in Search
0 members online

Dry Observer

Human Frailty and Superhuman Strengths

I was reading an older podcast interview on NeoFiles recently, in which R.U. Sirius was talking to Michael Chorost, author Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human. Chorost's book is about how having a computer implanted in his skull partially restored his hearing.

But in the midst of this interview, Chorost offered an interesting observation. He noted that the "deaf community" is an extremely close and welcoming subculture, and that many deaf people view the hearing-enabled as the handicapped members of society. Apparently, "listening" to someone when you are deaf and must read their sign language gestures or their lips requires much more active engagement in the conversation than simply listening to them with your ears.
Now, there are evidently other reasons why the deaf may have a particularly strong community -- a robust support network is ultimately a survival advantage for those plugged into it. But Chorost's point that this "disabled group" might actually have a profound emotional/social advantage over the rest of us is a critical issue for those of us interested in any form of radical human enhancement.

Why? Let us take another example. Many people envision an ultimate intellect as being purely rational, its logic untainted by emotional baggage. Yet arguably, a lack of emotion, particularly a lack of emotional bonds with other people, is a hallmark of the classic psychopath.

Is it possible that we could successfully create a truly enhanced human being and yet sabotague an element of the psyche that most would deem critical to being merely an advanced (or even adequate) human being? We could, of course, argue that even if such capacities were lost, our first-generation, engineered, "posthuman entity" would eventually rediscover these gifts, if only because their mind would be capable of looking at so many aspects of human and posthuman intelligence, and they would inevitably see the value in any lost abilities.

But honestly, if we look at the "weak superintelligence" derived from, say, accelerating the speed of someone's brain to phenomenal levels, one has to ask: Would a psychopath learn to value their missing compassion? Even if they had a long time to think about it?

Would the hearing-enabled, in our world, willingly render themselves deaf, even if they knew they would be embraced by a community and circle of friends some may bitterly miss in their own lives? Or would someone used to using a motivation/energy enhancer such as modafinil choose to lose their edge after they came to accept its existence as part of their lives, and were no longer wistful for, or frequently reminded of, the days when they were more emotionally balanced?

The answer to that last question is probably yes more often than not, but the point remains, it is possible to have a completely worthwhile human enhancement that in some ways limits us -- whether emotionally, or in terms of our creativity, spontaneity, mental precision, charisma, sense of humor, empathic skills, etc.

This reservation, far from constituting a reason to avoid all human enhancement, may in fact be a reason to pursue a very, very wide variety of human enhancement research projects. We appear to have a formidable range of augmentation options available to us already -- either present now or immanent -- so we should be aware of potential drawbacks in each and every enhancement technology and discipline.

Some people may consider particular weaknesses to be advantges -- the ambitious worker who embraces the monomaniacal focus of modafinil, the calm individual who enjoys the greater serenity of deep meditation, the angry youth who has no problem with the violence and attitude of a hyper-aggressive school of the martial arts. But faced with a sufficiently broad array of options, first-adopter, human-enhancement enthusiasts will be able to choose those augmentations that work best for their goals and their lives. And like a deaf teen or adult weighing a cochlear implant, they will be able to measure what would be gained against what they may be giving up.


Future Imperative
Published Sunday, May 07, 2006 8:39 PM by Dry Observer

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

 

Mr. Farlops wrote on May 9, 2006 5:59 AM

It's sounds like an optimization problem. To enhance some abilitity we may have to minimize or give up others. Making your desktop computer quieter may make it hotter so you can't overclock it. Overclocking means more noise and a bulky case and so on. You can turn off all the eye candy of a GUI and, it runs faster but looks ugly. Improve the safety of cars by adding weight and you lose fuel efficiency. Etc. etc. etc.

There may be ways to ultimately maximize the performance envelope but given a particular envelope, you have to give up one thing to gain another.

As you explained deafness forces people to pay close attention to body language and facial expression and this trains their brains to be more emotionally aware and careful. Thus their emotional lives are richer the radio jargon of air traffic controllers or chat sessions on the Internet.

We had a interesting discussion here many months ago about the idea of retaining mental illnesses like megomania, sociopathy and delusions of grandeur because it made for good military leaders.

Is this our future?
 

Dry Observer wrote on May 9, 2006 2:56 PM

Good question. I don't know what specific mental quirks and outright illnesses have survival advantages. Hopefully by the time we start repairing genetic errors in the unborn, we will have a much better sense of the advantages and disadvantages of the traits we can modify.

I'm pointing out the potential drawbacks of some augmentations not just to encourage research into a wide array of potential enhancements, but to point out that we really need an in-depth assessment of as many human mental and biological factors as we can manage. Armed with that knowledge, we will be able to weigh the cost-benefit ratios of many dramatic modifications -- especially biological and cybernetic ones.

Once you're on modafinil, or have altered your baby's genetic predisposition towards "frivolous quirkiness," or have turned yourself into a musclebound mega-Adonis, it may be too late for objective logic. But right now, we still have time, if we choose to use it.

-----

I would like to add, regarding generals, that antisocial tendencies are not necessarily a requirement for a successful military leader. General Wesley Clark led a NATO force to victory over the Serbian military in Kosovo -- despite facing anti-aircraft systems advanced enough and skillfully used enough to shoot down an F-  stealth bomber -- without losing a single one of his troops (including all allied NATO forces) on the battlefield.

And the architect of that intervention, Wesley Clark, despite winning perhaps the most overwhelming victory in both U.S. and modern military history, seems pretty well adjusted. Though he is, admittedly, considered highly intelligent.
 

Mr. Farlops wrote on May 9, 2006 8:08 PM

Eisenhower and Saladin are at least two clever military figures with strong humanitarian tendencies. Most military leaders and rank and file combatants aren't sociopaths, emotionally disconnected or insane.

The vast majority of them are ordinary folks trained and thrown into chaotic and crazy circumstances. They only kill to win the battle or the war. They only kill to stay alive and complete their missions and because they are ordered to. They don't enjoy it at all. The line goes, "We don't murder, we kill--only because we have to. The enemy is the same."

Mentally healthy military people invent all kinds of coping mechanisms to deal with the hard reality of their profession. This is usually sufficient.

If they're lucky, they'll return home and lead entirely healthy lives with few mental problems--aside from flashbacks, attacks of depression and remorse, trigger anesthesia and shell shock, sometimes not even that. Most of the cope with it by not talking about it at all, except to commiserate with other veterans.

But, there is something to be said for a doomsday terror weapon that consists of an entire legion of heartless, fearless, highly intelligent and certifiably insane maniacs. Give this brigade lots of support and advanced weaponry and they could get quite creative.  Various governments, under deep secrecy, have tried explore this line of reseach, for example Project MK-Ultra.

Intentionally building such soldiers might be something that will be outlawed by treaties one day--if only as human/sophont rights abuse issue.

But I'm totally derailing your subject. Let's get back to your points:

In these early days of gene doping, smart drugs, steroid use, gene therapy for fetuses and assistive technology for people with disabilities, many of these enhancement options are one way choices that are hard or currently impossible to reverse.

In the mid to far future it seems likely that all of these enhancement paths would be completely reversible.

But even if they were, we still have the optimization problem: for a given performance envelope, we can only maximize so  many features before losing quality in other features. We could maximize the entire envelope so the gains will be comparitively large and the losses comparitively smaller but there will always be unavoidable trade-offs.
 

dre.velation wrote on May 10, 2006 3:22 AM

It always depends on how much control you have, creative control of course.  

Making your desktop computer quieter may make it hotter so you can't overclock it (wont need to overclock with a quadruple processing motherboard). Overclocking means more noise and a bulky case and so on (get two towers, isn’t' your computer life worth it??). You can turn off all the eye candy of a GUI and, it runs faster but looks ugly (in the future maybe the screen will have the processor). Improve the safety of cars by adding weight and you lose fuel efficiency (fuel cell, electric, and magnetic roads, hey the future is unpredictable). Etc. etc. etc.

There are enough resources to create all this and it is within the current technological limits.  What is not abundant is the compromise level amongst the people in control.  It's all capitalism.  (beautified bullshit)  But it works.

“if we look at the "weak superintelligence" derived from, say, accelerating the speed of someone's brain to phenomenal levels, one has to ask: Would a psychopath learn to value their missing compassion? Even if they had a long time to think about it?”

NO :)  You don't know what you have until it's gone, and you'll never know what it's like if you've never had it.  

So, if this is "weak superintelligence" what would be strong or intense or heavy superintelligence?  Would it be multitasking X10??

You see, the great thing about our society is knowledge which is passed on from generation to generation.  This helps stabilize and compliment our current conditions.  We are what we choose to remember, that's a fact, whether we're conscious of it or not.  So when it comes to emotional/social acceptable behavior/thinking, it's all about what is continued to be enforced.  

Example:  Send a time machine to 1950, bring back a person, let's see how he/she acts.  Depending on where in the world he's put, there's going to be different culture shocks.  Let's say he's a business man, bring him to the current business world, and let him learn on his own.  There will probably be a serious personality shock.  (both for the individual and the environment)  Take this 1950's businessman to a peaceful 3rd world country, and he might have less of a shock, because he'll assume the superiority role and that will empower him.  

The point I’m making is that things change.  Things have changed in the past 50 years; things have changed in the past 10 years, in the past year, the past day, the past minute...etc.  But of course we are safe because we remember what is enforced.  Consciously or Sub-consciously.  

Drug use is not entirely the answer.  Just look as Tony Robbins, that guy is a talking machine.  And he does not take meth or ridlen or cocaine.  He's just self programmed and conditioned to exert extreme amounts of energy through speech.  And the energy is not just in the velocity, it's in the visualization, the recall detail, the story telling, the suspended meaning anticipation, the word preview and delivery (100 words later)  and it's all unscripted.  Just spontaneous.  He has an extremely organized mind.  Sure there's people that are like him, but he is probably the most talented speaker of all time.  It’s observable to millions.  Certain players of the present are far more advanced than the rest, so actually the rest have to and will eventually catch up.  And if they dont they are eliminated through evolution.
 

DRT (Trackback) wrote on May 11, 2006 2:03 AM

 

Adult Podcast » Google press day, (Porn Podcast) Ballmer’s formula, BitTorrent, E3 and more (Trackback) wrote on July 24, 2006 12:27 AM

Join or sign in to post a comment
Submit
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation