[extropy-chat] Of Transhumanists: Following the trail of the alchemists

[Amara Graps]

I said January 7, 2005 on the wta-talk list:
>Hmmm... I say, for the most useful "big picture" perspective 
>of Transhumanists, one could follow the trail of the alchemists 
>for the last ~couple thousand years.

and James Hughes followed: 

>Please do tell us about this book when you are ready. Its also
on my reading list. I got interested in the pre-history of
>transhumanism in alchemy through the Neal Stepehenson "System of
>the World" trilogy, which has fascinating stuff about Newton and
>the connections of alchemy >and early scientific investigation.

>I think we need to flesh out our understanding of our own
>intellectual and cultural roots, both to learn from the mistakes
>of forebears and to >learn some humility.


Apologies for my long delay in following up.

I didn't finish reading William Newman's book yet, but I've read
enough that I can give more details on my home-brewed 'big
picture' perspective of alchemy and what I see as a link to
transhumanist thinking. If folks here don't agree, then at least,
consider the usefulness of the arguments of this very old debate
and try to understand the history. The book that supported my
thoughts in this direction (of alchemy-transhumanism) is the
following, which a great review last summer in the International
Herald Tribune, convinced me to buy:

_Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature_
Nonfiction. By William R. Newman. 333 pages. $30. 
University of Chicago Press.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=532091.html
Reviewed by Edward Rothstein NYT 
Monday, August 02, 2004


{some quotes from the Review}
For him, alchemy, from its ancient origins as a servant to the
decorative arts to its 17th-century transmutation into modern
chemistry, provided the crucible in which many contemporary ideas
about nature and artifice were first examined.

Today, he writes, "we live in the era of 'Frankenfoods,' cloning,
in vitro fertilization, synthetic polymers, Artificial
Intelligence, and computer generated 'Artificial Life,'" an era
in which Pope John Paul II has warned of the "Promethean
ambitions" of biomedical science, and the President's Council on
Bioethics has studied Hawthorne's alchemical story, "The
Birth-Mark."

But Newman argues that most current debates about boundaries
between nature and artifice, or boundaries between proper and
improper scientific exploration, echo debates that run through
the history of alchemy. Critics of alchemy argued that the
natural world could not be replicated or improved and that such
goals should not be pursued. Advocates found porous boundaries
between nature and artifice that could be explored and tested.

In Newman's view, this tension between nature and artifice is
fundamental. Alchemy is primarily an art of transmutation: One
metal is turned into another, one living creature erupts out of
the substance of another. Alchemy is concerned with the character
of that change. It thus pays attention to categories, differences
and boundaries. If one substance is changed into another, does it
change its essence or only some of its properties? Is nature
being revealed or overturned?
{end quote}

As transhumanists are concerned with these same issues, I think
that this is an important book to digest, synthesize, and extract
perspectives and arguments for our own persuasions. This book is
dense, filled to the brim with references. The author states in
the preface that whatever the reader thinks of Kass, one must
sympathize with the Council's desire to find some grounding in
tradition for the profound ethical dilemmas that surround our
increasing power over nature.

A General Outline of _Promethean Ambitions_ is the following:

1) Relationship of various arts to nature in the ancient world
(especially Aristotle's view)

2) Overview of alchemy with an emphasis of the  art-nature debate
(limits to the power that the divinity gave to humans)

3) Peculiar relationship between alchemists, painters, and
practioners of the plastic arts during the Renaissance

4) The most controversial of alchemical claims are associated
with Paracelsus von Hohenheim, who claimed he could create a
homunculus.

5) The art-nature debate in the history of experimental science,
focusing on Francis Bacon and his followers.

6) Further ramifications of the art-nature debate such as Charles
Darwin's influence by the alchemical treatises of naturalist
Koelreuter and Goethe's influence by Paracelsian's homunculus

In the writing that follows, I have interspersed passages from
Newman's text and Shah's text, in order to summarize what I
consider as alchemy's relevance for transhumanists. If I don't
reference Idries Shaw directly, then it means that material came
from William Newman's text


-------------------------------------
Two interpretations of alchemy
-------------------------------------

Historians who study European and Eastern medieval life often
encounter two interpretations of the 'art' of alchemy (1). The
methods of concentration, distillation, maturing, and mixing
could be considered as a physical chemistry exercise or as human
psychological transformation, that is, a disguised form of a
spiritual quest. What confuses the two interpretations is that
one of the origins of alchemy- the Sufis, did indeed work in
laboratories performing real alchemy experiments.

In _The Sufis_(Doubleday, 1964), author Idries Shaw draws a
historical account of alchemy from the Sufi perspective. Newman
never uses the word 'Sufi' in his historical descriptions, nor
does he consider the spiritual dimension. Newman's text is only
concerned with the definition of alchemy that denotes a physical
transmutation of one material into another.  I think that
transhumanists should be concerned with the psychological
transmutation, as well.

The Sufi student is given an undertaking that may not seem
scientific by contemporary standards, and for the purposes of
their self-development, one must carry it out with complete faith
(1). In the process of planning and carrying through this effort,
one attains one’s spiritual development. Even though the
alchemical or other undertaking might be impossible, it is the
framework within which one’s mental and moral development is
carried out. It is something like the perspective that
competitive sport or scholastic undertakings are performed; that
is, the mountain or the PhD or the muscular development are the
fixed points, but they are not the element which is actually
being transformed by the effort. 

>From Shaw's book (page 225-6), there is a Sufi allegory about
alchemy. A father has several idle sons. On his deathbed he tells
them that they will find his treasure hidden in his field. They
dig up the field and find nothing. So they plant wheat, which
provides an abundant crop. For several years they do this. They
find no gold, but indirectly they become both rich and also
accustomed to constructive labor. Ultimately they become honest
farmers, and forget the digging for gold. The search for gold
through chemical methods, then, produces gains which are other
than those apparently sought. This story was known in the West,
because it is quoted by Francis Bacon and Boehaave, the 17th
century chemist.

For the Sufis, in the larger context of humanity, the physical
and spiritual process of alchemy is the regeneration of an
essential part of humanity, called "the Philosopher’s Stone", an
essence (inside each man), which is thought to uplift humanity to
the next stage (1). The function of the Philosopher’s Stone is as
an universal medicine and a source of longevity. The interesting
fact about this stone is that the stone or elixir is a state of
mind. The elements to produce the Stone (the essence) are sulphur
(kibrit, homonym of kibirat, "greatness, nobility"), salt (milh,
homonym of milh, "goodness, learning"), and mercury (zibaq, “to
open a lock, to break"). Paracelsus (1493-1541) notes: "Mercury
is the spirit, sulphur is the soul, salt is the body."


----------------------------------------------
Some Alchemical Ancient History
---------------------------------------------

In his text, Newman first spends time in topics from Ancient
Greece and Egypt, in order to define 'art' and to see how the art
versus nature debates developed. I noticed that Newman left out
ancient China, however, so I'll fill it in from Idries Shaw:

Alchemy was practiced in China as early as the fifth century B.C.
It was originally 'spiritual', but later arose the metallurgical
aspects. Many, if not all, of the ideas of alchemy as a spiritual
process are present in the teachings of the Chinese sage Lao Tzu,
the founder of Taoism, who was probably born in 604 B.C. We also
find the elixir theory, of a preparation or method which confers
immortality, in the philosophers of China connected with alchemy,
and in the Hindu Atharva Veda, whose date is earlier than 1000
B.C. Chinese philosophers specifically state that there are three
alchemies: The first is to produce longevity through liquid gold;
the second is to produce a red sulphurous ingredient in
goldmaking; the third was to transmute other metals into gold.
(1)

Meaning of Art

Since 'Art versus Nature' is the debate that is central to
Newman's text, one must pay close attention to Newman's
definitions and to the written context, in order to understand
how Newman is using the word 'art'. In many places in his text,
'art' means (physical) alchemy.

Aristotle's two possibilities of art (_Physics II_) are to 1)
perfect natural processes and to bring them to a state of
completion not found in nature itself (i.e. improve), and to 2)
only imitate nature without fundamentally altering it, i.e.,. to
imitate various aspects of the natural world. In the ancient
world, this imitation was considered a little like cheating,
counterfeit. Aristotle's ideas were persistent threads arguing
against the transmutational aspects of alchemy for the next two
thousand years. From the Aristotelian perspective, it on one
thing to improve upon nature, but it is quite another thing to
improve upon nature itself.

Conquering Nature

Another dimension to the Art versus Nature debate by the ancients
(esp. Aristotle,  in his book: _Mechanical Problems_) is
*conquering* nature. Conquering nature exhibits one or more of
these features:

1) The making of a product whose artificiality could not be
detected by the human senses

2) a product that was more pleasing than the natural

3) making natural objects behave in a fashion that was
'unnatural'.

Cassiodorus and Pappus took Aristotle's 'Mechanical' ideas
further, in order to claim that the conquest of nature is a
desirable goal. The imitation of life as the crowning achievement
of the mechanical tradition.

First instances of 'Art is perhaps better than Nature'

One of the early manifestations of alchemy are visible in two
papyri composed in Egypt around the 4th century C.E. called the
Leiden and Stockholm papri (for the modern libraries, where they
are stored). The papri state that "artificial is at least as good
as the natural for the purpose of humans, perhaps better."

The fruition of the grafting of Greek philosophical ideas onto
the chemical technology of ancient Egypt did not occur, however,
until later; clearly in the writings of the mysterious and
prolific alchemist Zosimos, in upper Egypt around 300 C.E..
Zosimos' writing provided the means by which nature can pass from
an imperfect state to a regenerative one. (perhaps Zosimos is the
first cryonicist?)

Once the primitive ideas of alchemy are set, the author presents
questions that seem familiar, questions that alchemy has sparked
over the next many hundreds of years: Was art always limited to
the imperfect mimicry of nature or could human being genuinely
recreate natural products? Did the assertions of the alchemists
infringe on the power of God himself, turning man into the
creator on the same level as the divinity? If alchemists could
make precious metals, where did their powers end? To the
replication of life? Could they improved on the life that the
creator formed?


-------------------------------------
Some Arabic Alchemy History
-------------------------------------

Between the ancient times and the Medieval and Renaissance times,
the alchemical lore was located east, especially with the Arabs
(and Sufis, I would say).  A particularly influential Arab whose
writings became accidently mixed with Aristotle's, which gave him
added prominence, was Ibn Sina (1037), also known as "Avicenna".
He gave some of the most weighted attacks against alchemy, which
then formed the backbone of arguments used by anti-alchemists
such as Thomas Acquinas over the next hundreds of years.

Avicenna's arguments are "Even if artificers can fabricate clever
simulations of natural products, those alchemists can never make
genuinely natural products because: 1) Art is weaker than nature,
and doesn't overtake it, however much it labors, and 2) it is not
possible to take away specific differences by some technique
because it is not due to such accidents that one complexion is
turned into another. The differences of the metals are not known,
and therefore how will it be possible to know whether it is
removed or not?"

Another anti-alchemical attack stemming from the Arabs was the
Aristotilian commentor of the 12th century, Averroes. He argued
that, "since the causes of art and nature are different, the same
thing cannot be made by both art and nature. The products must be
diverse., so then alchemist have erred. If the products appear to
be the same it is an illusion."

Newman lists the writings of three or four Arabs who were
anti-alchemy, and he only mentions one: Jabir Ibn el-Hayyan, also
known as Geber, who was pro-alchemy. This seems strange to me,
given what I know of the importance of alchemy in the Sufi
tradition. In Idries Shaw's book, many pro-alchemy Sufi workers
are discussed.

Geber was the most famous of the Sufi alchemists. His view, in
the context of Aristotle, is that art can succeed in imitating
nature's methods. Even though he limited himself to the
ingredients of the philosopher's stone, he did not believe that
the alchemist must follow nature in every step of the alchemy
process.  He allowed that processes could be identical regardless
of whether they occurred in natural or artificial vessels. He
said: "Our intention is not to follow nature in her principles,
nor in the proportion of miscible elements, nor in the manner of
their mutual mixture, nor in the equalizing of the thickening
heat, for all these things are impossible and unknown to use." As
in the _Book of Hermes_ (below), Geber's empirical concept of
substance led to an erasure of the necessary distinction between
natural and artificial products.


-------------------------------------
Alchemy in Medieval Times
-------------------------------------

When the Arab and Greek alchemical lore began to be translated
into Latin in the 1100s, then the debate for/against alchemy
continued, and polarized the thinking man into pro-alchemy and
anti-alchemy.

Albertus Manus straddled both sides, and laid arguments for and
against alchemy, usually involving demons. However, his student,
Thomas Acquinas, continued Manus' anti-alchemy position.  Demons
were between humans and God, and more powerful than humans. 
Many
of the Medieval arguments against alchemy stemmed from giving
demons too much power. Theologians of the 13th century initiated
a tradition of discussing alchemy in the context of demonic
power, not because alchemy was a form of magic, but because it
represented a high point of the arts in its relationship to
nature. Alchemy was a useful yardstick to assess the things that
demons could or could not do. The alchemical art-nature debate
unfortunately also led to the Great Witch Hunt.

On the other side of the debate, the pro-alchemists including
Francis Bacon (a Sufi, even though Newman doesn't label him as
such), and Petrus Bonus provided a comprehensive defense of their
art, maintaining a position for alchemy as the apex of human
endeavors in the realm of artisanship.

The _Book of Hermes_ (author unknown, but might be a translation
from an earlier Sufi text) was a particularly potent defense. It
presented an empirical approach to the artificial-natural divide,
and  prefigured the attitude of Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle
and John Locke.  The text argues that a wide variety of arts can
indeed reproduce the products of nature. Moreover, the artificial
versions are better than the natural versions. The author of _The
Book of Hermes_ also looks at the fabrication of 'new' species by
means of grafting.

Petrus Bonus of Ferrara  (1330s) depended on Geber's work and the
_Book of Hermes_ and, at the same time managed to wrap alchemy in
a religious context. Following the Aristotilian definitions of
art, he considered alchemy an art to aid and perfect nature, and
because he claimed it was not introducing a new substantial form,
he sidestepped the demon facet. By applying Geber's ideas, he
claimed that an alchemical product is 'natural' as long as the
methods by which the object was produced follow the operations of
nature. The focus on the process rather than the product allowed
the alchemist to call any object 'natural', so long as the
operations that led to its production were seen as perfecting
natural virtues. The religious baggage entered via the following
logic, however: If human works were better than natural works,
and nature was simply the ordained power of God, then where did
this place Man in relation to God? Petrus solves it by stating
that alchemy was a 'gift of God'. Alchemical success required not
only natural knowledge, but a supernatural revelation bestowed by
God himself. Raymond Lully, the Majorcan mystic, took the
revelation link further.

The practioners who applied similar logic unfortunately raised
the suspicion of Inquisitors such as Nicholas Eymerich because it
implied that the alchemists carried a special gift of revelation.

Francis Bacon appears in Newman's text near the end, when Newman
describes the 'issue of experiment'. Bacon, a 13th century
thinker had a genuine plan for the reformulation of experimental
science. His debt to alchemy did not stay on the surface by
merely reading Geber's works, but flowed deeper; he went to Spain
and found the sources. His large contribution to the art-nature
debate was to diminish the divide between the two via
experimental science, to increase the certainty of experimental
knowledge by means of a rigorous method. He influenced people
like Robert Boyle (the 'father of chemistry') who, while an
anti-alchemist, tried to implement the experimental program of
Francis Bacon.

The alchemists in the Medieval times provided material for debate
in other areas than the art versus nature arena. By repeatedly
appealing to spontaneous and artificial generation as a support
for transmutation and artisanal power, some arrived at the claim
that the alchemists could improve on nature in the living realm
as well as the mineral realm. The dream of making an artificial
human being by 16th century practioners such as Paracelsus finds
its justification and origin in the art-nature debate at this
time. Also the laboratory experiments and replication of nature
led to the technological work of Francis Bacon and his school.


---------------------------------------------
Alchemy in Renaissance Times
--------------------------------------------

In these times, we see that the 'visual artists' were very
interested in alchemy as a body of technical processes,
especially those pertaining to pigment making, metallurgy, and
the simulation of precious materials. At the same time, however,
there was a strong tendency among painters and sculptors to
deprecate the blatant goals of the alchemists in the creation or
transmutation of species. The alchemists themselves often fanned
the flames by insisting on the unique character of their art in
the face of all others.

The French pottery maker Bernard Palissy, managed to frame
powerful arguments against the alchemists, but at the same time,
he appropriated the alchemists' agenda, that is, of replicating
nature, rather than creating a mere imitation. When the
alchemists argued that artists were failed impostors in the
business of imitating nature, Palissy replied that the alchemists
themselves misunderstood the real subject of transmutation. For
example, he argued that beautiful shells are made by the "most
malformed fish that could be found in the sea" but could not be
replicated by the alchemist. Palissy said that he, on the other
hand, could create animals, "sculpted and enameled so close to
nature that other natural lizards and serpents will often come to
admire them."


-------------------------------------
Artificial Life and the Homunculus
-------------------------------------

The debates we see today on the goals and ethical implications of
artificial life can be traced to the art-nature debate where the
alchemists often drew on the spontaneous generation of animals as
examples relevant to alchemical transmutation. Sometimes they
supported the transmutation of 'species' (later, George Darwin
applied the alchemists' ideas in a biological context), and other
times, they asserted the alchemist's freedom from astrological
determinism.

Newman's chapter on this subject gives details for the attempts
to create a living creature throughout history. Late antique and
medieval theories of artificial life can be separated into two
categories, those that elaborated on the theory of spontaneous
generation, as outlined in the biological works of Aristotle, and
those based on the cosmogonic myths of a creator God. We see the
extravagant claims to make cattle out of dead bees, and further,
we see recipes for surpassing the ordinary products of
generation. For example, we see a recipe for a rational animal in
_The Book of Cow_, and the ancient Geber gives a description for
a prophetic being. The homunculus of Paracelsus is also conceived
in the light of outdoing nature.

Paracelsus (16th century) was a remarkable figure, in every
respect. He combined the Arabic literature on artificial
generation with themes drawn from German folk legend,
transforming the homunculus into bestial symbols that figured in
Goethe's Faust Part II. His personal life was equally
interesting,  detailed notes on his life give us the possibility
that Paracelsus may have been capable of description as either
female or male.  Paracelsus' work 'De natura rerum' presented the
homunculus and led to conflicting views. Paracelsus promoted the
homunculus as the crowning pinnacle of human art, showing the a
positive role for the male, but the woman's role is one of female
evil, and works give disturbing eugenic thought experiments.
After the time of Paracelsus, the homunculus was followed up by
mainly literary works.

The goal of artificial androgenesis induced by allowing male seed
to generate "spontaneously" is large in the homunculus
literature. Many of the authors saw male parthenogensis as a
plausible means of escaping the bonds of the material world. At
the same time, others, such as Thomas Aquinas was writing of
their apprehensions setting the stage for the ethical debates we
see today.



(1) Idries Shaw, _The Sufis_, Doubleday, 1964.



Amara Graps, PhD  www.amara.com
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), 
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, 
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it