Is Transhumanism The Next Step Of Personal Development ?

[Philip]

Self-actualization, nowadays, is reached using what I call "traditional" tools, like introspection, adopting more resourceful mindsets, improving daily habits or changing different aspects of our lives. But what if, during our lifetime, medecine, robotics and artificial intelligence became so advanced that personal development started taking on a new meaning. What if "developing ourselves" meant replacing or reprogramming parts of our body and brain ? How could brain implants, virtual reality, nanotechnology, mind uploading or machine learning help us change our personalities, our lives and our societies for the better ?

[Rito]

It is very much possible.I don't see why not.I think that will be a defining moment in the history of our species since the invention of the wheel when we first learnt tool use.Now we are using tools to upgrade our very self.And we would reach some form of singularity.

But we as a species need to overcome several big challenges before we come close to that.We need to mature ourselves more and gain some form of collective enlightenment.Also we would still have to tackle problems like scarcity of resources,global climate change and all that lot.Plus we have the insurmountable problem of whatever destructive potential all that Technological actualization could bring.Because bad guys can still get actualized.

[Philip]

8 hours ago, Rito said:

It is very much possible.I don't see why not.I think that will be a defining moment in the history of our species since the invention of the wheel when we first learnt tool use.Now we are using tools to upgrade our very self.And we would reach some form of singularity.

But we as a species need to overcome several big challenges before we come close to that.We need to mature ourselves more and gain some form of collective enlightenment.Also we would still have to tackle problems like scarcity of resources,global climate change and all that lot.Plus we have the insurmountable problem of whatever destructive potential all that Technological actualization could bring.Because bad guys can still get actualized.

Indeed. This kind of "self-actualization on steroids" can be quite destructive with the wrong motivation behind it. And you also raise the question : Is a self-actualized asshole still an asshole ? And my guess would be no. To me, it seems like most technological improvements would raise our consciousness. By that, I mean they would give us access to new truths (like X-ray vision, Google inside our minds) or give us access to hidden truths (like jailbreaking our subconscious mind, deleting our ego, disabling our human biases). And I tend to believe that raising someone's consciousness and aligning him with important truths will gradually reduce the harm he does around him. It seems like every bad habit, every destructive behavior and every violent act can be traced back to a certain lack of consciousness. A certain misunderstanding of one's impact on his surroundings, or of one's hidden desires.

So, does consciousness lead to morality ? Is truth curative ? Does "evil" grow out of confusion and misunderstanding ? Could technology get rid of violence and destruction at its root ?

[cly]

Can man control nature? Ironically, it is a question as old as time.

[Philip]

A reason why I love this subject is because of how imaginative you can get while considering the ramifications of the idea. For example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs : What if nanotechnology and mind uploading made you immortal (health needs fulfilled) ? What if it gave you so much emotional and behavioral mastery that you would never feel insecure again (security needs fulfilled) ? What if communication became so efficient that you could merge with everyone else and never feel alone or unloved anymore (affective needs fulfilled) ? What if you became so good at contributing to this new society that you would always feel like you belong there, like you matter (esteem needs fulfilled) ?

What would self-actualization mean then ? I certainly have my ideas on the subject, but a good starting point (picture below) is Malsow's extended needs, including needs like cognition, aesthetics, transcendence. But even then, when those get fulfilled, what's left to do ? 

Creating new needs ? It seems pointless.

Restarting your life to climb Maslow's hierarchy again ? It seems pointless too.

Making inanimate objects sensient, and then helping them self-actualize ? Okay, but when all the universe is sensient and actualized, what is left to do ? What is left to improve ? 

Usually at this point I tend to get ultra-speculative, almost to the point of poetry. With ideas like breaking the laws of physics, creating new universes, transcending the essence of existence itself...

But I won't spoil it all for you. It's just food for thought, so bon appetit !

[Philip]

@clyI would say yes. Without getting in a whole conundrum about "what is control" and "does free will exist", I think we already control nature. We surely don't control a lot of it yet. And we often get unwanted results when we try to. But just by typing your question, you already showed how well you can take advantage of your brain, your fingers, your computer, the internet, etc.

And each year, mankind is gaining even more control over nature. We create better conceptual models, better thinkers, better tools, better social structures. We're slowly and collectively learning how to deal with reality. So my question is not "can we control nature ?"

My question is "what part of nature will YOU spend your life trying to control ?"

[cly]

@Philip ..I guess, evolution/ intelligence.. Maybe instinct vs. intelligence..

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed". Francis Bacon

[Kelley White]

I think this might be of interest here.   

 

[Philip]

 

To the question "Does god exist ?"

I would answer "Not yet"

- Ray Kurzweil

Edited February 24, 2016 by Philip
Removed link to copyright material, msg sent.

[Water]

While I agree there are some huge benefits. What's stopping these "tools"  from realizing they don't actually need us anymore. Furthermore what happens when they feel superior. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates have all come out to publicly speak against A.I. “humans, limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded by A.I.” -  Stephen Hawking. As the dominant species on planet earth I would consider us a bunch of assholes and bullies. Most of us have no respect for this planet and it's inhabitants. I think our not so distant A.I. Overlords would see us as a threat. 

[ayokolomo]

What if it has already happend and we some how forgot? 

 

 

[Philip]

@Water You've just expressed the best argument I know against the development of AI. I totally agree. But I don't think it necessarily is an argument against transhumanism. Transhumanists don't simply wish to develop AI, they want to become AI.

They know how dangerous it is to have super-intelligent self-programming nano-robot swarms flying around without human supervision. It's like creating gods. You create something that is, by definition, out of control. Instead, why not become a god. Then you're the one in control. 

Obviously, with this point of view, new issues are raised. Like "who will get the upgrades first ?", "will the transhumans stay compassionate towards humans ?", "will billions of people merge into one non-competing super-intelligence ?"

But let's create another topic for that

Edited February 22, 2016 by Philip

[Water]

@ayokolomo  Interesting theory!

15 hours ago, Philip said:

Instead, why not become a god. Then you're the one in control. 

I honestly don't think we are ready, Most people around me bicker over who got the best gator kill on swamp people. But, imagine how much we could learn from A.I., Unbiased opinions about literally anything. What would they have to say about human philosophy?

[abrakamowse]

I think trans-humanism  is another ego game to not see the Truth. 

[Kelley White]

20 hours ago, ayokolomo said:

What if it has already happend and we some how forgot? 

 

 

Very interesting @ayokolomo  I like that wee theory, you can make great stories from it.

[Kelley White]

2 hours ago, Water said:

I honestly don't think we are ready, Most people around me bicker over who got the best gator kill on swamp people. But, imagine how much we could learn from A.I., Unbiased opinions about literally anything. What would they have to say about human philosophy?

I think I just spit my tea all over my keyboard!  That's Funny!  @Water

[Kelley White]

11 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

I think trans-humanism  is another ego game to not see the Truth.

@abrakamowse, Please, elaborate upon your line of thought here?    (I love that whether people are pro or anti Transhumanism theory are willing to engage in the discussion.  I wrote a piece awhile back called, "The Toys are Coming."  As @Water so adeptly points out, we have folks still living in indigenous cultures and folks living in the land of posthumanism and all lands in between.  

Ethics, development of these advanced technologies and the roles they will or will not play? How will humans cope with this radical shift and an exponential singularity which becomes a super fluidity emotionally and pragmatically?   Will we adapt? 

@Philip, your ethical concerns are genuine.  You might like viewing Lifeboat Foundation.   http://lifeboat.com/ex/main

[abrakamowse]

Maybe I am wrong @Kelley White but I think that once you are enlightened your true potential will come to light. You will be able to have an enhanced brain, no need to do it with sophisticated technologies.

I think that it is possible for humans to improve their cognitives capacities artificially, but without the correct spiritual alignment I think that could be more damaging than good. I don't know.

I'm in favor of creating that technology to help people who has disability problems, but I don't see it very well to use it on humans to try to become like artificial "gods". I don't know how to call it, trans-humans? 

Edited February 22, 2016 by abrakamowse

[Philip]

12 hours ago, Kelley White said:

an exponential singularity which becomes a super fluidity emotionally and pragmatically

Interesting, can you please explain why you chose the words "emotionally and pragmatically" ?

And just to be clear, I'm not afraid of any god-like AI, as long as I'm invited to the party

[Philip]

@abrakamowse First of all, enlightenment can surely be reached through technology. We're not there yet, but as we're improving our understanding and mastery of the human brain, enlightenment will become as simple as a Windows update.

So yes, transhumanism is an ego game, but it can still dissolve the ego. In fact, it is as much of an ego game as any other enlightenment method you could come up with. Enlightenment can only be reached through ego games, when you think of it.

Secondly, I agree that transhumanism without enlightenment is dangerous.

Thirdly, I'm curious about your arguments for this claim :

13 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

I'm in favor of creating that technology to help people who have disability problems, but I don't see it very well to use it on humans to try to become like artificial "gods".