June 22, 2009

Transhumanism and the 'Intelligence Principle'

Silicon state
"In sorting priorities, I adopt what I term the central principle of cultural evolution, which I refer to as the Intelligence Principle: the maintenance, improvement and perpetuation of knowledge and intelligence is the central driving force of cultural evolution, and that to the extent intelligence can be improved, it will be improved." -- Stephen J. Dick
Transhumanists are in the business of speculating about the degree to which we can and will refine the human species. A central assumption among us is that there's significant potential for the re-engineering of humanity; in modern practice we have scarcely begun to scratch the surface, but our visions of what may be possible in terms of modification and enhancement is startlingly vast.

Indeed, for most transhumanists, the notion that the human species is forever destined to remain a purely biological entity is both absurd and facile. Taking a step back, can we seriously argue that the apex of intelligent life is the state at which it was last crafted by the processes of natural selection? Given the current developmental state of biotechnology, cybernetics and information technologies, combined with the potential for molecular nanotechnology, can we reasonably refrain from suggesting that humanity is poised to under go a transformation that will be nothing short of radical and profound?

And this isn't some airy-fairy gee-whiz futurism talking, either. Rather, it's a fair assessment of where we are at as self-modifying species that has yet to meaningfully integrate technology with biology.

Take a step back and look at the big picture

For the dissenters and skeptics, what often gets lost in the discussion is the '40 foot perspective.' Discussions often regress to cultural/ethical/moral inhibitions, yuck factor ethics, and sheer incredulousness; it's hard for many of us to imagine anything other than our current state of being.

But this isn't good enough. We need to start thinking more philosophically and broadly about the potential for intelligent life and the impacts that will come through steady technological progress.

To assume, for example, that our current social, scientific, technological and biological condition is at or near an end-state is in its own way a violation of the Copernican Principle; it would be folly to assume that we observe ourselves at a particularly special point in history -- especially when it appears that our rate of progress is accelerating. Instead, we should apply a developmental view to our situation and acknowledge the fact that we still have a huge space of possibilities to work within.

The 'Intelligence Principle'

A similar sentiment was articulated by the distinguished historian of science Stephen J. Dick, in his 2003 paper "Cultural Evolution, the Postbiological Universe and SETI," where he argued that there is a disconnect between much of our current thinking and the prospects following exponential growth of technology as perceived in recent times. Dick's critique was primarily directed at SETI, but it's one that can applied to those who are complacent about our current existential mode.

In his paper, Dick makes the case that we may become (or spawn) a postbiological species, one that has "evolved beyond flesh and blood intelligence to artificial intelligence" and is a "product of cultural rather than biological evolution." He believes that this possibility hasn't been given the attention it's due, nor has it been carried to its logical conclusion. Consequently, Dick argues that we need to apply more long-term thinking when contemplating the problem of our future and that of intelligence in the universe.

To that end, Dick suggests that we apply the 'Intelligence Principle' (quoted above) to our long-term thinking about humanity's potential. His central contention is that we should readjust our thinking and consider a postbiological universe -- an argument powered by the likely age and lifetimes of technological civilizations and the overriding importance of cultural evolution as an element of cosmic evolution.

A will and a way

And it's important to note that the timelines don't matter (well, they do matter, but let's set that aside for the moment). A significant number of people dismiss transhumanists on account of our overly optimistic time frames. For the sake of argument let's assume that technological progress continues to plod along at a linear rate. Well, that's still progress: given enough time, incentive and access to resources, there's no reason to believe that humanity cannot come to realize many of the futuristic visions espoused by the transhumanists. As long as something is scientifically viable, and there's a perceived need for it, it will be developed.

This the crux of the intelligence principle: "...to the extent intelligence can be improved, it will be improved."

And overcoming the limitations of human biology would certain seem to be on the agenda. Among other things, the transhumanist 'to do list' typically includes the eradication of infirmity, aging, and suffering. We don't imply that solving these problems is going to be easy, but we do suggest that these problems are not intractable.

There is a will, and there will be a way.

4 comments:

Michael Anissimov said...

The intelligence principle sounds pretty darn optimistic. If it's true, then why has cultural complexity risen and fallen multiple times throughout our history?

"the overriding importance of cultural evolution as an element of cosmic evolution."

I don't buy this. Sounds mystical. What does a few little monkeys on a backwater planet have to do with cosmic evolution? Sure, one day we may grab control of the cosmos, but right now we're quite insignificant. To suggest that human cultural evolution is connected to cosmic evolution is mystical.

George said...

Yes, I agree that Dick's thesis is optimistic, but I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to describe it as being mystical. He has said that, "Biologically based technological civilization...is a fleeting phenomenon limited to a few thousand years, and exists in the universe in the proportion of one thousand to one billion, so that only one in a million civilizations are biological."

He argues that, in a post-biological universe, machines are the dominant form of intelligence.

Be sure to check out this Daily Galaxy article for some clarification.

Alvis Brigis said...

Nice article. Glad to see you exploring bridges between transhumanism/accelerating change and universal/cosmic rule sets.

Taking a step back, can we seriously argue that the apex of intelligent life is the state at which it was last crafted by the processes of natural selection?

Just a point of clarification, albeit an important one given the transhumanist tendency to create hard distinction between man, tech and environment - evolution has been show to be rather more complex than straight-up natural selection. The Evo-Devo community, for example, is making significant progress in their demonstrations of more-complex- than-previously-thought evolution and development.

See: http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Bibliography

Note that Steven J. Dick is just one of many serious researchers participating in this community.

In his paper, Dick makes the case that we may become (or spawn) a postbiological species, one that has "evolved beyond flesh and blood intelligence to artificial intelligence" and is a "product of cultural rather than biological evolution." He believes that this possibility hasn't been given the attention it's due, nor has it been carried to its logical conclusion. Consequently, Dick argues that we need to apply more long-term thinking when contemplating the problem of our future and that of intelligence in the universe.

Great stuff, though I find the hard distinction between cultural and biological evolution to be a false dichotomy. Clunky outdated memes that result in clunky frames. Culture, info management, knowledge generation are natural extensions/updates of biological processes that exist in concert with biological systems.

--- Cont. Below ---

Alvis Brigis said...

His central contention is that we should readjust our thinking and consider a postbiological universe -- an argument powered by the likely age and lifetimes of technological civilizations and the overriding importance of cultural evolution as an element of cosmic evolution.

Not mystic at all, Michael. This is a totally reasonable hypothesis rooted in a more complex view of living systems as knowledge and complexity generators (feel free to swap in intelligence, another clunky old-school meme that muddles these arguments and slows consenus building). These monkeys are significant in that they are tools used by a mesh of complex adaptive life systems to increase survivability and control over perceived environment.

Even uber-transhumanist Kurzweil acknowledges this continuum:

"[T]he more complex any system becomes, the better it models the universe that engendered it, and the better it seems to understand its own history and environment, including the physical chain of singularities that created it." "..there is something about the construction of the universe itself, something about the nature and universal function of local computation that permits, and may even mandate, continuously accelerating computational development in local environments."

Dick's argument is that we represent a developmental step in a broader process that may well be redundant throughout the universe. From another POV, one could easily argue that it is mystical to assume that we are disconnected from universal rule sets - that we are more special than we really are - it's reminiscent of not believing in a heliocentric model way back in the day. Def take a look at the Evo Devo bibliography posted above and get into some of that work, particularly John Smart's "A Framework for Speculations on Cosmic Culture", which threads together many of the other increasingly convincing arguments.

http://accelerating.org/downloads/SmartEvoDevoUniv2008.pdf

I think such papers will help bring much clarity to our definitions of life, humanity, intelligence, etc.

This the crux of the intelligence principle: "...to the extent intelligence can be improved, it will be improved."

Agian, I'd swap out intelligence for knowledge development and survivability, but I definitely agree.

And overcoming the limitations of human biology would certain seem to be on the agenda. Among other things, the transhumanist 'to do list' typically includes the eradication of infirmity, aging, and suffering. We don't imply that solving these problems is going to be easy, but we do suggest that these problems are not intractable.

Nicely put. Though I do think that new universal/cosmic frameworks for understanding information, knowledge, life suggest that while we be capable of solving human-centric material scarcity and perhaps suffering, that there will always be more to learn in order for our system to increase its odds of survivability and control in the broader universe and cosmos. Trans-systemism baby. Continued development of skillz to avoid cosmic commoditization and/or erradication.

Overall, George, I applaud your efforts to link overarching systemic/cosmic theories with transhumanism - they will link up somewhere in the middle - and strongly encourage you both to immerse in the evo devo literature - imho, that's where the most interesting and forward-looking research on acceleration, information, CADS, etc is emerging.