The Minutiae
It is in the minutiae that we find the flow of history.
It is in the minutiae that we find the flow of history.
July 2024, Volume 1: The Self
Aliens, AI, and ageless people: it will not be long before humans are sharing spaces with other intelligent, self-aware beings. This new reality promises exciting and terrifying possibilities. Whether you see this future as exciting or terrifying probably depends on what flavor of science fiction you have been exposed to. You might imagine a mutually beneficial blend of human and non-human creatures (Star Trek) or a pessimistic enslavement of humanity (The Matrix). Or you might see the future through the paradigm of today’s issues and map human race relations onto human/non-human relations (Avatar).
Regardless of how you imagine a hypothetical intermix of intelligent species, an important step in adjusting to this new reality is to establish what it is to be human. In doing so, we can create a standard to measure other intelligent beings and structure appropriate expectations for the types of relationships we can build with them.
It is tempting to rely on biology to solve this problem and say anything qualifying as sapiens is ‘human’ and everything else is not. However, consider the possibility of a future with a class of ageless humans, a generation of humans genetically modified to be physically and intellectually superior, or a nation of cyborgs. All of these groups could be considered sapiens yet their lives would be unrecognizable to the human experience and vice versa.
To avoid this problem, this guide uses the ontology of the self, instead of biological categories, to distinguish between humans and non-humans. Relying on the case studies presented in The Minutiae, as well as several reputable sources, we have grounded the human self’s ontology on three aspects of human experience: death, relationships, and change. For each of these aspects, we have created a series of red flags that you can use to assess the humanness of the being you are communicating with.
Disclaimer: In case it needs to be said, this guide is a non-serious attempt at identifying core elements of the human self via comparison of hypothetical self-aware beings. These ‘core elements’ are neither static nor exclusive. If you have an argument for why something should not be here or for why something should be included, we would love to hear from you. There is a submission form at the bottom of the article.
Ontology is the investigation into what is. Given the breadth of existence and being, controversy is built into the topic. Starting from the primary question, what is? Is there a god, multiple gods, a multiverse, and so on. There is a lot more of what we do not know, than what we do. Delving into the ontology of humans is akin to asking what it means to be human.
While there is an endless landscape of thought on this topic, it is generally agreed that humans have the same needs and drives. This resulted in us having common experiences which have led to shared values, moral structures, and a similar perceptual framework. Using these universal markers, we can identify those whose ontology differs from our own.
An Ontologically Divergent Self is a self-aware, intelligent being whose ontology differs from humans. This being might look and sound human, but due to its alternative characteristics, it will have fundamentally different perspectives and values. Of course, humans are not a monolith either and experience a range of different perspectives. However, where humans might find themselves in situations where they are not ‘on the same page’, those with divergent selves are in an entirely different book.
In the second Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Mr. Weasly says; “Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can’t see where it keeps its brain.” In other words, make sure you understand the ontology of a being you are trusting with your affection, decisions, or social institutions.
Recognizing an ontologically divergent being might seem like an easy task, however, humans have always struggled with this. Most of us think of animals as having human emotions and motivations, many people attribute human personalities to their cars, and some of us fall in love with computer programs. We do all of this with entities that are often non-sentient and in no way resemble humans. How much more susceptible will we be to this tendency when we are interacting with intelligent self-aware beings?
By paying attention to the red flags on this list, you will be able to recognize when a being has a non-human self, making it easier to set appropriate boundaries right. If you think this guide is not relevant for you given that you are unlikely to interact with a non-human self, that is fair. However, I would recommend reading it anyway and keeping these red flags in mind the next time you are tempted to spill your heart out to ChatGPT or engage with anything on X (Twitter).
Red Flag #1: Death Is Not Inevitable.
One of the biggest defining characteristics of humanity is our awareness of our death. Even those who believe their souls are eternal have to contend with the knowledge that they will physically die. The threats of disease, degenerative mental illness, and chronic pain are constant. At any given moment, humans are only one molecule away from destruction, one slip, one second of distraction and it all ends. Religion, superstitions, traditions, art, and morality, are all practiced in the shadow of death. Our existence is just as much defined by death by life.
On an individual level, many are motivated by the knowledge that their time is limited and their desire to leave a legacy. In contrast, imagine being ageless. How differently would you see life if you could live untouched by time or disease? If you knew you had decades or centuries ahead of you, would you care about the same things? Would you feel the need to travel, to create, to learn? Or would all sense of urgency dissipate?
Conversely, if death was not inevitable would you overvalue your life and live in constant fear of being killed?
A conscious being who will not naturally die is inevitably going to have different values, priorities, and desires than one who does. Relationships between beings that work on different timelines are going to be skewed and will be limited.
Romantic: One side will be so far ahead of the other in knowledge and experience that mutual respect would be difficult to maintain. While an immortal partner might choose to stay with a human through age and death, for them it will never be a ‘lifelong’ bond or commitment. Similarly, a dog owner may love their dog and grieve its death, but the dog will only ever be a chapter in their life.
If you knew your partner would survive you by centuries, that you would be one of dozens or hundreds of partners, that your lifelong commitment only goes one way. Would you accept such an arrangement?
Strategic Partnerships: Engaging with an immortal being in the business or political realm might have some advantages. However, we must be aware that they are working on a different timeline and ultimately they will have different goals and priorities.
Professors: Immortal beings could make incredible teachers. Imagine being taught history from something that has a completely different perspective on time. Or philosophy by a being that has spent lifetimes having experiences and contemplating ideas.
To get a better understanding of how pervasive thoughts about the afterlife are, check out this Pew Study showing that 83% of American adults believe in souls/spirits and 71% believe in Heaven.
This YouGov study shows how often Brits think about death and how death has affected their perceptions and priorities. Interestingly, ⅖ people say the death of someone has made them appreciate life more and altered their priorities.
What is more, this collection of studies shows that thinking about death can have a positive impact on life. Here we can see that death is an important motivator, spurring humans to create, experience, and learn.
Due to the nature of human fragility, we are dependent on each other. Left on our own, the majority of us would die. Our survival, development, and happiness are largely contingent on our relationships, making them pivotal to our lives. Most of us understand ourselves through a network of interdependency; we identify ourselves as partners, friends, siblings, and so on. We are driven by our need to be loved and accepted. To be human, in part, means that rejection and ostracization are akin to death, and personal relationships are paramount to our identities.
Creatures who are not inherently social will not have this understanding. They will never be able to relate to the bizarre pathologies humans develop to navigate relationships. Many of our norms and values are formed around a desire for social cohesion, rather than practicality or truth. If you were completely self-sufficient, devoid of the desire for love, would you care about respect, social niceties, or cooperation? Would you worry about your appearance or how much money you make?
A being that does not share a human level of dependency on others will not be able to participate in social institutions such as government, religion, and education. It will not have an understanding of the foundational premises of such institutions.
You can read more about the pain of rejection here.
Psychology Today has an article outlining the effects loneliness can have on mental health. In contrast, here is an interesting article on the physical effects loneliness has on the brain.
For a greater understanding of the evolutionary purpose of loneliness and loneliness in general, read John Cacioppo’s paper Evolutionary Mechanisms for Loneliness.
Red Flag #3: It Is Unchanging.
Although we often rate consistency as an admirable quality, it is one we rarely experience. The only thing truly constant about humans is their state of change. We age, we suffer, we learn, we evolve. There might be moments of homeostasis, but for the most part, we are in flux. We have just enough time in one stage of life to realize we are there, before being thrown into the next. Similar to the individual; society shifts, circles, and swings from one state, one religion, and one ideology, to the next.
A being that is static in the face of new information, struggle, or time will not mesh in the turbulence of human society. Change is fundamental to human lives and we have developed an aptitude for adaptation. A relationship with an unchanging being would lack the possibility of a progressive emotional or intellectual connection.
Unchanging selves would make great mathematicians or librarians. However, they would fail to meet human needs for connection, nor would they be able to adapt to our ever-changing social values and norms.
How to recognize an unchanging self:
The meta-analysis Life Events and Personality Change demonstrates how different life events affect our personalities. Many of the results run contrary to what most people would intuitively think.
Liminality is the state of transition. It is when you have left one state of being but have yet to reach another. Like change itself, liminality is seen as a crucial moment that will define the future. From an anthropological understanding, liminality is represented as Rites of Passage. Every culture has notable landmarks that marks and celebrates the transition from one phase of life to another.
One objection to the whole concept of divergent selves is that we could program AI to have the same fundamental experiences humans do. In that case, AI would have to be given human considerations. However, it is easy to imagine that a conscious AI would be able to learn about the differences between it and humans. It might even be able to alter its code and change its experiences in a way humans cannot.
Another objection is that of qualia. This guide is based on the premise of qualia; the theory that there is information you can only get through experience. If qualia is an illusion, then a super-intelligent being could, in theory, learn everything there is about humans and understand the human perspective. However, if a being is intelligent enough to understand the human experience through hard information, then definitionally they are too intelligent to share in the human experience.
Like a thought experiment, comparing humanity to other hypothetical species provides a window for us to view ourselves from a different perspective. From this vantage point, we have isolated three aspects of life that are universal and fundamental to the human experience. Death, a need for connection, and constant change bind us together in shared experience of the pain and joy they bring.
Seeing humanity this way allows us to appreciate how much in commonality we share. However, it also raises questions about the role a non-human self can have in a human society. On one hand, there could be value in having an intelligent ‘objective’ being such as AI act as a judge or policy maker. On the other, if our morality and sense of what is good are rooted in our ontological experience, then only those with a human-like ontology can act justly within our societies.
What do you think? Would immortality or complete independence change who you are? Do you think you have to live the human experience to share human values and morality?
Are there other aspects of human ontology that should be included? Do you have any thoughts you would like to share? Tell us all about it.