Beyond the human lies only death
On current developments in 'post-human' stupidity
I. Reality?
Increasingly, we are faced with seemingly intelligent people claiming the era of the human is over. We are entering the post-human, the trans-human, the merging of technology and biology, etc. Well-known philosopher David Chalmers has been breaking headlines by recklessly claiming that virtual reality is indistinguishable from genuine reality, so we should just embrace the former as if it were the latter.
(Note: I have not read Mr. Chalmers recent book, and I will not do so. This is irrelevant for what I am interested in. What is relevant is that these ideas, as represented in major outlets such as The Guardian, are read by people. This has an impact. Maybe I misrepresent his views, but this does not matter, it is how they are represented. And how they are represented is how they have an impact, by finding access to the public at large.)
Chalmers says he is merely repeating a truth that Descartes was the first to find out. For Chalmers, Descartes posed the question, ‘how can we know if we are living in a simulation or not?’ The answer; we can’t. There is no difference! Except, our philosopher forgets one thing, this isn’t all that Descartes said. Absolute doubt turned into absolute certainty, and relative doubt can be turned into relative certainty.
In the realm of theory, of thought-experiment, one can indeed question if everything one experiences is in fact not an illusion. But in the realm of real life, as lived by you and me, a real sunset feels more real than seeing a sunset through virtual reality goggles. And seeing a real sunrise leads to greater health than seeing a virtual sunrise. The dopamine released from a person complementing you in real life is more satisfying than the dopamine released from a like on facebook. But hey, Mr. Chalmers says, theoretically we can’t distinguish the two as to which one is more veritable, so lets just jump head-on into the most disease-causing option! Mr. Chalmers does not seem to be interested in health. Mr. Chalmers is only interested in what is real, he is not interested in life. If we would listen to Descartes, this makes Chalmers quite a bad philosopher…. Let me explain.
First, let us do as Mr. Chalmers advises. Let us question, in a Cartesian manner. I can doubt whether what I see before my eyes is really there. I see the sun. But perhaps I am dreaming, and there is not really a sun over there. Or perhaps I am, as the philosophers of mind say, a “brain in a vat.” I am just a brain with all sorts of tubes attached to it, making me hallucinate this entire reality, and making me see this sun. But, this sun feels so very real. It warms my skin, I feel it in my eyes! But then again, dreams can feel so very real too.
So there we are, trapped in doubt, is there then nothing of which I am certain? There is, I cannot doubt that I doubt. Or can I? I can doubt whether my doubting is really a doubting. Of what am I certain then? Ah! I can doubt, and I can even doubt whether my doubting is really a doubting, but I cannot doubt that I have the awareness of doubting. But maybe I am hallucinating that I am doubting, and I am not really doubting. Yes, but I cannot doubt that I am aware of something (doubting in this case), even if it is not a veritable doubting. I could be hallucinating that I am doing this theoretical doubt, but I cannot doubt that I am aware of my doing this theoretical exercise. I cannot doubt my awareness of this doubting. As Descartes says; sentimus nos videre. I see the sun, and I can doubt whether I am seeing the sun, and I can doubt whether I am really seeing, and I can doubt whether I am really doubting that I am really seeing, but I cannot doubt that I feel myself doubting. I cannot doubt that I feel myself feeling (doubt).
It is this quality of feeling myself feeling, that is subjectivity. And whether everything is a simulation or not, of this I am certain. I doubt everything, but certain am I. As Descartes says, my doubt applies to every-thing, but certainty applies to my doubt.
Now, I assume Mr. Chalmers would agree with this. Unless he would deny that he feels himself feeling. The question is, I might be certain of this I, but how might I be certain of what is outside of me? In truth, I cannot be certain. For here we have left the certainty of the Cogito, and are entering speculation about the World. So what to do then, in this uncertain world?
For Descartes, in the domain of theoretical speculation, we are in the domain of the Mind, the only domain where real certainty is to be found. But in the domain of the World, we are in the domain of the union of Mind and Body, a domain where only relative certainty is to be found, and mostly, just deception. Relative certainty, for whether I am really experiencing this domain or not, is itself uncertain (Chalmer’s simulation argument). What is our concern in this domain of the world? It is the preservation and flourishing of the body and mind. In simple terms, health, of body and mind. It is to do those things that make us stronger, healthier, more loving, more wise, etc. And it is to avoid those things that make us weaker, sicker, resentful, stupid, etc. Good choices lead to flourishing of mind and body, bad choices lead to degradation. It is that simple.
Now is it a good choice to accept to live in the meta-verse? I doubt it. It is well known what detrimental effects the increase of technology has had on our lives. It is well known that lack of direct sunlight, and increased exposure to non-native and isolated blue light after sundown is degrading our minds and bodies. It is well known that a conversation through a screen is no substitute for real in-person contact. The eyesight of children is increasingly getting worse by the generation, largely caused by increasing screen use and lack of sunlight. Most classrooms are even filled with screens now. Of course, the post-human prophets will say; ‘but why do you even need the ability to see that far! The future is in the meta-verse anyway!’ Yes, if the future is in the meta-verse, yes. But a Heroin addict does not need health either, as his addiction is preventing him from noticing his sickness. Attention-spans are ruined by watching short clips on a blue screen, the newer generations barely having the attention-span to read a 100 page book. The lack of proper and local nutrition, replaced by factory-made processed food, has degraded facial structures to such a degree that it will take generations to reverse it. All sorts of sickness as a result.
We could go on. But the lesson is simple; in strictly Cartesian terms, David Chalmers is stupid. He conflates the domain of Mind with the domain of Mind and Body. From theoretical conclusions in the first domain (uncertain whether world is illusion or not), he thinks he can make decisions in the realm of Mind and Body. For Chalmers, because we cannot absolutely distinguish virtual from real in the realm of theory, we shouldn’t do so either in the realm of life.
Somewhat paradoxically, it is precisely the Cartesian doubt concerning the reality of everything outside of me, that leads me to approach this everything pragmatically, and discard the option of living in the virtual. Why choose this over that? Because it leads to greater flourishing of mind and body. Why not do this? Because it leads to degradation. Such an approach to the World (the World, that which includes both virtual and ‘normal’ reality), would lead us to prefer living in ‘normal’ reality. As it simply is the option most conducive to the flourishing of mind and body. It is that simple, but the philosophers always prefer the complex over the simple…
In Descartes’ correspondence with princess Elisabeth, there is a point in which the princess is completely confused about what is real and what is not. She is trapped in universal doubt. Is this all an illusion? Who to trust? What to trust? Descartes’ answer is a simple piece of advice: go outside Elisabeth, listen to the birds, feel the sun, breathe the air. We should say the same to David; go outside, pay attention, and then come back and try to tell me I should live in the meta-verse.
II. Freedom
Another interesting example of the post-human craze is historian Yuval Noah Harari. This man claims that in the future, freedom will no longer exist, as we’ll be able to “hack” brains. Harari, known as the academic puppet of the World Economic Forum, believes the time of human free-will is over, and we should embrace it. During the corona-pandemic, he apparently donated $1 million to the WHO. You know, the organisation responsible for millions of false positives by corrupt testing strategies, the death by ventilator catastrophe, and the prevention of access to preventive treatments. Do you want such a person to hack your brain?
In 2018, Harari wrote an interesting article that featured in The Guardian. In it, he claims that free will is an illusion. The argument is simple and well-known. You think you have the freedom to feel and think as you please, and act on these thoughts and feelings. But! You do not control what thoughts pop up into your mind, so you are not free. You might feel you are free, but in fact you are completely determined by your environment, your upbringing, genetics, etc. In short, things happen in your brain, and these things are determined by genetics and environment. That is all there is.
Because of the advancements in bio-technology, Harari states that we will be able to directly ‘hack’ what goes on in the brain, and thus we will be able to control people’s behaviour. Terrifying, huh. But it is even worse, for Harari, free-will never existed to begin with. Why? Well, you were already determined by genetics and environment. The only thing that changes with bio-tech advancements, is that other people will be able to hack into this determination, and change its course according to their will.
Free-will does not exist. But, Harari destroys his own argument, seemingly without even noticing. He explains that we have no control over the thoughts and feelings that pop up into our awareness. But then a few lines later in the article, he claims that when a thought arises, we can observe it, and be aware that it is not of our own making. But who then, Mr. Harari, is doing this observing? Who is this I that can be aware of what is foreign to itself? As you say, '“What happens when we carefully observe the next thought that pops up in our mind and ask: “Where did that come from?”(Harari, 2018). Who is doing this observing? And who is choosing to refrain from acting, and instead asks the question?
His explanation is that free-will is an invention of the Church. If you can convince someone that he is free, then he is responsible for his actions, and thus you can punish him when he does something wrong, and reward him when he does something right. Free-will is thus an instrument for control. Does Mr. Harari really think that everyone in history who spoke of freedom identified this freedom with acting on the thoughts and feelings that contingently pop up into our minds? Does he think he is the first one to have discovered that we are not the thoughts that pop up into our awareness? that there is an I that observes these thoughts? And that can refrain from acting on them? But Mr. Harari does not believe in freedom, we are left to guess how he would call this willing-to-refrain from acting on a thought.
So if, the “human animal” as Harari likes to say, has its thoughts and feelings ‘hacked’ and controlled, what then with this I that observes the thoughts and feelings? How shall this be hacked? Precisely, it is an impossibility.
Ok, you cannot be hacked, only your thoughts and feelings can be hacked. But to prevent this, just don’t get tubes stuck into your brain then, right? Not really… Harari tells us that we are already being hacked. He gives an example. You are scrolling on your computer, and you come across an article, this article has been placed there by the platform you are using, based on the personal data the platform has collected from you. Personalised advertizing. You see it, and now the truth the article proclaims, has been “hacked” into your mind. Harari calls this hacking. If he is this easily hacked, I think there are some other problems at play. You can just get control over your mind. Or walk away from your computer. Go outside, into the sun, it is real, I promise. And no, it won’t cause cancer. If this is hacking… please people, never read a line of text ever again, you are being hacked!
But Harari is a good guy, he explains that in the future we can protect ourselves from such ‘hacking.’ In his own words:
“Perhaps the same technology the hackers use can be turned around and serve to protect us. Just as your computer has an antivirus program that screens for malware, maybe we need an antivirus for the brain. Your AI sidekick will learn by experience that you have a particular weakness – whether for funny cat videos or for infuriating Trump stories – and would block them on your behalf.” (Yuval Noah Harari: the myth of freedom. The Guardian, 2018.)
We should thus install an antivirus into our brains. I suppose he is thinking of some sort of implant, akin to Elon Musk’s Neuralink.
In all, this ‘hacking’, this controlling of your thoughts and feelings, is as ancient as mankind itself. Deception is of all times, to live in the World is to be deceived. To live in the World is to be exposed to things that ‘hack’ thoughts and feelings into you. And as Harari silently concedes, there is an I that can refuse to listen to these ‘hacked’ thoughts and feelings. An I that can tell the article to fuck off, an I that can simply step away from the computer.
So what is going on here? We see a WEF-funded guru telling us that this time around things are different, this time around, the deception is really hard! Perhaps he is right, perhaps the techniques of manipulation, of ‘hacking’, are becoming more intense in degree. But qualitatively, it is the same game as always. And you can always refrain from listening to what is trying to deceive you, you can always refrain from listening to your thoughts and feelings. You can always walk away. I’ll tell you what you can’t walk away from that easily; an implant in your brain filtering what thoughts you are allowed to be aware of.
People wear these ‘air-pods’, wireless ear-pods that send an electrical signal from the one to the other. Yes, that goes straight through your brain. They then complain about headaches. What do you think an implant wirelessly connected to ‘the cloud’ will do to you? You don’t know, but neither do those who are selling it to you. Difference is, you probably want to know. They? Their pay-check prevents them from wanting to know.
But it is even more frightening, Harari states that those who believe in free-will, will be the ones most easily hacked. What?
We read:
"if governments and corporations succeed in hacking the human animal, the easiest people to manipulate will be those who believe in free will."(Yuval Noah Harari: the myth of freedom. The Guardian, 2018.)
Freedom is an illusion for Harari, and those who do believe in it, will be the ones easiest to manipulate. As in his childish example of the Church using free will to punish you and hold you accountable for your misery. Those who believe in free will won’t admit that they are being hacked by personalized advertising and the like. But is this really ‘hacking’? If you are weak of mind, you will fall for it, yes. But otherwise? Be real. An implant would be needed to really control what feelings and what thoughts pop up into your mind, but for such an implant to be there, well, you need to be deceived into getting such an implant. The problem is that you are weak in the ability to exercise your freedom, not that you are categorically un-free.
I was quite surprised when I noticed that Harari’s wikipedia page tells us that he is an avid practitioner of Vipassana meditation, practicing up to two hours a day, and doing a retreat every year. He also doesn’t own a smartphone. This guy knows how to avoid being hacked, by strengthening his mind and not getting constantly bombarded with deceiving messages through a screen. He doesn’t need an anti-virus brain-implant, then why should you?
Doesn’t it all sound familiar? This is no normal flu, give us your freedom! This is no normal ‘hacking’, give us your freedom! Your body cannot protect itself, get our vaccine! Your mind cannot control itself, get our antivirus-implant! You can speculate how it will go. You will be flooded with news that there is an increased threat of brain-hacking, propaganda, brainwashing, mis-information, dangerous conspiracies, etc., and you will be scared into getting an implant.
People try to sell you all sorts of shit. A nice big house in the Metaverse, drugs, vaccines, brain-implants, VR-goggles, whatever. But they can only sell them to you, if you first buy into the ideas on which they are based.
Complete determination is an illusion, and those who do believe in it, are the easiest ones to sell instruments of control to. They are the first to fear that they won’t be in control enough, that they won’t be free enough, to resist the ‘hacking’, the propaganda, the brainwashing. And those will be the first to beg for an anti-virus implant to save them from the hacking.
Just like the covid-vaccines can only be sold to you if you buy into childish conceptions of health and disease, the technologies of the post-human can only be sold to you if you buy into childish conceptions of subjectivity.
The time of philosophers innocently speculating about wild technological possibilities is over. As now, there are products to be sold. And those who sell need you to adopt the ideas that make you want their product. Who better fit for the job, than the philosopher? The artist of ideas?
Please friend, go outside, don’t be deceived. Get strong, in body and mind, so you won’t be scared into begging for their product, once it arrives. It won’t be long.