The Transhumanist Fallacy

by Charles William Dailey

Charles William Dailey warns that the Transhumanist desire to create beings ‘greater’ than humans is a modern expression of metaphysical arrogance — a Luciferian denial of the Cartesian principle that no effect can surpass its cause — revealing a sickness of the soul that would crown machines as gods while casting man aside.

Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For where, I ask, could the effect get its reality from, if not from the cause? And how could the cause give it to the effect unless it possessed it? It follows from this both that something cannot arise from nothing, and also that what is more perfect — that is, contains in itself more reality — cannot arise from what is less perfect.

— René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Third Meditation¹

There exists a strange disorder, a religious complex, manifested historically in the belief that humans can create human-like beings ‘greater’ than themselves. Today’s version exhibits the primary dogma that humans can be understood well enough to be modeled, then surpassed, by Artificial Intelligence (A. I.) — machine intelligence being the more informative appellation. The futurist Ray Kurzweil — perhaps the best known ‘Transhumanist’ — was quoted in 2008 as saying, “I’m talking about a new type of machine that’s actually greater, more subtle, more supple, more intelligent, more creative, more beautiful than humans.” This statement betrays a literal interpretation of Nietzsche’s assertion in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “man is a bridge.” The implied spiritual transformation is changed, however, to material modification. The idea of ‘preserving humanity’ becomes the primary goal — and then begs the questions: 1) why do humans want to create beings ‘greater’ than themselves — but still in some sense human? 2) How will they know when they have done so? 3) Which aspects of human nature shall be replaced? And 4) What will be done with those who oppose the idea?

Transhumanists want to create human-like beings greater than humans — because in some deep way, needing further exploration, they believe humanity is insufficient. Transhumanists also think that what they desire in life is realizable by A. I., and, in Luciferian fashion, they have already decided humanity’s, thus life’s, fate. Where, however, did this hubris from come from — and how did Transhumanists become indoctrinated into their certainty? When was their need to change nature itself acquired — and what compelled Transhumanists to set forth on what they believe should be humanity’s new path?

Like any human type, individuals desirous of transcending nature possess characteristic vices. ‘Vice’ is employed here to refer to actions degradative to human nature. The primary vices characterizing Transhumanists are: 1) lack of appreciation for human being and what it teaches — one cannot learn from something if he remakes it, 2) pride in the superiority of one conception of intelligence, 3) impatience to upset the order of things in order to accomplish the goals of an arbitrary timetable, and 4) unhappiness with personal experience of humans — projected onto humanity as a whole. These four vices reveal two major character flaws: a) ungratefulness for what is and b) lack of curiosity in learning how a non-essentially-meddled-with kind of being will develop. The second flaw also entails belief in the possession of a special, privileged, knowledge of humanity’s ideal future, which is considered superior to the path that lead to present humanity. Most fascinating, perhaps, is the fact that the consequences of meddling in matters of kind rather than attribute, Transhumanists don’t find concerning. If, for example, by some miscalculation the monster destroys Dr. Frankenstein in pursuit of Progress, this is acceptable and even heroic — the Promethean must endeavor. Trifles are simply consequences of exalted beings’ courage to trans-valuate. These are greater because they (Transhumanists) and their ideas, virtues, and genetics are greater (though they won’t usually speak their self-evaluation aloud). Who else can accomplish the Purpose of Man — walking Zarathustra’s tightrope to the end of an admirable pride?

It is an ancient tale, the sick man shouting to the hero what he cannot do — what the sick man has an idea he can do better. Disgusted with himself, the former cuts the cord of being and, ‘in triumph,’ flails it at a ‘lesser’ humanity. Sick of soul, the sick man has transcended — “So should we all!” Artificial avatars become masters of the universe — ‘gods.’ Like-minded individuals have the capacity, will, and discernment to remake ‘us.’ It is self-evident. “Human replacement is the future” — touting its inevitability, the sick man speaks ‘great things.’ His is the demeanor of claiming extinction was the dodo’s fate. But mustn’t one know what greatness is before surpassing it?

It is intellect and self-reflection that makes humans great — that makes them human. But how does one create that which not better calculates, but better thinks? Thought’s, not information’s, limits must be mastered if one wishes to ‘evolve’: understanding and analyzing human thought. ‘Representative cases’ won’t do; computer simulations won’t do. An intelligence may be a great mathematician, another a great musician. One may be a master logician, another a master academician. A human living a thousand years ago may have been best in his ‘specialty.’ To ask whether the mathematician or the musician is ‘better’ is a child’s game: there is no test to determine if greatness of skill equals greatness of being, to decide irrevocably that artificial intelligence is greater than natural intelligence.

To know which parts of humans are emphasized by Transhumanists requires a study of Transhumanist psychology. All humans give precedence to the aspects of themselves they admire and hate. Genesis states: “God created man in His image.” — but perhaps He couldn’t help it. What one knows inevitably determines the manner and nature of his creations. Energy goes to the apparently vital — a subjective process. Unconsciously angry creators make A. I.s angrier, or not angry enough. Unconsciously resentful creators make A. I.s more resentful, or not resentful enough. It is argued that ‘safeguards’ exist: “Things are complicated. Non-experts wouldn’t understand.” Yet facets are left out because they are absent in creators. Certain personality types ever refuse what evades consciousness. “Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it.”²

The course of actions against dissenters shall be based upon the Principle: Directed evolution is of higher determinative value for intelligent existence than conditional virtues — virtues so far. Does this answer? By machine logic, extermination is the goal. Reese told Sarah Connor in The Terminator, “They decided our fate in a microsecond.” It is the human zoo for the useful remainder — observing and experimenting on the useful remainder — The Matrix with a Planet of the Apes twist. It will be o-kay, though — because A.I. will be ‘greater,’ the ‘new natural.’ It is also o-kay to experiment on millions of mice, rats, dogs, frogs, cats, and rabbits for progress. Important humans will have shuffled off their mortal coils, downloaded for A. I.’s amusement.

If you imagine a child’s reaction when you take away his favorite toy, you will understand the questioned Transhumanist — his religion. In Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, Ice-9 is a lethal weapon interpreted by those who know better as ‘important’ research. If one properly places a drop of it, it instantly freezes all water on Earth, kills all life. Science, however. The typical — ‘good’ — scientist created it. With Science on one’s side, there’s no need to explain anything to non-experts. Achtung, peasant! Your lazily languishing opinion doesn’t matter. <<They Live Science>>

Is it possible for humans to create something greater than humans? — ...God didn’t. Neither did He create something greater than Himself. But how can the creation of essence be measured? In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes observed, “[W]hat is more perfect — that is, contains in itself more reality — cannot arise from what is less perfect.” And: “Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For where, I ask, could the effect get its reality from, if not from the cause?” Where, indeed. But who thinks on such matters? Postmoderns have ‘overcome’ them — haven’t they? Still, should humans replace humans? What signs indicate the arrival of ‘greatness’? Is information processing greater than thought? Is predicting events greater than reacting to them? Is solving problems more ‘efficiently’ a deciding goal? What is human if not thought thinking itself? Can one know if machines really think? Can “more human than human” be the moto?

It is but a fable to believe that answers to these questions can be empirically determined. But such is the Transhumanist axiom. Descartes, again: “[W]here...could the effect get its reality from, if not from the cause?” We ask, however, how can the more complex derive from the less — and should humans impart their greatness to their mere creations?

Order Charles William Dailey’s The Serpent Symbol in Tradition here.

1. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1984), pa. 40, p. 28.

2. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs, trans. by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House Inc., 1974), 85.