Hi ebb101,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback - it is greatly appreciated. I knew when I wrote the blog that it would be provocative, especially my opinion of Kurzweil and his position.

First of all, I realize that many people who are fans of simulation theory are also fans of singularity theory and Kurzweil. I will certainly acknowledge that I am not aware of all aspects and offshoots of the transhumanism movement; however, everything that I read in that area has an underlying assumption of materialism/strict atheism/determinism/objective realism (an admittedly cursory overview of the links and individuals that you mention don’t appear to change that). I have been consistent (since my book was published) in my assertion that the singularity will not occur in 2045 (or ever) as predicted. That said, I see the inevitable evolution of human capabilities, including mental ones, due to integration of technological enhancements and this is the part of transhumanism that I believe has plenty of validity and room for discussion. The part of transhumanism that I take issue with is the immortality concept.

The singularity is a fun and exciting topic to think about, but I believe that it is obsolete thinking, similar to the SETI enthusiasts who still cling to the idea that we will be able to discover ETs via their radio waves. Anyone who is really paying attention to the results of recent quantum experiments has to recognize that objective reality is untenable, which fundamentally destroys the underlying foundation of the Singularity. Instead, there is a new model, which the transhumanists have not integrated into their thinking. Your feedback definitely makes me want to include a larger treatment of transhumanism and the singularity in my upcoming book. For that, I thank you. I do fear that with each new topic that I take on in the book, it will postpone its release. I need to keep it, and my time, concise and focused, but I agree that the singularity concept needs to be addressed. Perhaps I will be able to cover it in greater detail in a blog post as well.

I stand by my issue with Kurzweil. I acknowledge his contributions to technology and to the popularization of the Singularity and Transhumanism movement. However, I think the reputation is overblown in proportion to the value of these contributions. As one small example, the entire idea of the technological singularity can be traced back to Stanislaw Ulam in 1958. It was well developed by Frank Tipler in his 1994 book “the Physics of Immortality” long before Kurzweil jumped on the bandwagon. At that time, he was still writing about AI. Claiming that his 77 supplements reverses aging is ludicrous. And basing a philosophy on the foundation of the unproven existence of a deterministic universe is just a point of view that belies a huge mass of evidence to the contrary. So, no, I am not impressed. His assertion of "the universe waking up" is just a rehash of Tipler - "humans/machines expanding into the universe"

Your thoughts about death are interesting. My comments about the buffet line were meant to be humorous - I have yet to determine if such humor hits the mark anywhere other than in my own mind, lol. However, I do TEND to believe in a reincarnation model. Core to that model is the idea of continuous improvement of your consciousness or soul. I don’t say anything about “transcendence”, although I do have some ideas on the topic, I have not published them yet. However, the cycle of reincarnation is necessary for the evolution of the soul. Stopping it by machine-like immortality may allow for a continued albeit much slower evolution during this one life, I believe that it runs counter to the entire construct of ATTI (all that there is). ATTI is NOT the physical universe that we think we see. It is a bigger grander concept. Physical immortality could be likened to, in an MMORPG, for example, taking all of the damage that has been done to your avatar and continue to muddle through the game with a compromised position, rather than start the game over with a new set of knowledge that helps you develop your position faster.

Would love to hear your and other people’s further thinking on this! :)

fair point about the snake oil reference. i'll make a change to the blog. thanks.

Absolutely. Thanks for adding that, Bot. Words can so limiting. The use of "belief" can be hard and definitive (as in "I am certain that...") or soft and qualified (as in "at this moment, I tend to believe that..."). I try to approach things from a scientific standpoint. Given a preponderance of evidence supporting THIS hypothesis vs. THAT one, I TEND to believe THIS one. If the evidence shifts, so will my understanding and tendency to believe.

How do you feel about "knowing"? Can anybody truly "know"? I proposed early in my first book that there is little if anything that we can truly be certain of. Maybe our awareness and that's it? But people who have had spiritual experiences, NDEs, and such, claim to have a newfound knowing about reality.

Materialists are a huge problem with their narrow-minded thinking and attitudes. and unfortunately, materialists seem to dominate these fields. AI, futurism, computer science, they really do rule these subjects. And projects like The Human Brain Project and OpenWorm are run by materialists too. It's very frustrating. It would be nice to see more of a mixture of individuals involved in these projects.

The only way I can see things changing is if something like The Phenomena Project is a success and it changes the current scientific paradigm. It does appear to have huge potential this endeavour and the Phenomena team do seem to be gathering evidence of paranormal phenomena at an alarming rate.

Problem is mainstream science will probably just brush it aside and debunk it all. People like Chris French already are deliberately ignoring this pioneering project. I know, because I've spoken with him.

I'd just like to add that the LIGO experiment hunts for gravitational waves that are different from those sought by BICEP2. The gravitational waves LIGO is looking for are thought to arise every so often in the modern universe around us. BICEP2, on the other hand, targets primordial gravitational waves born in the very early universe, which by all accounts, still remain elusive.

Gravitational waves do not 'prove' the Big Bang (see No. 4 here), and so the VR concept of the Universe remains intact.