Transhumanism leading to a post-tribal world

But perhaps the transference of intellectual responsibility to devices (Alternative Intelligence) is more probable and more practical.

Nowhere is it written that the evolution of matter peaks with organic intelligence.

Thing about robots taking over humans is I admit humans are smarter than the average human but a guy like me can cuck a robot at certain things, since if you understand how to deliver it false information and take advantage of its predictable pattern recognition exploitation, you end up exploiting its exploits.

From society's experiences with transgenderism (originally another techno-buzzword from the 1980s/1990s), I would suggest that "transhumanism" will simply result in humans who are more dysfunctional and maladjusted than they otherwise would've been. It really takes an impressive person to fundamentally change themselves for the better; most who adopt a superhuman label will just make a fool of themselves.

But as for the distant future, who knows. Perhaps human flaws will be identified as bad code and rewritten with ease. The implications of this are incredibly hard to imagine at present.

(1) Why would  qualia be a necessity for an alternative intelligence?

(2) How to program sentience....Download it.

Alternative Intelligence programmed by humans is not really intelligent, but merely a programmed device that can be controlled, predicted and exploited.

Without tribal elements nobody would have any need to help anyone else. So when someone is in hard times, nobody will do anything to help them because they don't see them as a member of any sort of community.

It's theoretically possible and desirable that the human brain could be redesigned to remove its tribal elements.

The problem with removing tribal elements from the brain is that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism, so by removing tribalism you would be removing empathy, which would result in a society of psychopaths.

I'm not convinced that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism. Otherwise, we'd be totally incapable of feeling empathy for out-group people.

I can agree that empathy is affected by tribalism, but as to what extent? I know it's not 100% or 0%. It's hard to judge when tribalism isn't the easiest genetic trait to test for. So, it might even be possible to shut down/erase multiple neural pathways and still have empathy intact. 

Empathy was central to the evolutionary process that produced tribal societies and that empathy meant we sought to protect each other and share any food, it also enabled cooperation and by working together we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators. Unfortunately it also has a negative side, also driven by our need to survive and that is competition with other tribal groups for resources, which can lead to violence. This negative side still exists, where we feel hostility towards those we perceive to be outside our group, I don’t think I need to provide examples. 

You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.

Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.

However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.

Empathy was central to the evolutionary process that produced tribal societies and that empathy meant we sought to protect each other and share any food, it also enabled cooperation and by working together we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators. Unfortunately it also has a negative side, also driven by our need to survive and that is competition with other tribal groups for resources, which can lead to violence. This negative side still exists, where we feel hostility towards those we perceive to be outside our group, I don’t think I need to provide examples. 

Yeah I 100% agree.

You are right that we have empathy for those outside our group and not just people but also other animals. I think it is largely down to our intelligence, our ability to rationalise that enables us to transcend that negative side and to see that those outside our group are no different to ourselves … doesn’t always work.

I don't think humans can transcend that negative side. Even if we're aware of it, how do we correct for it? Do we need to smile extra longer at different races of people to compensate? Do we need to date people of different races to make up for it? Do we need to hire different races of people exactly evenly throughout a workforce? 

Even if you transcend that negative side in an instance, will you be able to do it for every instance in your life?

Perhaps if we could remove that negative side to tribalism, maybe that would be beneficial but I’m not sure it would. It would probably remove things like nationalism and racism and maybe create a more egalitarian society but by removing that aggression could we become less competitive, complacent and lose some of that force that drives to succeed … I don’t know.

I think an algorithmic being, who simple does the best course of action, might be a solution to this. So like having a computer-like brain that simply does the required calculations or actions in order to reach a desired outcome. I think moving towards a post-motivation world would render competition, complacency etc. obsolete. They're inefficient and should be replaced.

However, I am not in favour of messing with people’s brains, we would be messing with a mechanism we don’t as yet fully understand and attempts to create a more perfect human sets a dangerous precedent, as perfection is a very subjective concept.

Well okay. It's dangerous. I don't think this should be rushed or hurried. I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that. Things such as aggression could easily be done away with (MAOA gene could be deleted).

Working with the brain might require trial-and-error, though. I can't think of a solution for that atm (I don't think it's possible to exactly predict neurological outcomes with rewiring). What we have right now isn't all that good anyway. I think if people took their individuals lives out of the game and looked at human life objectively, it's pretty hard to justify.

Two points, firstly, the negative side and discrimination towards those we perceive to be outside our group. To compensate for this through what is sometimes termed “positive discrimination,” I still see as discrimination.

Secondly, to address your final point and one I see as crucial. You say “I think we should very clearly define what a more perfect human would look like, and then work towards that.” There is a fundamental problem here and it’s a big one, as I said previously “perfection” is subjective. So how do we define perfection and who is the “we” who gets to decide what constitutes perfection. I’m guessing that if you were to ask a large group of people from any walk of life as to what their idea of a perfect human would be you would get varied answers. I personally can’t think on an objective definition and I have been unable to find one, so if perfection cannot be objectively defined then striving for it is impossible.

There is another factor, assuming there is an agreement on what constitutes perfection, then by the fact that it is perfect, it would be applied to everyone, so there would be no individuals and we would become a collective. As to whether that would be considered beneficial or detrimental is subject to opinion, but I do have a feeling that those in power who would be implementing this perfection, would probably prefer to remain imperfect.

It's theoretically possible and desirable that the human brain could be redesigned to remove its tribal elements.

The problem with removing tribal elements from the brain is that empathy is intrinsic to tribalism, so by removing tribalism you would be removing empathy, which would result in a society of psychopaths.

You originally said "more perfect" and I don't think that is subjective to the degree you're mentioning it.
 
If you asked a big group of people, they will want to be more physically attractive, intelligent and stronger (especially for men). That's really enough to show there is some degree of objectivity for human perfection. But I'm not interested in transhumanism that makes people more of those things because humans will simply adapt to those things and become bored/unsatisfied again.

What trends closer to perfection is a human that isn't burdened with a psychology that is insatiable. THAT is a fence to swing for. Imagine not needing to work, work out, drive through peak hour, deal with tricky conversations etc. in order to grind out some meaning in life? All those pesky, annoying tasks that generate meaning in our lives could be bypassed if that type of meaning were not required, or if a post-human replacement for meaning (something with stronger affect) were genetically hardwired into our genomes, of which could be generated in a more efficient way.
 
Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.
 
Those seem to be "more perfect" than what we currently have. I think if those were pitched to humans, that would be your "we" deciding to strive towards these goals

I think those who fully embrace transhumanism (especially posthumanism) would simply make those "imperfect" obsolete, and thus unable to remain in power. Super smart transhumans with 3500 I.Q. (relative to humans) would be too smart for any human trickery.
 
It is strange to think about how a posthuman would wield power. We know that humans are easily corrupted by it (although, not all the time), but a posthuman? Or even transhuman? I think that's where some issues may manifest.

I'm not really bothered by the tribalism I feel,

Though what I 'do feel is usually muted by my preference of myself above the various tribes I could be said to belong to.

How can one really 'avoid loyalty to one's ideals, one's values?

I suppose it might be increased or decreased,

But to cease altogether, seems a bit much.

Hm, I see in your post you mention people turning to ideas rather than race,

So you 'specifically mean genetic tribalism I suppose,

I think myself that quite a number of people already think more of ideas and 'personhood, more than genetics,

Not saying I approve or disapprove,

Nor am I saying genetic tribalism does not still exist heartily.

We can strive for perfection within certain circumstances; I can for instance attempt to draw a perfect circle as I know what one is. As to human perfection you mention physical perfection and this may to an extent be identified and improved, say the elimination of physical ailments the alleviation of suffering, this could be considered an aim towards physical perfection. As to what is attractive, this is a more abstract concept, particularly with humans. Sexual attraction should be based on finding a partner who we consider the fittest to carry our genes and for that purpose there may be a few identifiable standards, but when it comes to sexual attraction we can be a very strange beast indeed.

Regarding your comment:

“Or how about a human psychology that doesn't adapt to drug usage, and thus you could live in a constant state of bliss, as if you'd taken heroin and cocaine for the first time AND that effect never subsides. Compare that to what we currently have, and there's no doubt in a reasonable mind that a constant state of bliss is superior to what is normal now.”

 

This made me think and from those guidelines I may have identified what could constitute a perfect human, and that would be “one who is completely satisfied with their social environment.” It would of course remove all desire for knowledge, as the need to know is driven by the dissatisfaction of not knowing, but would that really matter.

If you are going to implement transhumanism you need to have an identifiable objective and you mention obtaining a high IQ as a possible objective, the problem with IQ, is that doesn’t measure rationality.