The question is not how we could rewire ourselves, but how we should. Our motivation to rewire the brain suggests that there is some optimal target state of human behavior different from our current state. But how would we define such a state? Who would be our model? If there were individual model, then rewiring all other individuals to behave like them would be entirely possible, assuming complete biological and electrical control over the human brain.
Is a “perfect society” composed of “perfect individual”? “Perfecting” the individual seems to be the means to a “perfect society.” But whose definition of “perfect society” will we use? Will it be Mill and Bentham’s greatest good for the greatest number, or Hitler’s fantasized dominion of the Aryan race? And what would describe the “perfect individual” in each of these ideals? In the latter, the answer is hideously obvious; in the former, it is entirely ambiguous.
How much of our present society should we force to be preserved, and what justifies preserving anything? Should there be some who aren't rewired? And, if everyone is rewired, then who will really be making the decisions, at that point? Will it be the artificial intelligence which we recruit to execute the complexity of control which spans any one human's comprehension?
Do we even truly desire a “perfect society”? Or is the part of our lives in constant pursuit of solutions to human problems (i.e., in pursuit of a “perfect society”) a necessary component of a good life? If it is, should we maintain some individual “imperfection”? Or is there a way we could reprogram ourselves so that this component isn't necessary any longer? That is, can we redesign what it means to lead a good life? Here, we begin to see how neurotechnology and the ability to modulate human nature is unlike any previous solution proposed to society’s problems, as it obliterates every axiomatic assumption we have ever constructed about how we can influence our reality. For, instead of changing reality, the solutions of neuroengineering can change our perception of this reality. From our perspective, I argue, these two approaches have equivalent results.
But then, the solutions of neural intervention seem cheaply obtained: if we could exert absolute and total control over every neuron of the human brain, then every problem (from the perspective of the ones who wield this control) seems to have an obvious solution. Assuming a perfect understanding of every mechanism of the human brain, one with the power of control could write an entirely new script of human behavior in neural code, virtually treating the stimulated subject as a robot. But would this solve the problems of our modern world for which human misbehavior is culpable? Why not simply promote mass narcotic consumption, or, even simpler, mass suicide, instead? After all, with no human beings, there are no human problems. This is the allure of anti-natalism.
The fact that human behavior is the manifestation of purely physical processes (namely, diffusion and chemical reactions) implies that, given complete control over these processes, we have complete control over every single element of human behavior. Limitations to this "complete control" will only exist if we want them to. Personally, I want them to.
Although every aspect of the brain's function is dictated entirely by physics, we cannot neglect the human feeling that the brain is distinct from the "self." Physically, of course, this notion is nonsense: there is no true distinction between physical activity and the “self.” One’s consciousness emerges from purely physical processes, not from any higher, spiritual dimension, as the contagion of religion attempts to convince us. You and I are no more than a collection of organic molecules which has assembled to understand themselves, as incomprehensibly difficult as this fact is to comprehend. However, as humans, there is some reverence which we must grant to the fact that organic molecules have assembled into a configuration which can understand that they exist, whatever this means.
Take a look around and try to understand that your body is composed of the same elements as every single object you see (and that you don't): protons, neutrons, and electrons. It's a beautiful feeling to realize just how similar the material of your body and mind is to all matter in the universe. All that differs between us is the arrangement of that material. (Considering how similar our makeup is to the glass of water next to us, it is a ridiculous assertion that a white man is different enough from a black man, or a man different enough from a woman, atomically-speaking, that the former has felt they could “own” the latter.)
I believe the perception of difference is amplified in the human mind because the human abstracts its surroundings too far from their true definitions – truths which the human has recently discovered by science. This tendency to abstract our mind and body above other physical material exists because it once perpetuated our survival. The siblings of our primordial ancestors who did not abstract themselves perhaps lacked the motivation to sustain their life. However, later, this natural tendency was codified into ideas like religions which put the Earth — truly, the human of a particular make and model — at the center of the universe.
As we intervene in human nature, a balance between science and innate tendency, between knowledge and belief, must be held. If we ascribe too much to belief, the abstractions which arbitrarily vault the white man, for instance, above every other race and sex will generate a society of widespread oppression, as the minorities of the world experience today. However, if we lean too much into science, perceiving every object, including ourselves, as no more than a collection of atoms, then we have no reason to continue living, much less a reason to seek a better life for us and our fellow inhabitants of Earth.
There is no true meaning to our lives and our position in the universe unless we make there be one. We can confide in the truth: that the enigmatic and random nature of electrons, or perhaps their more mysterious constituents, completely determines our actions. Or, we can "buy in" to the illusion of consciousness and strategically reinforce the distinction between the brain and the "self," as we naturally do and our institutions teach us to do. If we choose the latter and preserve what it means to be "human," then the limit to how far we may intervene in our chemical underpinnings does exist, and this is the constraint which must be kept in mind when we consider the future scenario that we will have complete and total control and understanding of every mechanism of human behavior.
Comments
Post a Comment