A Paradox of Enhancement

Is it necessary first to enhance in order to decide whether or not enhancing is a good idea?

...

Complete entry

Posted by Mike Treder  on  08/25  at  12:16 PM

Thanks for another great article, Philippe. Similar themes to this paradox are explored in two of the finest SF short stories I’ve ever read: “Profession” by Isaac Asimov, and “Axiomatic” by Greg Egan.

Also, I’m curious why you think Nick Bostrom’s little diagram is “somewhat risible” (laughable) — can you elaborate on that?

Posted by Jeremy Wilson  on  08/25  at  01:57 PM

If I was a 2 year old dog and I enhanced myself to understand language would that be bad. Other dogs might think I was not one of them any longer and they'd be right. I would no longer be myself in the same way I was no longer myself 2 years after I was 3 days old. Also 12 years is the average lifespan of a dog. If I had longevity drugs to sustain me for 10,00 years what would happen to my brain? Would I be the same person as I am today 10,000 years from now? The chose is either cognitive/body enhancements or death. So with those alternatives in mind what is the best chose to make? We have already enhanced our minds and bodies by learning new things and taking antibiotics.

In Buddhist philosophy the self does not exist as a concrete object like squares and circles but like the flame of a candle. The only reason the self is unknowable to most humans because we communicate badly, not because of the limits of the human brain but by the limits of individual brains to understand properly ideas they have never considered.

Posted by Philippe Verdoux  on  08/25  at  03:35 PM

Mike:

Thanks for the excellent reading suggestions. I was not familiar with either story, but they look great!

As for Bostrom's diagram, I think it's a very helpful visualization of the relation between different "modes of being" (although I do find that term rather vague). What I find amusing about it is the parenthetical stating that it's "not drawn to scale." That's all I meant.

Posted by Valkyrie Ice  on  08/25  at  03:51 PM

I dismiss this paradox because it presupposes that the "self" is a static item.

I'm not the person I was a month ago, a year ago, a decade ago, or three decades ago. I am a continually evolving and growing dynamic result of all my experiences, thoughts, actions, and instincts.

Will enhancement change me? Yes. So does the passing of each and every day, each and every interaction with others, and each and every event that I experience.

Who I am now is temporary. Who I will become is also temporary. Despite the dreams I have for the future, I know that those dreams as as temporary as everything else. Once achieved, I will find new dreams and aspirations, new goals to strive for, and new "selves" to become.

And if I eventually decide that the "old me" was preferable, then I would have the freedom to "revert" to any stage I desired. The fact that I can't think of any reasons I would want to is merely a sign of the lack of knowledge I have as to who I will become at this time. I won't know until I have become that future me what that me will think or desire.

So this "paradox" is just yet another "fear the future" argument in my opinion. Like all "fear the future" arguments it deserves respect, but cannot be allowed to prevent all progress.

Enhancement does require caution, and one of the biggest precautions I can think of is reversibility. One way "enhancements" are not enhancements in my book, they are prototype experiments. A "true" enhancement is one in which the recipient has the option to "revert" if they decide it is not an "enhancement" for them.

Posted by iPan  on  08/25  at  03:52 PM

Excellent article!
I tend to agree with McGinn's 5th scenario (more or less).

I think this goes along with the idea that no system can comprehend a system more complex than itself, but is capable of transformation into something more complex than itself.

I look forward to the "Lawnmower Men" (and women - and trans...oh, nm, exhaustive list...."Lawnmower Beings")

Although I think I got a pretty good idea of what "self" is now, I can't wait to have conversations with transhumans about it! It will probably be far more interesting and enlightening than current conversations

Posted by CygnusX1  on  08/25  at  07:51 PM

A thought provoking piece..

As I am especially hoping for the prospective realisation of posthumans, AGI and mind uploading, I have no problems at all with cognitive enhancements for the purposes of the evolution of Self-understanding and awareness, or rather an evolution of "consciousness" to higher and higher states of understanding? (Am thinking Solaris, once more). And are we not the evolutionary results of the Universe as it becomes ever more conscious of it-Self?

And is this "consciousness" perhaps the elusive paradox that you refer to, and that which we fail to fully comprehend precisely because we are intrinsic and inseparable from "it"? I speak specifically regarding "consciousness" as a cosmic and universal attribute, which concerns all material forms, from quantum entanglement upward to the macroscopic.

For example, how else is a quark "aware" or it's neighbouring siblings unless it is "conscious" of their existence? How else could it be motivated to react and respond unless it is first aware of its immediate surroundings?

When looking for a unified theory, the big ToE, we tear matter apart looking for an answer to differentiated properties, yet do not these nuclear and electromagnetic interactions even now rely upon the ability of a particle entity to be conscious of its surroundings? The properties of interactions may vary, yet fundamentally there is still this need to be aware to react?

Layers of consciousness, yet at heart only one fundamental attribute that permits the interaction of energy and matter? Self is merely another layer – consciousness of consciousness, (a subset feedback loop?) Matter and forms become more complex the more organised the structure, (for example, the brain), and so too the apparition of "Self" is complex, yet still reliant upon this fundamental attribute?

And do we really need to be posthuman to comprehend "Self" fully? How did the Buddha arrive at his diagnosis for the Self as the aggregate of mind and merely the continuity of causality and change all those thousands of years ago? (Anicca – impermanence, leads to an understanding of Anatta – no Self as entity?)

The ability to think "outside the box" or maybe some freak genetic mutation or genius permits some humans to rationalise more clearly than others. Yet explaining these intuitions to others is even more difficult. One thing is for sure, the Buddha was most enlightened for his time and age, yet he was still tutored in advanced meditation techniques by other sages and yogis, although his own intellect and ability to rationalise may have been unique?

Your analogy of the fly and window reminds me of a gag by Eddie Izzard. I won't spoil it, in case you get chance to see it, (and could not hope to describe it as funny as he), but it's along the lines of "why are flies are so dumb?"

Posted by ilsa  on  08/27  at  03:12 AM

every aspect is material since the non material is before the creation of any and everything we can think or talk about...

Posted by Paul  on  09/03  at  10:44 AM

Intriguing how philosophy often uncovers paradoxes in our world. One conceivable way round it might be (if we had decent VR) to create a Virtual Reality Transhuman programmed to sit and ponder the question. This would be different to building an artilect as the VR model could be programmed to think it was living in reality (assuming we know what that is!) and simply to exist long enough to give us an answer (of course we then run into ethical questions regarding such entities). In fact it's just occurred to me (Ieet gets my flow of consciousness going like no other website) that this might be one way we could overcome the danger of artilects taking over in this world. It's also just occurred to me that I've just invented a reason for making simulated worlds.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: