The Polymath: Unlocking the Power of Human Versatility

by Waqas Ahmed

  Programming Our Future

  Ray Kurzweil — one of the world’s foremost technological polymaths — is a transhumanist. He believes that pretty soon in this century, within many of our lifetimes, we will experience the next, and perhaps final stage of human evolution. It will be the point at which humans transcend organic biology. The Singularity, as it has become known, is a prospective point in the near future when superintelligent machines will take such a form (through nanotechnology), that allows them to fuse with our biological anatomy in a way that will essentially make us part-human part-machine. It is a form of brain — machine interface.

  Kurzweil insists that by the 2030s nanobots will interact with biological neurons to vastly extend human experience by creating virtual reality from within the nervous system. These billions of nanobots injected into the capillaries of the brain will also vastly extend human intelligence. The integral fusion of standard biological intelligence with machine intelligence will mean that humans will be able to develop many cognitive skills and process vast amounts of information with great speed and efficiency. ‘By expanding our neocortex in the cloud,’ he says, ‘we will be able to master multiple fields which will greatly increase our ability to innovate.’ The capacity to polymathise will therefore be enhanced to an unprecedented level.

  We currently have 300 million neocortical modules in our neocortex, the region of the brain responsible for much of what we identify as ‘thinking.’ Each of these modules can learn, recognise and remember a pattern. These modules connect themselves into elaborate hierarchies. Our neocortex creates these hierarchies itself based on our own thinking. But with the injection of superintelligent nanobots into our system, the game changes. Kurzweil explains the logic:

  Remember what happened the last time we added more neocortex when we became humanoids (and evolved the frontal cortex)? We invented language and art and science. When we again add additional neocortex in the cloud, we will add additional levels of abstraction. The result will be the invention of means of expression even more profound than our art and technology of today. This expansion will no longer be limited by a fixed enclosure (our skulls) and will be using an information processing substrate that is millions of times faster than the one used by the brain. It will be free to grow exponentially, ultimately expanding our intelligence billions-fold (that is my definition of the “Singularity”).

  Extreme projections on the Singularity foresee this ‘posthuman’ to be immortal, have replaceable genes and 100 quadrillion synapses and have multiple realities running in parallel. It is an almost inconceivable reality, but according to an increasing movement of transhumanist scientists, what’s not to believe? Kurzweil maintains that ‘we will be able to share our neocortical extensions in the cloud when we want or keep them private when we want, thus keeping our individuality.’ He insists that, far from becoming homogenous robots, this will make us ‘even more unique than today.’ This, he claims, is the future of polymathy.

  Whether these ‘polymathic cyborgs’ will own the future or not is debatable. Revered scientists like physicist Stephen Hawking agreed that this prospect is ‘science-fact, not science-fiction,’ although other esteemed cognitive scientists and neuroscientists such as Noam Chomsky and Miguel Nicolelis have their reservations about it. In any case, one thing is abundantly clear: we need a fundamental change in which the human mind itself functions. The tremendous advances in neuroscience in recent years must prioritise the optimisation of the human mind vis-à-vis the development of superintelligent machines. Why is this important? Because it is the human mind that will eventually be responsible for programming the machines!

  Machine learning is fast becoming the sexy substitute for human learning. The development of AI is today receiving more resources and attention than the nurturing of human intelligence. Yet in the coming years, it is human minds that have possibly the greatest challenge and responsibility in the history of its species, to programme machines to have the values that we want them to have, so that any system of superintelligence in the future serves to be a constructive rather than a destructive force. Anders Sandberg of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute reaffirms ‘within the next few decades we have to create code that reflects human values.’ And we must understand the level of urgency. ‘If we’re going to do something about it,’ says historian and futurist Yuval Noah Harari, ‘we should do something about it now. In 30 years it will be too late.’

  But who decides on these core values? Who decides on the most accurate picture of reality? Who is qualified enough to determine the fate of our species? For this, we ourselves need a better understanding of the world’s intrinsic complexity. And while polymathy may or may not correlate with morality, it can certainly provide more clarity. It might not promise ultimate objectivity, but can serve as an effective path towards it.

  So do we want to be ‘beings’ — somewhere between Jason Bourne and the Terminator — or actual, optimised human beings? If the latter, we must take our cognition and our consciousness up to the next level. In truth, the primary owners of our future are not cyborgs or superintelligent machines (which may be the secondary owners), but actually those humans that have the perspective, the creativity and the critical intelligence to decide what role these machines can best play in the evolution of humanity — and programme them accordingly. Polymaths are hence our best hope. ‘I don’t think machines are going to solve the big problems, humans will, with the help of machines,’ neuroscientist Daniel Levitin insists.

  Yet it is not even who programmes machines that will influence the future; it is who programmes humans. And I put forward that it is humans that should programme themselves. This book is aimed at igniting this cognitive revolution, so that everyone — the Gambian entrepreneur, Norwegian farmer, American mother, Bolivian soldier and Tibetan merchant — can finally claim their stake in the future.

  Chapter 7

  —

  Twenty-First-Century Polymaths

  The Polymath is endangered, though not extinct.

  — Peter Burke,

  A Social History of Knowledge

  A Vanguard of Disruptors

  Yogis are often perceived as the most specialised of human beings. As mystics in pursuit of a metaphysical reality they must renounce or at least emancipate themselves from the physical reality. They are so committed, so disciplined, so consumed by this one task that excelling in any other worldly pursuit seems unthinkable. According to the celebrated twenty-first-century Indian mystic Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, this is a flawed assumption. Sadhguru is one of the most famous yogis alive. He developed the ‘inner engineering’ programme and through his Isha Foundation established one of the most popular meditation retreats worldwide.

  Yet here is a man of action — a social entrepreneur who plays golf seriously, writes books on gastronomy and lives a life of adventure riding motor bikes, handling snakes and climbing mountains. It’s what he calls the ‘wild life.’ Though he claims not to be a man of learning, his erudite conversations with world-renowned neuroscientists, educationalists, journalists and artists have been widely broadcast. He has authored over a hundred books in eight languages on a range of topics.

  Despite the impact of a dominant paradigm of specialisation on social, intellectual and spiritual development, there remains a vanguard of polymaths who insist on thinking, being and operating differently. Sadhguru eminently represents this breed, which also includes the most imaginative of thinkers, scientists, artists, statesmen and entrepreneurs. They are all polymaths of different types and for different reasons. What they share is an unfettered intelligence, heightened creativity, a sense of individuality, insatiable curiosity and a vision of unity. They are among the most versatile humans on Earth.

  Today, our closest link to the polymathic philosopher of the past is the ‘public intellectual,’ a person able to comment on a host of subjects other than the one for which she is best known: ‘the essence of the public intellectua
l is having a view about many things, in a way that integrates and makes sense,’ says philosopher A.C. Grayling. ‘It is about breadth of interest and the application of a considered perspective.’ While many lay claim to this title, only the genuine public intellectual is a true polymath. As we have seen, polymaths, by their very nature, complexity and sheer variety emerge from a spectrum of cultural, religious and political traditions. Slovene leftist Slavoj Zizek, for example, has written books on topics as diverse as psychoanalysis, theology, opera, politics, existentialist philosophy, sociology and film theory. British conservative Roger Scruton — in addition to novels and opera — has written books on subjects as varied as beauty, philosophy, music, politics, architecture, hunting, animal rights, sex and ecology.

  GDI Impuls publishes an authoritative list of the world’s leading thinkers. According to its editor, the world is so obsessed with ‘specialists’ that none of those listed in the top 100 could be classified as polymaths. The only polymath to make the list was Vaclav Smil, ranked at 155. Yet Smil has written books on topics as diverse as economics, history, energy, food, metals and the environment, and is considered Bill Gates’ favourite author. Jared Diamond, a similar breed, has attempted to explain patterns in human history by synthesising his expertise in linguistics, biology, physiology, geography, anthropology, zoology and sociology — a polymathy demonstrated in his award-winning bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel. Despite the demand from academic institutions and publishers for specialists, intellectuals like Smil and Diamond continue to push the envelope. Their successes and breakthroughs demonstrate the value of their interdisciplinary approach.

  Many of today’s scientific polymaths tend to come from areas of information technology and artificial intelligence (AI) which require an intimate knowledge of scientific fields as diverse (and related) as anatomy, neurobiology, cognitive psychology, mechanical engineering, computer programming, quantum physics, linguistics and mathematics. The visionary pioneers of AI are intrinsically synthesisers of science. Technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil brought together many of these disciplines in his pioneering 2005 book The Singularity is Near which anticipated exponential progress in information technologies in the future. Elon Musk is a serial entrepreneur who uses his knowledge of various sciences to build major companies in different sectors of science, technology and engineering including solar energy, automobile, space travel, neurotechnology and digital money exchange.

  The arts — visual, literary and performing — have always been home to polymaths, as they provide multiple means of creative expression. Ziryab, Andrade and Tagore are classic examples of the ‘complete artist.’ While many claim this title today, the few genuine ones include the likes of American Bob Dylan who is not only one of the most acclaimed musicians, singers and poets alive, but also an accomplished painter, and Joni Mitchell, who excels in painting, music, poetry and choreography (ballet). Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen has starred in blockbusters like the Lord of the Rings and the History of Violence. He is also an acclaimed composer who contributed to the score for the Lord of the Rings, a painter whose work has been exhibited internationally and a poet who (being a polyglot) has published in several languages.

  As shown by the likes of Cocteau, Pasolini, Parks, Ray and Kiorastami in the twentieth century, film can serve as a powerful platform for polymathic exploration. Dubbed the ‘Renaissance Man of modern American filmmaking,’ director David Lynch is the undisputed father of popular surrealism. His on-screen masterpieces include The Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. But he is also an accomplished painter, sculptor and photographer, screenwriter, composer, set designer and actor as well as the author of a seminal book about the impact of transcendental meditation on creativity.

  In Japan, Takeshi Kitano began his career in acting and stand-up comedy but soon turned his attention to filmmaking to produce masterpieces like HANA-BI. After a motorcycle accident, Kitano took up painting and his work has been published in books, exhibited in galleries, used on album covers and featured in films. Kitano is also a prolific poet, film critic and theorist and the author of several novels which have been adapted for the screen. What’s more, he is the designer of a popular video game and the host of a TV talk show.

  The Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum is probably the closest example of a ‘polymathic monarch’ today. In addition to being one of the most important statesmen in the region, he is one of the finest Nabati poets of his generation, as well as a world champion equestrian, a commissioned army officer and among the region’s most influential business leaders. He is also an avid patron of the arts and one of the leading active philanthropists in the world. Likewise, Charles, Prince of Wales has demonstrated multiple interests and accomplishments that recently won him the Palazzo Strozzi’s Renaissance Man of the Year Award. He has been honoured for his work related to world religions, architecture, education, sports, art, agriculture, nature and literature. When he recently won GQ Man of the Year Award for Lifetime Achievement, he said, ‘I find there are too many things that need doing or battling.’ We might also include Queen Margrethe II of Denmark in this club of polymathic monarchs. Known as ‘Europe’s most intellectual monarch,’ she studied archaeology, political science and economics and is a polyglot translator as well as an accomplished painter and fashion designer.

  As monarchs have shown, philanthropy can be a unique vehicle of expression for the polymath. Many of today’s philanthropists are wealthy entrepreneurs. British businessman Richard Branson has successfully started up and run multi-million-pound businesses in sectors as diverse as music, aviation, telecommunications, sports and space. He currently owns over 200 businesses in a variety of sectors, many of which he is directly involved in and also contributes to numerous other humanitarian, ecological and arts projects. What’s more, he has circumnavigated the globe in a hot air balloon, crossed the English Channel in world record time in both a boat and an amphibian vehicle and successfully completed a world-record round of golf in the dark in Australia.

  As late as the twentieth century women were legally and socially considered property, not people. Female emancipation is a relatively recent phenomenon in Western society and the legacy of longstanding gender bias, albeit dissipating rapidly, is still felt. Despite this, some women have excelled in multiple fields — driven by interest and talent. We have seen the rise of the female scholar-activist, for example Puerto Rican academic and social activist Antonia Darder who is best known for her contribution to the theory and history of education, but is also a fine painter and poet. Indian activist Vandana Shiva has a scientific background and is a champion of (and expert in) a variety of causes including climate change, human rights and gender. Many women are also accomplishing great feats in business and science. African-American Mae Jemison, for example, started out as a dancer but became an engineer, physician NASA astronaut and tech entrepreneur.

  Conversations with Living Polymaths

  Noam Chomsky

  The classic living example of the intellectual polymath is Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and philosophy at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is one of the most quoted intellectual sources of all time, but most remarkably he is almost equally cited across at least four distinctly separate academic disciplines. He has written over 150 books on a variety of topics ranging from syntactic linguistics and cognitive science to philosophy of the mind, intellectual history, mathematics, sociology and political science. He is considered to be a world-class authority in each of the topics he has written on. Today, Chomsky is one of the most widely sought-after public speakers in the world, and while considered politically controversial by some, he is generally respected even by his critics as one of the most important all-round public intellectuals alive.

  When asked who he considered to be the greatest polymath in history, he did not pick any of the great figures of the European Enlightenment. Instead, he chose an uncle who operate
d a newsstand and had not passed fourth grade. He was ‘one of the most widely educated people I’ve ever seen,’ he said.

  I grew up in an immigrant community — Jewish working-class 1930s, mostly employed, but at a very high cultural level. They were unemployed workers, some never even went beyond primary school, but they were discussing the last concert of the Budapest string quartet, Shakespeare plays, the difference between Freud and Steckel and of course every possible political sect you can imagine. So there was just a lively intellectual life, which was considered normal for working people.

  Chomsky says that even in his own lifetime there was a period when exploring, understanding and contributing to various fields was considered normal. Such activity was not confined to high level academia. ‘This was not considered strange, or considered polymathy, just normal educated concerns of an educated person. Now it would have to be broken up into professions.’ Ironically encyclopaedic generalists were more common in everyday society decades ago than today even with ‘infinite’ information being at the fingertips of the layman. ‘If you look into the study of reading habits of normal people during Victorian Britain, for example, it’s really quite impressive,’ Chomsky said. It was the kind of layman erudition that Jonathan Rose describes in his book The Intellectual Life of the English Working Class.

  Chomsky suggests seemingly unrelated disciplines have a ‘point of contact’ associated with creativity and ‘an instinct for freedom’ which ‘in the days prior to specialisation, was pursued and was considered normal.’ He says: ‘At the core of language — this is a central part of Cartesian philosophy — is the creative capacity to produce and articulate new thoughts comprehensible to others, not under the control of external or internal stimuli. And that’s at the core of a creative society, and a major criterion for the existence of mind.’