Yes. Just as a pinprick has something tenuously in common with agony, posthuman well-being will have something even more tenuously in common with human peak experiences. But mastery of the pleasure-pain axis promises a hedonic revolution; some kind of phase change in hedonic tone beyond human comprehension. — David Pearce
Members of a civilisation with a hedonic range of, say, +20 to +30 have no real insight into the nature of life in a supercivilisation with a range that extends from a hedonic low of, say, +90 to an ultra-sublime +100. With pleasure as with pain, "more is different" – qualitatively different. — David Pearce
A morgue doesn't quite evoke the grandeur of a "triple S" civilisation. But I guess it's conceivable. Even today, we each spend our life encased within the confines of a transcendental skull – not to be confused with the palpable empirical skull whose contours one can feel with one's "virtual" hands (cf. https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#lifeillus). Immersive VR or some version of the transcension hypothesis is one trajectory for the future of sentience. Rather than traditional spacefaring yarns – who wants to explore what are really lifeless gas giants or sterile lumps of rock!? – maybe intelligence will turn inwards to explore inner space. The experience of inner space – and especially alien state-spaces of consciousness – can be far bigger, richer and more diverse than interplanetary or hypothetical interstellar travel pursued in ordinary waking consciousness. For what it's worth, I've personally no more desire to spend time on Mars than to live in the Sahara desert.Does the transhumanist vision ultimately lead to something of a morgue where bodies are stored side-by-side and atop on another — Outlander
I've no credible conception of what guises that bliss will take. — David Pearce
Sometimes I take a look at the world
And sometimes I take a look at the girls
I'm just a spectator, I don't get involved
I've got too many problems of my own to solve
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. — Blaise Pascal
Thank you. Lots of complications to unpack here! We now know that wireheading, i.e. intracranial self-stimulation of the mesolimbic dopamine system, simulates the desire centres of the CNS rather than the opioidergic pleasure centres (cf. https://www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/). But let's here use "wireheading" in the popularly accepted sense of unvarying bliss induced by microelectrode stimulation: a perpetual hedonic +10. Short of genetic enhancement, there is no way for human wireheads to exceed the upper bounds of bliss allowed by their existing reward circuitry; but for negative utilitarians, at least, this constraint isn't a moral issue. As a NU, I reckon a entire civilisation of wireheads that had discharged all its responsibilities to eradicate suffering would be morally unimpeachable. However, I don't urge wireheading except in cases of refractory pain and depression. It's not ecologically viable because there will always be strong selection pressure against any predisposition to wirehead. The idea of wireheading appeals mostly to pain-ridden depressives.I take it that in your perfect world, just sitting quietly in a room alone would be "enough", above hedonic zero. But of course that wouldn't consign us to perpetual inaction as we just sat in a room alone doing nothing forever (like the "wire-heads" in Larry Niven's Known Space universe, who are addicted to direct electronic stimulation of their pleasure centers), because we would still have the opportunity for even more enjoyable experiences if we went out and accomplished things, learned things, taught others, helped them in other ways, etc.
Does that sound about right? — Pfhorrest
A good question. IMO a plea of "not my problem" is irrational and immoral. In my view, closed individualism is a false theory of personal identity: https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#individualismDo you believe that there are limits to the extent in which a person is ethically obligated to get involved on someone else's behalf? Do you think there comes a point in which a person is justified in saying, "not my problem"? — darthbarracuda
Biologists define a species as a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in their natural habitat to produce fertile offspring. We can envisage a future world where most babies are base-edited "designer babies". At some stage, the notional coupling of a gene-edited, AI-augmented transhuman and an archaic human on a reservation would presumably not produce a viable child.At what point do you think we might cross the threshold between human and superhuman? — Metaphysician Undercover
Biologists define a species as a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in their natural habitat and produce fertile offspring. We can envisage a future world where most babies are base-edited "designer babies". At some stage, the notional coupling of a gene-edited, AI-augmented transhuman and an archaic human on a reservation would presumably not produce a viable child. — David Pearce
As humans progressively conquer the aging process later this century and beyond, procreative freedom as traditionally understood will eventually be impossible – whether the carrying capacity of Earth is 15 billion or 150 billion. — David Pearce
Possibly you have a more figurative sense of "superhuman" in mind. My definition of the transition from human to transhuman life is conventional but not arbitrary. In The Hedonistic Imperative (1995) I predicted, tentatively, that the world's last experience below hedonic zero in our forward light-cone would be a precisely datable event a few centuries from now. The Darwinian era will have ended. A world without mental and physical pain isn't the same as a mature posthuman civilisation of superintelligence, superlongevity and superhappiness. But the end of suffering will still be a momentous watershed in the evolutionary development of life. I'd argue it's the most ethically important. — David Pearce
Therefore I think you proposal would only create a division between those in favour, and those against, and if those in favour persisted as if they were starting to proceed into the project without unanimous consent, they might be exterminated as a threat. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why "outlandish"? For sure, untested genetic experiments conceived in the heat of sexual passion are "normal" today. But there may come a time when creating life via a blind genetic crapshoot will seem akin to child abuse. Recall that Darwinian life is "designed" to suffer. I reckon responsible future parents will want happy children blessed with good code. All sentient beings deserve the maximum genetic opportunity to flourish.I was going to suggest if such a- in my view outlandish- reality would ever come to real and actual practice or fruition.. people would want to see the results for themselves first. — Outlander
Suppose that a minority of parents do indeed decide they want "designer babies" rather than haphazardly-created babies. The explosive popularity of personal genomics services like 23andMe shows many people are proactive regarding their genetic make-up and genetic family history – and by their partner's genetic code too. Suppose that the genetic basis of pain thresholds, hedonic range, hedonic set-points, antiaging alleles and, yes, alleles and allelic combinations associated with high intelligence becomes better understood. Naturally, most prospective parents want the best for their kids. To be sure, designing life is a bioethical minefield. But what kind of "revolt" from bionconservatives do you anticipate beyond simply continuing to have babies in the cruel, historical manner? No doubt the revolution will be messy. That said, I predict opposition will eventually wither.Wouldn't there be a vast portion of the human population which for one reason or another would not engage in this designer baby process? I would think that they might even revolt against it. — Metaphysician Undercover
But what kind of "revolt" from bionconservatives do you anticipate beyond simply opting to have babies in the cruel, time-honoured manner? No doubt the revolution will be messy. That said, I predict opposition will eventually wither. — David Pearce
Yes, I agree. Ferocious controversy lies ahead.Because the transhumans would be superhuman in some ways, they would be seen as a threat to the naturalists (or whatever you want to call them), and the God-fearers — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry, I should have clarified. By an "accelerated biointelligence explosion [that] would be unlikely to pass an ethics committee", I had in mind a deliberate project: cloning with variations super-geniuses like von Neumann (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-unparalleled-genius-of-john-von-neumann-791bb9f42a2d); hothousing the genetically modified clones; and repeating the cycle of cloning with variations in an accelerating process of recursive self-improvement. This scenario is different from "ordinary" parents-to-be using preimplantation genetic screening and counselling and soon a little light genetic tweaking. I don't predict an accelerated biointelligence explosion as distinct from a long-term societal reproductive revolution. The reproductive revolution will be more slow-burning. It will most likely start with remedial gene-editing to cure well-acknowledged genetic diseases that almost no one wants to conserve. But humanity will become more ambitious. Germline interventions to modulate pain-tolerance, depression-resistance, hedonic range, prolonged youthful vitality and different kinds of cognitive ability will follow.. So to put it bluntly, if you think this process "would be unlikely to pass an ethics committee", why are you discussing it as if it is a viable option? Isn't conspiracy toward something unethical itself unethical? — Metaphysician Undercover
Genome editing can create richer variety than is possible under a regime of natural selection and the meiotic shuffling of traditional sexual reproduction. But diversity isn't inherently good. Darwinian life offers an unimaginable diversity of ways to suffer.Variety is a very important aspect of life, I'd argue it's the essence of life. And it is the foundation of evolution. The close relationship between variety and life is probably why we find beauty in variety. Beauty is closely related to good, and the pleasure we derive from beauty has much capacity to quell suffering. This is why there is a custom of giving people who are suffering flowers. — Metaphysician Undercover
I promise Jo Cameron and Anders Sandberg ("I do have a ridiculously high hedonic set-point!") are very much alive. The challenge is to ensure all sentient creatures are so blessed. Well-being should be a design specification of sentience, not a fleeting interlude.I don't think that a thing which has been designed not to suffer could even be called alive. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ethically, I think our most urgent biological-genetic focus should be ending suffering: — David Pearce
All experience below hedonic zero has something in common. This property deserves to be retired – made physiologically impossible because its molecular substrates are absent. Shortly, its elimination will be technically feasible. Later, its elimination will be sociologically feasible too. A world without suffering may sound "samey". Heaven has intuitively less variety than Hell. However, trillions of magical state-spaces of consciousness await discovery and exploration. Biotech is a godsend; let's use it wisely:Well, I think the principal issue is that "suffering" is a very broad, general term, encompassing many types — Metaphysician Undercover
Not humanity, but transhumanity.Increasing the hedonic "resting level" does not, at least in my theory, eliminate the hedonic treadmill, if one is aware of greater possibility, one is inclined to seek it with body and mind. If one no longer wishes to strive, would you still call this humanity? — Outlander
Not humanity, but transhumanity. — David Pearce
Yes, the legal obstacles to transhumanism are significant.How is the gap overcome legally? I've been in the nootropics community for about 10 years, and there's some kind of strong desire to advance human cognition with drugs like the MAPS association or otherwise Neuralink. Yet, legally its hard to overcome some of the problems associated with transhumanity and neoclassical legalism in the West... — Shawn
We understand enough, I think, to sketch out how experience below hedonic zero could be prevented in our forward light-cone. — David Pearce
Just as, tragically, a few genetic tweaks can make someone chronically depressed and pain-ridden, conversely a few genetic tweaks can make someone chronically happy and pain-free. CRISPR-based synthetic gene drives (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive) that defy the naively immutable laws of Mendelian inheritance allow the deliberate spread of such benign alleles to the rest of Nature even if they carry a modest fitness cost to the individual, which is counterintuitive and sounds ecologically illiterate. For sure, I'm omitting many complications. But an architecture of mind based entirely on gradients of well-being is technically feasible, with or without smart prostheses.What makes you think we understand enough to prevent suffering in the whole forward light cone? — Down The Rabbit Hole
As a negative utilitarian, I agree with (a version of) David Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry. A perfect vacuum would be axiologically as well as physically perfect. I just don't think the asymmetry has the "strong" anti-natalist policy implications that Benatar supposes. The nature of selection pressure means the future belongs to life-lovers. Therefore, NUs should work with the broadest possible coalition of life affirmers to create a world where existing sentience can flourish and new life is constitutionally happy, i.e a world based on information-sensitive gradients of bliss. If intelligent beings modify their own source code, then coming into existence doesn't have to be a harm.To follow up on a question I asked on page 1, after reviewing the material, do you agree with Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Recall I'm a "soft" anti-natalist. I don't feel ethically entitled to bring more suffering into the world, genetically mitigated or otherwise:I guess what people will want to say/ask/want to see is.. okay David. Go ahead. Do it with your own kids, do whatever it is as you say. — Outlander
It's precisely because creating new sentience does involve someone else that we should try to mitigate the harm:And let us all openly observe them before any talk of legislation or anything that involves anybody else.. is involved. Reasonable enough, yes? — Outlander
As a negative utilitarian, I agree with (a version of) David Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry. — David Pearce
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.