The Heart of my Argument
All Transhumanists believe in one way or another that we are going to transcend biology through Technology. Whether through genetic engineering where we will select genes for intelligence or through the invention of an A.I. modeled on the human brain or through the conquest of death, Transhumanists think that Science & Technology will be able to unravel biology.
I doubt this will happen anytime soon. The main reason is because of Leslie Orgel’s 2nd Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are.
Evolution is based on Absolute Ignorance: random variations are selected for by how well they increase the chance of replication. Since the variations are random, they will mostly fail to work and the variations that do work, thereby enhancing the chance of replication, tend to be deeply illogical, inscrutable and perversely intricate. These bizarre solutions that evolution comes up with are heaped on top of one another in a cumulative process that builds generation after generation. Moreover, evolution is supremely wasteful since the random variations usually fail. Finally, evolution has no goal that it is trying to achieve, it’s merely lurching about like a drunk staggering out of a bar.
In contrast, Science is always reductionistic. It is constantly striving to explain phenomena in terms of simple laws which then can be used to predict the future. Scientists work with “model systems” and try to tease out simple relationships between just a few variables. However, in the real world, things can get very complex very fast and you can quickly find yourself in, what a colleague of mine calls, the realm of infinite experimental design space. The variables explode and the problem becomes intractable.
When confronted with the mind-boggling complexity of biology (produced by Absolute Ignorance), reductionistic Science is struck dumb. There is no reason to expect that we will figure out our own biology to the extent necessary to greatly change, mimic or enhance it.
I doubt this will happen anytime soon. The main reason is because of Leslie Orgel’s 2nd Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are.
Evolution is based on Absolute Ignorance: random variations are selected for by how well they increase the chance of replication. Since the variations are random, they will mostly fail to work and the variations that do work, thereby enhancing the chance of replication, tend to be deeply illogical, inscrutable and perversely intricate. These bizarre solutions that evolution comes up with are heaped on top of one another in a cumulative process that builds generation after generation. Moreover, evolution is supremely wasteful since the random variations usually fail. Finally, evolution has no goal that it is trying to achieve, it’s merely lurching about like a drunk staggering out of a bar.
In contrast, Science is always reductionistic. It is constantly striving to explain phenomena in terms of simple laws which then can be used to predict the future. Scientists work with “model systems” and try to tease out simple relationships between just a few variables. However, in the real world, things can get very complex very fast and you can quickly find yourself in, what a colleague of mine calls, the realm of infinite experimental design space. The variables explode and the problem becomes intractable.
When confronted with the mind-boggling complexity of biology (produced by Absolute Ignorance), reductionistic Science is struck dumb. There is no reason to expect that we will figure out our own biology to the extent necessary to greatly change, mimic or enhance it.
Whether biology displays "mind-boggling complexity" or not probably depends on the quality and coordination of the human minds involved. The synthetic biologists don't seem too impressed by the argument that they can't figure out how to apply engineering principles to the improvement of living systems:
Life 2.0
A new generation of scientific mavericks is not content to merely tinker with life's genetic code. They want to rewrite it from scratch.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Reply to this
They aren't "rewriting from scratch", Ventner et al's approach is to strip down an existing organism. That's not "rewriting from scratch" that's more like "cut n pasting" "code" from a working program, followed by lots of "suck-it-and-seeing". That IS re-engineering. It is exactly the "tinkering with life's genetic code" that is almost sneered at as the pursuit of other scientists in the opening line of the article.
And significantly, NOTHING has been achieved yet but breakthroughs are implied to be just around the corner given only more money and no unforeseen obstacles. Given more money and no unforeseen obstacles breakthroughs are ALWAYS presumed to be just around the corner by every true believer.
Towards the end of the article, those scientists who express skepticism are classified as being of a religious predisposition, and two classes of people are suggested, those that believe in magic (the religious folk) and those that don't (the intrepid "researchers"). But there is a third class, those that assume that although nothing magical or supernatural is going on there is still a heck of lot going on in cells that remains CURRENTLY mysterious and currently UNKNOWN. Most scientists are in that third class. But most scientists are not going to be the folk that are asked to contribute money or that will be swept away by the containing-next-to-no content nature of the article. The aricle is not aimed at a scientific audience its aimed at the technologically enraptured.
Reply to this
The other aspects of your argument about the non-teleology of technological development sound more defensible. It frustrates me how many people assume that some automatic process will find adequate substitutes for the world petroleum supply which shows signs of peaking right about now, when of course nothing of the sort has to happen.
Reply to this
Show me how its infeasible for us to understand biology and/or create AGI rather than argue evolution is (insert imaginary being here) and/or too complex. If you do not show why its impossible, every post is the worst kind of logic: you are both biased against new evidence for or against the hypothesis and also do not look for said evidence. This makes you analogous to a religious fundy who is consistent in his logic but potentially wrong. Disregard faith based historical analysis of human history and apotheosis. I say this so you don't waste your time with a possible assumption. Those who already believe its infeasible will conclude its infeasible. The worst you could do is show that some belief is indeed false, which would just save us time on achieving our goal of extending life or building an AGI. This is because we already have examples of the phenomena and science assumes understanding is always feasible if their is an example. For example, saying I do not know x does not show something is infeasible. I have nothing against your debunking of trends in human history of technology just stop saying you know something you do not know. An analogy that relies on ignorance begets more ignorance. Admit your faith is the belief that it is infeasible to know something we do not already know, which implies we cannot gain any new knowledge. If you say that something is infeasible for economic/complexity reasons show why its naturally impossible. Do not hide behind philosophy, use facts and natural law. Your argument is trivially true in the most annoying way: its true simply because you believe it and so that is where you stay. Show that science does not assume it can understand anything within its grasp which is anything that it can observe. You don't buy the god of the gaps so why do you buy your argument from ignorance without any formal reason for believing it? Until you show the world why you believe its infeasible your argument is no better than a biblical fundamentalist who believes in consciousness surviving death. Sure, I know its infeasible precisely because I know I am ignorant ( I have not died yet) but why do he believe that? He doesn't know that he doesn't know that consciousness does not survive death for if he did he could explain it, technically. To argue that something is infeasible is to go against the very essence of what science is about: knowing the universe. From now on you should start by saying its your opinion that (evolution/complexity/ flying spaghetti monster/ economics / argument from ignorance) disproves transhumanism, not that you are showing that it is true that it actually has been disproved. Since we both know its your opinion that its impossible you are saying you are against trying. Why? Answer: its too hard for everyone. Wrong. You simply do not know and so remain that way and encourage others to do the same.
Reply to this
Have you read "Speculations">http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly06/kelly06_index.html">Speculations on the Future of Science" by Kevin Kelly on Edge.org? He describes fourteen potential advances in the scientific method, mostly employing computers, robotics, and the internet. There's no telling which of the methods will work, but it's quite thought provoking.
Reply to this