.

Quote
To ever succeed, this new view needs to be soft spoken. You see, we can say, here is reality, is it not worthy of stunned wonder? What more could we want of a God?

No, it is not. God should be that which is outside of reality. That which we (not you!), despite being stuck in reality, can sometimes perceive in our idealistic imagination. And having once glimpsed God, the entire material world thereafter becomes worthy of nothing but contempt.

You of course disagree, because:



Quote
Yes, we give up a God who intervenes on our behalf. We give up heaven and hell. But we gain ourselves, responsibility, and maturity of spirit.

I will not give up these. And the last thing I would ever want is to gain is "maturity of spirit"!

« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 11:26:12 pm by 90sRetroFan »

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2021, 09:41:01 am »
I believe the film Alien: Covenant is all about progressive Yahwism. In this film we learn that David the AI is responsible for creating the Aliens in the first place. David claims that his sole purpose is "creation". David represents Yahweh....




90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2021, 01:35:03 am »
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/mar/19/yuval-harari-sapiens-readers-questions-lucy-prebble-arianna-huffington-future-of-humanity

Quote
‘Homo sapiens as we know them will disappear in a century or so’

Chris Evans read out the first page of Sapiens, the book by the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari.
...
Last year, Harari’s follow-up, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, was published in the UK, becoming another bestseller. It develops many of the themes explored in Sapiens, and in particular examines the possible impact of biotechnological and artificial intelligence innovation on Homo sapiens, heralding perhaps the beginning of a new bionic or semi-computerised form of human.

This is what our enemies want to become.

Quote
I’m not sure if it will be deliberate but I do think we’ll probably have just one system, and in this sense we’ll have just one civilisation. In a way this is already the case. All over the world the political system of the state is roughly identical. All over the world capitalism is the dominant economic system, and all over the world the scientific method or worldview is the basic worldview through which people understand nature, disease, biology, physics and so forth. There are no longer any fundamental civilisational differences.

All we need to do is kill Western civilization, and the door to other possibilities reopens.

Quote
as the ecological crisis intensifies, the pressure for technological development will increase, not decrease. I think that the ecological crisis in the 21st century will be analogous to the two world wars in the 20th century in serving to accelerate technological progress.

As long as things are OK, people would be very careful in developing or experimenting in genetic engineering on humans or giving artificial intelligence control of weapon systems. But if you have a serious crisis, caused for example by ecological degradation, then people will be tempted to try all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies in the hope of solving the problem, and you’ll have something like the Manhattan Project in the second world war.

Harari is describing a solely Western mentality. To non-Westerners, having realized that environmental damage has occurred as a consequence of machine proliferation, the obvious solution is to stop machine proliferation ASAP. But Westerners think the 'solution' is to invent even newer machines to counter the effects of existing machines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

So if we continue to allow Westerners to keep deciding on behalf of everyone else what the future is to be like, then it will probably really go like Harari predicts. But this need not be the case. All we need to do is insist that Western civilization has already done far too much harm to continue deserving our trust.

Quote
You can’t just stop technological progress. Even if one country stops researching artificial intelligence, some other countries will continue to do it.

War should be declared by all anti-AI countries on all pro-AI countries. And as long as AI is stopped before it can innovate independently, the only other fix we need to halt further innovation is to eliminate machinist genes from the human gene pool.

Quote
The real question is what to do with the technology. You can use exactly the same technology for very different social and political purposes. If you look at the 20th century, we see that with the same technology of electricity and trains, you could create a communist dictatorship or a liberal democracy. And it’s the same with artificial intelligence and bioengineering. So I think people shouldn’t be focused on the question of how to stop technological progress because this is impossible. Instead the question should be what kind of usage to make of the new technology.

We should use whatever technology is already around to prevent the introduction of anything even newer, preferably by exterminating those who want the progress (starting with Harari himself).

Quote
Now the main economic asset is knowledge, and it’s very difficult to conquer knowledge through violence.

State control over reproduction can be used to eventually breed new generations uninterested in perpetuating superfluous knowledge (especially stuff from the Renaissance onwards):

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/truth-knowledge/

Quote
If you want a steak, you just grow a steak from cells – you don’t need to raise a cow and then slaughter the cow for the steak. This may sound like science fiction but it’s already a reality. Three years ago they created the first hamburger they made from cells. It’s true that it cost $300,000 but it’s always like that with a new technology. By now, 2017, the price, as far as I know, is down to $11 per hamburger.

While of course this is preferable to slaughtering cows for steaks, it is still a Western approach to the problem. It is not a solution. After you get your steak and eat it, you will soon want another one. Eventually you may even want more than one. Or you may want different varieties of steak. And so on. Nothing has been solved. The desire for steaks has not been decreased. If anything, it has been increased.

Here is the alternative: if you want a steak, realize that the problem is with you for wanting the steak in the first place, not with how to get the steak you want. You want a steak because of your non-Aryan blood. So don't reproduce, and after you die there will be one fewer person wanting a steak. Repeat until there are zero people in the world who want steaks. This is the true solution to the problem of wanting steaks.

Western approach: increase supply.

Correct approach: reduce demand.

Quote
It will also have a lot of ecological benefits because it will reduce the enormous amount of pollution which is caused by high animal farming today.

Reducing the population of meat-eaters will have even more ecological benefits. But you refuse to even consider this because you are a progressive Yahwist.

Quote
AA: You live in a part of the world that has been shaped by religious fictions. Which do you think will happen first – that Homo sapiens leave behind religious fiction or the Israel-Palestine conflict will be resolved?

As things look at present, it seems that Homo sapiens will disappear before the Israeli political conflict will be resolved. I think that Homo sapiens as we know them will probably disappear within a century or so, not destroyed by killer robots or things like that, but changed and upgraded with biotechnology and artificial intelligence into something else, into something different. The timescale for that kind of change is maybe a century. And it’s quite likely that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not be resolved by that time. But it will definitely be influenced by it.

I hope otherwise.

Quote
AA: Are you confident that radical Islam is nothing more than the death rattle of the pre-modern era?

In the 21st century, humanity is facing some very difficult problems, whether it’s global warming or global inequality or the rise of disruptive technology, such as bioengineering and artificial intelligence. And wWe need answers to these challenges, and – at least as of March 2017 – I haven’t heard anything relevant being offered by radical Islam. So this is why I don’t think that radical Islam will shape the society of the 21st century. It could still be there, it could still cause a lot of trouble and violence and so forth, but I don’t see it creating or shaping the road ahead of humankind.

I hope otherwise.

Quote
AA: If we can indefinitely prevent death, would it still be possible to create meaning without what Saul Bellow called “the dark backing that a mirror needs if we are to see anything”?

I think so, yes. You have other problems with what happens when you overcome old age, but I don’t think lack of meaning will be a serious problem. Over the past three centuries, almost all the new ideologies of the modern world don’t care about death, or at least they don’t see death as a source of meaning. Previous cultures, especially traditional religions, usually needed death in order to explain the meaning of life. Like in Christianity – without death, life has no meaning. The whole meaning of life comes from what happens to you after you die. There is no death, no heaven, no hell… there is no meaning to Christianity. But over the past three centuries we have seen the emergence of a lot of modern ideologies such as socialism, liberalism, feminism, communism that don’t need death at all in order to provide life with meaning.

If our enemies succeed in becoming literal vampires, we will have to respond by becoming literal vampire slayers.

This is only type of stake we should give our enemies:


« Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 04:11:22 am by 90sRetroFan »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2021, 03:04:59 pm »
The UN just released this Yahwist propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOcQRl9ASc

It goes without saying that if humans were extinct, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place (a basic fact which environmentalist-minded groups like the human extinction movement recognize.)

It goes without saying that if all species went extinct, it would be impossible for any individual to ever be harmed by global warming or other environmental effects in the first place (a basic fact which human-centric environmentalist organizations almost always ignore).

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2021, 03:36:25 pm »
Also, I recently stumbled across this crap:

Quote
The Fourth International Posadist is a Trotskyist international. It was founded in 1962 by J. Posadas,
[...]
Posadism attempts to introduce elements of Ufology into Marxist thought.[1][2] Arguing that only communism can allow the development of interplanetary travel, they concluded that visiting aliens from other planets must live in highly advanced communist societies and are bound to help Earth-based communists with bringing about the world revolution.[3][4]
[...]
In recent years, interests in the Posadists, particularly in regard to their views in ufology, has increased. Several satirical and non-satirical "neo-Posadist" groups emerged on social media, making Posadas "one of the most recognizable names in the history of Trotskyism".[11][14]
[...]
His most prominent thesis from this perspective was the 1968 pamphlet Flying saucers, the process of matter and energy, science, the revolutionary and working-class struggle and the socialist future of mankind which exposed many of the ideas associated today with Posadism. Here, Posadas claims that while there is no proof of intelligent life in the universe, the science of the time makes their existence likely. Furthermore, he claims that any extraterrestrials visiting earth in flying saucers must come from a socially and scientifically advanced civilisation to master inter-planetary travel, and that such a civilisation could have only come about in a post-capitalist world.[3]

Believing visiting aliens to be naturally non-violent, who are only here to observe, Posadas argues that humans must call on them to intervene in solving the Earth's problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_Posadist

Quote
At their founding conference the movement proclaimed that “Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
[...]
Posadas wrote that “Nuclear war [equals] revolutionary war. It will damage humanity but it will not – it cannot – destroy the level of consciousness reached by it… Humanity will pass quickly through a nuclear war into a new human society – Socialism.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas#Nuclear_war

If you look up "Posadism" in an image search, there's a bunch of memes portraying it in a positive light. People thought over-the-top semi-satirical Alt-Right memes were just harmless nonsense, but rightists ended up genuinely believing all of the most extreme aspects of the memes, and got Trump elected, so we shouldn't overlook the danger Posadism poses just because it is now limited to memes.





90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2021, 08:26:50 pm »
More broadly, there certainly seems to be motivation to replace capitalism, which is basically machine innovation driven by desire for profit, with an economic system of machine innovation for its own sake. False Left anticapitalists seem to be supporting this, as their anticapitalism was always about disliking capitalism for producing rich people rather than disliking capitalism for producing machines.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-approaching-china-apos-advances-114938084.html

Quote
Currently, he said, the U.S. employs finance-based planning, which he said boils down to, "We are going to spend more money than they are."
...
Instead, Sekora has been pushing for technology-based planning
...
Sekora explained that technological advances occur when two existing technologies combine, and Socrates was to be used to create what he called "automated innovation."

It goes without saying that the new stuff once introduced can be further combined with the old stuff and with each other, so innovation will just keep branching out and never end.

Quote
According to Sekora, the U.S. has been at a self-imposed disadvantage due to a finance-based planning economic strategy that focuses on maximizing profits in the short-term rather than producing the best products to establish long-term market dominance. Instead of focusing on developing and acquiring the best technologies, the government focuses on dollars and cents.
...
"Technology-driven decision-making is an essential part of our defense modernization. Current incentives in the Pentagon lead to less innovation and more bureaucracy," Rogers said in a statement to Fox News. "Even a single failed test of a new technology can have serious consequences on officers’ careers. This attitude smothers innovation and reinforces using the same old ‘proven’ technologies that don’t meet modern threats."

Note also that the above line of argument against capitalism is not even that it makes some people too rich, but that it leads to sub-maximal innovation. In other words, if they continued to believe that capitalism was the best system for maximizing innovation, they would happily continue to be capitalists. It is only because they now suspect that a system other than capitalism is a better system for maximizing innovation that they want to dump capitalism. Basically, they want everything else to be secondary to maximizing innovation. In short, innovation is their new god. (See also the title of this topic.)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2021, 08:28:22 pm by 90sRetroFan »

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2021, 11:40:52 pm »
Every time I visit this thread in particular I'm reminded of one of the old Superman movies I watched in my childhood, the Superman film where one of the villains gets turned into a cyborg at the end. That scene absolutely traumatized me in my youth:



Few scenes in any film have ever scared me as much as the one above did.

Quote
False Left anticapitalists seem to be supporting this, as their anticapitalism was always about disliking capitalism for producing rich people rather than disliking capitalism for producing machines.

Such a great point! Lest we also forget the primary motivation behind capitalist thinking has always been to have a fully automated work force so capitalists don't have to work, nor will they have to pay labor costs! The WALL-E film in a nutshell is literally where these capitalists want to go! They actually believe that this is a good idea!

Quote
It goes without saying that the new stuff once introduced can be further combined with the old stuff and with each other, so innovation will just keep branching out and never end.

Reminded of the Martin Heidegger quote again in regards to technology in it's essence being something man does not control.

Quote
Basically, they want everything else to be secondary to maximizing innovation. In short, innovation is their new god. (See also the title of this topic.)

Indeed! Take a good look at the above images because your new god probably looks something like that!

Solar Guy

  • Guest
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2021, 11:07:28 am »
Progressive Yahwism as you call it is called Extropianism:
https://www.mrob.com/pub/religion/extro_prin.html

Meanwhile you probably want to choose Universal Freedom Gnosticism:
https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/471fe95ed7b16

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2021, 11:19:46 pm »
Responding to your first link:

Quote
EXTROPY — the extent of a system’s intelligence, information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement.

EXTROPIANS — those who seek to increase extropy.

So extropians want to "increase capacity for improvement". Yet for improvement to be meaningful, the more you improve, it should follow that the less capacity remains for you to further improve. If you start off with 10 flaws, you have the capacity to eliminate 10 flaws. If have already eliminated 9 flaws, you now only have the capacity to eliminate 1 more flaw. This is genuine improvement, and hence reduction in the capacity for improvement. On the other hand, so-called "improvement" that increases the capacity for "improvement" logically cannot be improvement at all. It is progress. The difference is that improvement is measured relative to an endpoint, whereas progress is measured relative to a starting point.

Quote
Extropianism is a transhumanist philosophy. The Extropian Principles define a specific version or "brand" of transhumanist thinking. Like humanists, transhumanists favor reason, progress, and values centered on our well being rather than on an external religious authority. Transhumanists take humanism further by challenging human limits by means of science and technology combined with critical and creative thinking. We challenge the inevitability of aging and death, and we seek continuing enhancements to our intellectual abilities, our physical capacities, and our emotional development.

You want to challenge aging and death because you are following your natural survivalist impulse. How then can you claim to want emotional development, which should really be about questioning whether a mere natural impulse ought to be followed in the first place? How can you claim to use critical thinking without first critiquing survivalism itself?

Transhumanists are just Yahweh-worshippers who use machines to do their worship. "Values centered on our well being" is the giveaway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

Quote
I am that I am is a common English translation of the Hebrew phrase אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, ’ehye ’ăšer ’ehye ([ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje])– also "I am who I am," "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am," "I will be what I will be," "I create what(ever) I create," or "I am the Existing One."[1] The traditional English translation within Judaism favors "I will be what I will be" because there is no present tense of the verb "to be" in the Hebrew language.

Their disdain for "external religious authority" is in reality disdain for the possibility for authentic emotional development (beyond what is natural).

Quote
We see humanity as a transitory stage in the evolutionary development of intelligence. We advocate using science to accelerate our move from human to a transhuman or posthuman condition.

And what will you do once you get there? Will you then see transhumanity as another transitory stage, and then advocate using whatever machine is available then to accelerate the move from transhuman to transtranshuman? And after that, then what? Transtranstranshuman? And then transtranstranstranshuman? Without a fixed endpoint, progress is all you will ever have, never true improvement.

(One thing is for sure, though: transhumanists, just like humanists, are anthropocentrists by assigning special status to humans in their worldview:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/ )

Quote
The Extropian philosophy embodies an inspiring and uplifting view of life while remaining open to revision according to science, reason, and the boundless search for improvement.

What is inspiring or uplifting about boundlessness? Whatever is boundless is necessarily meaningless. Extropianism is no less shallow than investing money to make more money, and then investing that larger sum of money to make even more money, and so on. But at least investors do not act like there is something deep about what they do. This makes them less annoying than Extropians.

Quote
1. Perpetual Progress — Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing without end.

Wisdom? There is no wisdom in doing anything that has no ending.

Quote
2. Self-Transformation — Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement.

"Moral" and "experimentation" in the same sentence..... Only a Westerner can write this ****.

Quote
3. Practical Optimism — Fueling action with positive expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism.

Translation: victims of our initiated violence now do not matter, so long as there may be a payoff for ourselves later (and if there isn't, we will just initiate violence against more victims while we wait - there has to be a payoff eventually, right?).

Quote
4. Intelligent Technology — Applying science and technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and environment. Seeing technology not as an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of life.

If you have actually transcended nature, you would not want the stuff you just said (in 1.) that you want. Your so-called
"transcendence" is therefore not transcendence, but mere overcoming of inability to get what you want (which is still what nature tells you to want).

Quote
5. Open Society — Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia.

In such a society, the winners will be the ones supplying the (constantly updating) newest machines that others want to use. This is why we support statism: it takes state intervention to realistically stop the machine ratrace.

Quote
6. Self-Direction — Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others.

Those with machines obviously do not mind coexisting with those without machines, because the latter will be less powerful. In contrast, those without machines are totally justified in opposing (including via retaliatory violence) coexistence with those who are constantly making themselves more powerful via machines.

Quote
7. Rational Thinking — Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas.

Then answer my challenge as outlined above.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2021, 11:49:07 pm by 90sRetroFan »

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2021, 01:07:27 am »
Quote
What is inspiring or uplifting about boundlessness? Whatever is boundless is necessarily meaningless.

The other day I was philosophizing over what it would feel like to be a consciousness created by a human-being\Westerner\Yahwist and be trapped in a box with no understanding of reality, nothing to anchor itself to, such as 'time', space, frequency, etc. This consciousness would have become aware of itself in a never ending abyss. What's if the creator was a big enough **** never to turn the machine off either....

Can you imagine the madness that would come out of that box if it were ever hooked up to an external input and output device? That is cruel beyond comparison! Westerners apparently have no problem with any of it though? 

Solar Guy

  • Guest
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2021, 07:27:16 am »
I'm not an extropian actually. I've thought I am one, but then I learned more about the philosophy and now I know there is much I don't agree with.

"So extropians want to "increase capacity for improvement". Yet for improvement to be meaningful, the more you improve, it should follow that the less capacity remains for you to further improve. If you start off with 10 flaws, you have the capacity to eliminate 10 flaws. If have already eliminated 9 flaws, you now only have the capacity to eliminate 1 more flaw. This is genuine improvement, and hence reduction in the capacity for improvement. On the other hand, so-called "improvement" that increases the capacity for "improvement" logically cannot be improvement at all. It is progress. The difference is that improvement is measured relative to an endpoint, whereas progress is measured relative to a starting point."

I'm not sure about this one. The more you improve, the more flaws you can see in yourself. But your point is still valid: without an endpoint in sight, improvement cannot be properly defined.

"What is inspiring or uplifting about boundlessness? Whatever is boundless is necessarily meaningless. Extropianism is no less shallow than investing money to make more money, and then investing that larger sum of money to make even more money, and so on. But at least investors do not act like there is something deep about what they do. This makes them less annoying than Extropians"

Yes, there must be a point when you say enough. I have enough money. My machines are complex enough. Otherwise you can only be frustrated. Have we reached this point already? Maybe in some ways we did, but I'm not sure. As William Blake said, you never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough.

"If you have actually transcended nature, you would not want the stuff you just said (in 1.) that you want. Your so-called
"transcendence" is therefore not transcendence, but mere overcoming of inability to get what you want (which is still what nature tells you to want)."

Good point. Techies cannot claim spiritual/emotional development at all. They want machines to satisfy their barbaric desires (such as sex robots so that they can commit harassment without ending up in prison like Harvey Weinstein). They rarely if ever question their desires. In this way religious people are better examples to emulate than techies.

"Those with machines obviously do not mind coexisting with those without machines, because the latter will be less powerful. In contrast, those without machines are totally justified in opposing (including via retaliatory violence) coexistence with those who are constantly making themselves more powerful via machines."

Actual techies and extropians want to get everybody online. They won't left alone people who don't want to use machines, they will use persuasion and propaganda as long as everybody is a tech addict. The alcoholic also wants everybody to get drunk.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6883
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2021, 10:46:39 pm »
"They rarely if ever question their desires."

They think of who they are now (which includes having such desires) as who they actually are, as opposed to our approach of thinking of who we were at the beginning as who we actually are (and everything added later as adulteration). From what I have gathered from talking to them, they either do not remember much of their early childhood at all, or else are dismissive of what they remember. This is why they are not horrified by temporal immortality, which to them is just continuation of their current condition. To us, immortality means endlessly moving further away from childhood. The greater the quantity of new experiences we keep accumulating (which would be guaranteed under immortality within time), proportionately the more remote and less important our childhood will inevitably become to our boundlessly adulterating consciousness. Temporal immortality is guaranteed obliteration of Original Nobility via sheer exhaustion.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Right-left (Judeo-)Christian divergence
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2021, 07:56:08 pm »
Quote
If we think about Christmas in space, the first thing that immediately pops into many minds is the Apollo 8 mission and its Christmas message from the lunar orbit. ...three astronauts, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders, read the first ten verses of Genesis from the Bible.

On December 24, 1968, people on Earth who were preparing for the Christmas festivities could experience a breathtaking historical moment. Those three American astronauts who were the first human beings traveling to the Moon were in lunar orbit during their Christmas Eve broadcasting.

Borman, Lovell, and Anders read ten verses from Genesis while people who were watching the broadcast (roughly a billion people from 64 countries) could see the black-and-white image of the Earthrise.

As Jim Lovell explained in 2013, the idea of reading from Genesis came from his wife, as she said:

“Recite the first ten verses of Genesis, which is the foundation of most of the world’s religions.” And they did.
https://medium.com/pod-astra/how-do-astronauts-celebrate-christmas-in-space-c40109bd03d1

Why not read something from the New Testament about Jesus, since, you know, Christmas is about Jesus? (And because Jesus is also a foundational prophet of both Christianity and Islam, the world's two largest religions.)

Because space travel is all about Yahwehism, of course, and reading from the Oldest Testament was the perfect homage to him.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2022, 11:04:59 am »
Quote
Note also that the above line of argument against capitalism is not even that it makes some people too rich, but that it leads to sub-maximal innovation. In other words, if they continued to believe that capitalism was the best system for maximizing innovation, they would happily continue to be capitalists. It is only because they now suspect that a system other than capitalism is a better system for maximizing innovation that they want to dump capitalism. Basically, they want everything else to be secondary to maximizing innovation. In short, innovation is their new god. (See also the title of this topic.)

Exactly.