Myth of the Ultimate Person

A few days ago some of us had a conversation on facebook about the possibility of robots outcompeting humanity. Standard science fiction stuff. The one person asked "can we create an ultimate person?" I thought this was an incredibly interesting question, given my general outlook on life. If there is an ultimate person, obviously I'd want to work towards that. So it kinda sucks that there isn't.

Let's get the obvious problem out of the way. We can trivially define the UP to be "in absolute perfect physical, mental, and spiritual condition." This already causes a bit of an issue. For one, 'absolute perfect physical condition' doesn't actually exist. Every physical ability corresponds to some physical attribute, and these attributes often clash with each other. It's not just a matter of finite time and resources. Sometimes getting better at one thing actively makes you worse at another. Become the best football player in the world? Good luck doing gymnastics. Prefer to master contortion? You won't have the strength to do well in a fight.  This even holds true in subfields of physical abilities, where the best marathoners make terrible sprinters. You can be the best in the world at something, sure, but for everything else you'll have to settle for merely 'good'.

Okay, this isn't a huge deal. Instead of requiring UPs be absolutely perfect we just have them maximize competence, whatever that means. Being damn good in a bunch of things is better than being the best in one if we're trying to achieve ultimacy. In which case our problem shifts to the whole 'mental and spiritual part'. What does it mean to have a good mind? A good soul? Is being a biologist better than an economist? A NeoKantian better than a hedonist? A quiet man better than a brash and outgoing one?

Ultimately, 'the best' is incredibly sensitive to cultural assumptions. Five hundred years ago racism was perfectly okay. Heck, you don't even need go back in time. Just look at the difference between the ideas of academic success between American and Chinese universities. Any conception of the ultimate person is intrinsically tied to the cultural assumptions you use to decide what is "best". There is no absolute metric, and so no absolute "ultimate". My conception of the ultimate person can be your conception of the quintessential asshole, and we'd both be right.

So where does that leave self improvement? Why do we self improve if there's no reasonable culmination? We can't just say "we'll improve to our cultural norms." Part of self improvement is avoiding misperception, which means we have to rise above our intrinsic assumptions. But while there is no 'ultimate person', there is still a 'better person'. Someone who clearly isn't above mankind or whom maximizes his cultural value, but a person who is capable of doing a little more. The person who has a little more control over his own mind and emotions, who can choose to be a pacifist or a killer depending on what he chooses. Clearly you hit problems if this control becomes absolute, because a person who could change their personality at will isn't a human anymore. But it's a goal constructed of smaller, attainable goals.

Looking back, this entire post makes very little sense. Proof that I shouldn't try updating at three in the morning.