By what means to the Ubermensch? Four possible paths for superhuman development.

I want to explore the possible nature (in the physical sense) of the ubermensch. There are four paths to the ubermensch I've heard seriously proposed which depend on entirely different "technology" stacks and which have somewhat different assumptions about the nature of reality and of man.

(The AGI subthread (>>1852 >>1848 >>1847 >>1846 >>1845 >>1838) of the materialism discussion (>>1754) was starting to feel like a new topic, so I thought I ought to start a new thread to explore this direction.)

The four paths are:

1. Selective Breeding: The classic. Breed a new race of spacefaring godlike supermen by judicial pairing, fertility regulation, and possibly genetic engineering. This is in some sense the least out there. This is what our distant ancestors did to transcend apedom, and there's no reason to believe we're tapped out. We could conceivably go quite far without disrupting the basic form of the free hominid. This could also be taken into the outright body horror territory like sessile mentats with hundred pound brains, etc but that niche seems better filled by machines. Many questions are wrapped up in this like what man ought to be given industrial civilization, whether industrial civilization is a good idea, etc. This is currently officially impossible/undesirable but everyone knows that's false and we just don't know how to reconcile the current regime with it.

2. AGI: The idea is we replicate the agency and reason of man's mind in computers, replicate the physical capabilities in robotics, and essentially transition the substrate of "man" to being fully technological-industrial. Presumably industry would at some point catch up to biological nanotechnology and basal autopoesis of life. This is the most out there theory of ubermensch, where the ubermensch is eventually some kind of abstract mathematical-spiritual being that lives in dyson sphere jupiter-brain gigacities. This one's a big unknown. Is it possible? Is it still man? Does it even answer the question? Lots of diversity of opinion. Weirdly, this is also the most mainstream and popular theory at this point. The current regime seems to have no problem imagining AGI as a new kind of capital, but I think this misses the point.

3. Omega Point: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed that man's "noosphere" was coalescing into a single global god-personality into which everyone else would be integrated as individuated members. He proposed that man himself no longer needed to be improved because the collective would be the center of further development and would redeem us whatever we were. I think he was wrong in his implication of political unity of future man, and wrong that man himself doesn't need to be physically improved, but it's an interesting theory.

4. Psychological Training: Some have argued that the human mind is capable of vastly further development given better training, even to the point of ordinary people becoming superhumanly capable. There's nothing I know of to rule this out, but empirically it doesn't seem to be how it works. Much more follows from people's inborn nature than is accepted by these people. The rationalists are a recent example of this tendency, when they imagined training the martial art of rationality (a very cool idea but with how much reality?).

None of these are mutually exclusive, and all are probably possible to some extent.

I'll note also that there's still a big open question in any of these of "to what end" or alternately, what kind of being should man become, measured against what telos? None of these seem to really answer the normative anthropology question in a satisfactory way, they are just means.

What do you guys think? Are any of these notably impossible or undesirable? Are any especially promising?

(I'll respond to the AGI life possibility discussion in the comments)

>>1852
>the process of basal autopoiesis is fundamental to [life and intelligence]
I agree with this post from the other thread. But with intelligence it seems like the physical basis has been abstracted in the usual computational way. The computational effect of the basal autopeosis of neurons on the nature of the mind can be fulfilled by for example a simulated neuron-model that has those same behaviors in the artificial world of the computer. The brain is already an artificial world that interacts with the outside almost entirely through signals rather than physical interaction. I don't see why substituting a different signal processor that can do a similar job doesn't result in similar level of agency and whatnot. The heart pumps blood, the brain pumps predictive/active signals, you can construct an artificial heart that pumps blood, and seems like you can construct an artificial brain using computer technology. Why doesn't the Church-Turning thesis just apply in the obvious way here?

Now we seem to agree though that the missing physical autopoesis in the rest of the body would cut this kind of AGI off from being real life. It still has the problem of just being robotic. But that seems like a possibly temporary operational inconvenience, perhaps fatal but not necessarily fatal, to the emergence of an autonomous self-producing industrial stack with no human involvement.

>That silicon can augment basal autopoietic stacks, sure, that seems obviously the case.
And I'm saying it can substitute, not just augment, as far as industry is concerned. If you have an argument for why the physical basal autopoesis outside the computer will be necessary (not just more convenient) I'm eager to hear it.

>computing systems allow for a higher degree of control of a smaller group of men
So far it has appeared to be this way (multiplicative of human power rather than substitutive) because there is always some essential piece that has not been technologized which can only be done by man. Is that always going to be the case? What precisely is the power that can never be technologized and thus can never escape the control of (a small group of) men?

>we must seize the crown before the Luciferians do. This task does not need yesterday's fantasies of robotic intelligence.
I agree the political-spiritual task at hand doesn't require us to answer the robotic intelligence question. Still I think it's quite interesting. But I also doubt the implied singular cosmic urgency. There are many crowns in the world, and will never be only one. Our task is to secure our own free sovereignty, not to deny it to anyone else.

The Caesar Production Machine

The Caesar refers to an individual who appears at pivotal moments in history, driven by an unstoppable will and an unbreakable belief in their own destiny. These people challenge the status quo and push humanity forward through sheer determination and defiance of any limitations imposed by society. Caesars are produced via a societal crucible wherein a mixture of education, fitness, genetics, and charisma fuses to form an individual. This individual might not be the smartest, strongest, purest, or wealthiest, but their upbringing has produced someone motivated to an incredible degree and Divinely guided to drive humanity forward.

Characteristics of a Caesar

Indomitable Will: A Caesar has an unyielding drive to overcome obstacles that would defeat others. Their sheer force of will inspires those around them to strive for greater achievements.

Visionary Leadership: These individuals see a future that others can't imagine. They break from conventional thinking and chart bold new paths for humanity.

Defiance of Limitations: A Caesar refuses to accept any limits. They are not deterred by skepticism or opposition and often achieve the impossible through the relentless pursuit of their goals.

Throughout history, Caesars emerge during times of great challenge or change. Their impact isn't just personal; in fact, they may have total disregard for their own goals. However, they always galvanize others, reshaping the world even if they themselves fail or perish.

Even if AGI does not exist, new Caesars might harness similar tools to drive progress in an increasingly technologically advanced world. The essence of the Caesar is timeless: individuals who push humanity forward through their extraordinary will and vision, breaking barriers and opening new horizons.

Individual human potential is limitless, and for whatever reason, society keeps occasionally producing Caesars.

Be still - do not worry about forcing it. Personalities such as this are produced by the chaotic miasma of society which is driven by God, and are likely one of the reasons humanity still exists.

>>1854
> The brain is already an artificial world that interacts with the outside almost entirely through signals rather than physical interaction.
> the brain pumps predictive/active signals
If you hold this the rest of your beliefs follow. I think it is mistaken and the crux of our difference in beliefs.

Rather I believe:
1) What is perceived in nature is in some way actually in nature. (i.e. our minds do not exist in artificial worlds.)
2) By nature man has the ability to fool himself. He can back his beliefs about what is actually in nature by communicating with other men.
3) The process of communication requires generating shared symbols. Symbols can be arranged as to represent formal rules for manipulating symbols.
4) A *CERTAIN TYPE* of formal rule can be instantiated in the material of semiconductors. These rules are *always strongly typed* by the actual nature of the hardware it exists on.
5) If we are to speak about the operation of our minds we have to do so through symbols by 2 and 3, and it makes sense for us to to imbue them with formal rules in order to describe dynamic processes. However, the processes that occur in the body are again *strongly typed*.
6) Likely there are certain processes that occur in the human body that are close in type to what is happening in the actually implemented types of Church-Turing machines.
7) However: most likely the actual type admitted by the material of the organism is significantly different than the actual type admitted by the material of man's machines.

> Is that always going to be the case? What precisely is the power that can never be technologized and thus can never escape the control of (a small group of) men?
I was tempted to reply with "his soul," but I'm increasingly concerned that isn't the case. Perhaps a better answer is creativity. All actually existing systems are imperfect and liable to collapse with the right leverage.

> But I also doubt the implied singular cosmic urgency. There are many crowns in the world, and will never be only one. Our task is to secure our own free sovereignty, not to deny it to anyone else.
I agree here, I didn't intent to imply cosmic urgency, only an aesthetic flourish.

A similar argument to the above is here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/energy-requirements-undermine-substrate-independence-and-mindbody-functionalism/2BB3C2353EFF80F9D5805CDCEA8C3C89

>>1859
>1) What is perceived in nature is in some way actually in nature. (i.e. our minds do not exist in artificial worlds.)
What do you mean by this? What I meant by the mind being an artificial world is that it has its own internal rules that aren't just its parts contending in terms of base reality. It's not a natural ecosystem, but a highly cultivated and abstracted one. I have no particular objection to the idea that we can perceive nature accurately, though of course I would emphasize the usual fallibility of a process that works by empirical induction and not by direct access to the Forms.

>7) However: most likely the actual type admitted by the material of the organism is significantly different than the actual type admitted by the material of man's machines.
Do you mean that intelligent robots and human people are of different type? Of course. But I take it you are arguing that intelligent machines or beings descended from intelligent machines can't be rational reflective creative agentic beings or otherwise can't obtain to whatever it is that makes man interesting. Can you expand on this?

>Perhaps a better answer is creativity. All actually existing systems are imperfect and liable to collapse with the right leverage.
Right but this doesn't imply any distinction between possible machines and current biological life. Whatever creativity is, unless it's magic it's surely some habit and faculty of mind that produces new ideas.