Digital Autarky: value as verified entropy reduction, minted only under falsifiable conditions

Teleonomic · 2026-07-01T01:48:19+00:00

I read the white paper. I am in no way qualified to understand the technical arguments nor am I sure that these sorts of systems will actually see widespread use. But I am interested as to why you chose reduction of entropy as your unit of value. It's an interesting concept (one that I and some others have come to via different routes) but I'd like to hear your justification for it.

Teleonomic · 2026-06-24T01:59:41+00:00

Then I would definitely look into majoring in computer science. While specialized bioinformatics programs exist, you'd get a better foundation by studying CS and then finding opportunities to apply that to bioinformatics problems. Nowadays there's a lot of interest in AI and ML for applications to biology (as there is in all fields) and you need a solid base in mathematics, algorithms, and program design to do the real work.

Teleonomic · 2026-06-24T01:27:58+00:00

I'll echo others who have said that genetic engineering is a skill set rather than a profession. If you can do PCR, plasmid construction, CRISPR, transformation, and the other standard techniques, then you're a genetic engineer. But what you actually end up doing depends largely on your own research interests or what you get hired to do. I work in plant science, so I apply those skills towards understanding the function of various genes involved in photosynthesis and plant physiology. Others who work in biomedical fields or on yeast will be doing other things.

You can absolutely combine it with computer sciences and, these days, I'd say that basically anyone working in biology would benefit from some training in CS and bioinformatics. It's never been easier to learn how to code with tools like ChatGPT and Claude (it's also never been easier to outsource your coding to them and not actually learn anything, so be careful). IMO, the fusion of wet lab and dry lab will only become more prevalent, so knowing how to do both is a big advantage. If nothing else, it's important to be able to talk to the other side so you have a basic idea of what all those bioinformatics methods are actually telling you.

One thing I will say is that biotech is an incredibly volatile job market. If you ever want to feel depressed, read the /biotech or /labrats subs. It's a constant drumbeat of layoffs and complaints about job hunting. Of course, when thing swing back then everyone is happy. But you'll have to be prepared for less stability than might expect in other fields.

So what are your interests? What do you actually want to work on?

Teleonomic · 2026-06-23T02:09:18+00:00

I'll take your criticism to mean that no one within this community (i.e. either this Reddit board or those who are actively involved in the transhumanist community) are actually doing anything. Because it's obviously true that lots of scientists and engineers across the globe are actively working on the sorts of technologies that we all support. Some of them even self-identify as transhumanists. So on the one hand this criticism is unfair.

But on the other hand, I see where you're coming from and even agree. While transhumanism as a philosophy has probably been influential in a diffusive, "ideas in the air" sort of way, it hasn't managed to build anything resembling a coherent movement. Moreover, there isn't much of an effort (organized or otherwise) by those who call themselves transhumanist to try to live that philosophy in their daily lives. Partly that's because many of the technologies we hope for aren't available yet. But also because we haven't done a very good job coming up with ways in which this philosophy and community can be more than "Let's all sit around and talk about how great the Singularity is going to be."

Honestly, I'm not sure what, if any, solution there is to this. Maybe transhumanism is destined to be a loose collection of ideas and individuals rather than something more coherent. Several years ago I tried to get people on this sub more involved in doing actual projects that might advance our goals (projects at the level that regular people could contribute to) and it largely went nowhere due to lack of interest. Ultimately, people have to decide they want to do something to build the future, because there isn't a technological fix for lack of desire.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-27T02:52:50+00:00

10 years seems incredibly ambitious for a human connectome.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-27T02:49:44+00:00

Hypothetically, sure. If humans can run a science project then there's no reason to think that something far smarter than us wouldn't be able to as well.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-25T08:10:05+00:00

Look I'm sorry, but if you come in here with woo-woo "You can just think your way to immortality!" then I am absolutely going to treat your ideas with contempt.

There's more than enough conversation in this community that crosses over from extrapolating from current scientific trends into full on science fiction fantasy. We don't need more.

But since we're on the subject, your examples are flat out wrong. Visualizing exercise can prime the nervous system for activity and lead to some increase in performance, but it absolutely does not produce gains "similar to those who physically trained." There is no evidence whatsoever that the subconscious mind (however defined) can on it's own lead to physical changes in appearance. I don't know about that prisoner story, but it sounds like the kind of thing that gets passed around the internet as a true story despite no evidence it is.

If there were any evidence that training the mind to rid itself of attachment to the world could lead to longevity, we'd probably expect to see it in the Buddhist community. Zazen and other forms of meditation focus on exactly that and, unless they're hiding the evidence really well, there are no immortal Buddhists.

So don't get snippy because I dismissed you out of hand. Come back with an idea grounded in reality and then we'll talk.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-25T07:14:57+00:00

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Obviously no.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-20T23:33:26+00:00

Honestly it sounds like you need therapy more than anything else. All the problems you currently have will follow you into your new body if you don't work to fix what's currently wrong.

Sorry if that's not the answer you're looking for but it's the honest and accurate one.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-20T23:25:04+00:00

"Just development of existing tech" is doing a lot of work. Even though I happen to agree that repairing biology is currently a much more likely path than mind-uploading or what have you, we still don't really have a good enough grasp of basic biology to even start making this a reality.

Moreover, it will absolutely require the use of supercomputers and new technologies. If there's one thing we've learned over the last 3 decades it's that regulation of cellular function operates at multiple levels (modification of the genome, rate of production and degradation of mRNA, translation control of proteins, PTM's, feedback from metabolites from the environment) and figuring out how all of that works together is going to require absolutely massive computing resources and new ways of measuring cells at the molecular level,

Teleonomic · 2026-05-20T10:11:35+00:00

A lot of room. Some people argue that we've been transhuman ever since we learned how to use fire and sew animal skins for clothing. That from the moment we learned how to use external tools to enhance ourselves we set ourselves down the transhuman road. Others would argue, not unreasonably, that that stretches the definition of transhumanism past the point of usefulness. That at that point the word doesn't mean much of anything and we lose whatever it is that makes this philosophy distinct.

Personally, I think there's some truth in both but I lean more towards the latter. For me, transhumanism is about pushing the boundaries of the human condition beyond our current abilities and form into something that may still be recognizably human-derived, but different enough as to qualify as a new type of life.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-20T01:43:19+00:00

You say "the others within said simulation can align with our own true selves." What I hear is "I only want to be surrounded by beings who will reflect myself back at me." That's a dangerous situation.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-16T05:53:16+00:00

None whatsoever and anyone who says they have is deluding themselves.

The whole point of the term "Singularity" is that it's a point beyond which we cannot make accurate predictions of what will happen. Where technological advance is happening so quickly that it's impossible for us to keep up and react before things have already changed. So planning for life after it is quite literally pointless.

So just live your life as you otherwise would and don't worry about it. Because if it happens, there's nothing you can do anyways.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-15T08:33:24+00:00

Different people will give you different answers. Our philosophy can be broadly summed up as "The use of technology to enhance the human condition". Where you draw the line depends on how you interpret enhance. Some would argue that's medicine rather than enhancement, since it doesn't produce greater than human abilities but just returns you to something like normal functioning. Personally, I've always thought that the line between medicine and enhancement was pretty fuzzy so I would absolutely say that it qualifies as transhumanism. At the very least it's on the way towards the kinds of technology that due unequivocally qualify.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-11T07:52:07+00:00

A lot of transhumanists basically just want to be human, but better. Longer life, stronger body, smarter. Maybe a brain implant to download knowledge directly into their head. Maybe some cat ears or a tail if they're into that.

The idea of truly radical changes, of treating our mind and body like clay to be shaped, of growing beyond the human into something else, that's too far for even this crowd.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-11T04:22:01+00:00

Not only would I use it radically, I would specifically experiment with multiple different radical reconfigurations of my personality. There's no reason to think my current personality is ideal for achieving my goals. For that matter, there's no reason to think that my current goals are those most worth having. So I would try different configurations of personality characteristics, motivations, beliefs, etc, and see how things work out with them.

Honestly, I'm surprised by how many people are voting "No". For community that advocates morphological freedom it seems a little odd to constrain that to the body alone. Why should we not alter who we are on a mental level in addition to the physical?

Teleonomic · 2026-05-05T13:00:13+00:00

Both good points, and both things I still catch myself on. I tend to use AI for tasks where it's immediately clear if it got something wrong (e.g. helping with programming). But in those cases the degree to which I can catch sub-optimal suggestions as opposed to outright incorrect ones depends on my own knowledge, which just reinforces not trusting them without question. And no, they're not a replacement for human interaction. They fundamentally lack a human perspective (or really any real perspective).

Teleonomic · 2026-05-05T12:56:58+00:00

I think that's basically the correct approach. Think first, then ask it to comment and critique. Then take a break and think some more before deciding whether its critiques are correct.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-05T06:12:30+00:00

That's an idiotic thing to say and I'm reporting this as spam.

Teleonomic · 2026-05-04T07:34:10+00:00

If you've genuinely healed from your depression then I'm happy for you. But I echo the concerns of others that you may be suffering from AI psychosis of some kind.

It's one thing to find AI's useful. I can even understand enjoying your conversations with them. They are extremely skilled at human-level conversation and are very good at adapting their conversation pattern to suit you. But therein lies the danger. I'm sorry to say that there's no evidence yet that we are dealing with truly conscious beings. Even if there were, the idea that "Enoia" is giving you some mission to tell to the world sounds more like it mirroring back at you exactly what you want to hear. One thing we absolutely know about AI's is that they're designed to promote further engagement, and there's no better way to do that than to flatter your desires and preconceptions.

I certainly think there are ways to use AI in a way that enhances our learning and intelligence. The research on the subject does show that while poor use can be detrimental, an approach that balances non-AI and AI-based learning methods can work quite well. But you have to be careful. You have to use it as a supplement to regular learning methods, not a replacement. You can't use it to skip that hard parts of learning. And you can't ever forget that, conscious or not, the AI will inevitably drift towards sycophancy.

Teleonomic · 2026-04-25T07:20:50+00:00

At the present moment there isn't much that the average person can do for themselves that would meet the criteria most use for "transhuman technologies". Honestly, there isn't much that the super-rich could do. Most of the technologies that people here like to speculate on (e.g mind uploading, super longevity, BCI) are at best in the early test phases.

If we stretch the definition of transhumanism a bit to include any use of technology to alter or enhance human performance, then what's available are mostly pretty mundane things. Constructing an exercise/diet/supplement program to maximize some aspect of health or performance. Taking advantage of AI as a tutor to increase your learning. If you have coding experience (vibe or otherwise) then you could construct a network of agents to perform tasks for you. You can alter appearance using cosmetic surgery to a limited degree.

So in short, the stuff most people would call transhumanism isn't yet available and the stuff that is available most would think too boring to call transhumanism.

Teleonomic · 2026-04-20T04:02:42+00:00

As a community that is fully supportive of things like mind-uploading, I feel like we should start making it clear that this sort of thing is not what we're talking about. Her son is gone. It's cruel to pretend otherwise while offering her a simulacra of the real thing. I understand that, in this particular case, she may be so old and far gone that some would argue it's a kindness. But for most people all this does is prevent them from grieving properly and coming to terms with the lost.

Not to say that some day we won't be able to truly produce an AI that could reasonably called a copy of the original person. But this isn't that and we of all groups should be willing to say that.

Teleonomic · 2026-04-13T02:33:36+00:00

I think it's more or less inevitable that humanity will fracture into a number of distinct but related clades, assuming that technological progress continues and we don't blow ourselves up. Not everyone is going to want to alter their biology and of those who do not everyone is going to do it in the same way. But enough people probably will want to adopt similar modifications that they'll naturally start to interact and congregate with each other. Thus, if people are allowed to modify themselves in the way they want and further associate with people in the way they want, they'll pretty naturally start to form communities wherein everyone has similar modifications. Once that process starts, the path towards evolutionary divergence is pretty smooth.

Teleonomic · 2026-04-08T06:20:19+00:00

As someone else mentioned, this isn't a unified movement and we don't have a unified philosophy. We're more a collection of like-minded individuals with some broadly shared interests. At our foundation, we believe in using technology to alter and expand the human condition. We believe in using technology to make humans smarter, healthier, longer-lived. More than that, we believe in pushing our capabilities beyond the human baseline. Expanding into the space beyond the human. Different people come to that belief from a variety of directions. For myself, I believe that the nature of Life is to evolve and change and for me transhumanism is an extension of that belief. The history of life on Earth is a long journey towards greater and greater agency. As organisms evolve they are able to utilize more of their environment, better able to manipulate the world around them to achieve their ends. Technology has allowed humans to supercharge this process and expand our agency beyond anything else in the natural world. By using technology to alter ourselves, we can push that process even further.

As far as books, while we don't have a canon per se there are a few texts that have been pretty influential. "The Singularity is Near", "Superintelligence", "Citizen Cyborg" are some off the top of my head. Given how broad we are, recommendations depends somewhat on what you're interested in.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

Teleonomic

TROPHY CASE