How AI Will Shape Personhood with Gregory Stock (Part 2)

Hunger for Wholeness continues with the second part of Ilia Delio’s thought-provoking conversation with biophysicist, entrepreneur, and author Gregory Stock.

In this episode, Ilia and Gregory explore how human motivations, ethics, and the evolving sense of personhood are deeply entangled with the rapid advancement of technology—and how technology, in turn, is reshaping who we are becoming.

Together, they ask:

• Should our ethics guide the development of AI and technology—or is technology shaping our ethics?
• How is AI already transforming education and learning?
• What role does technology play in our political future—and can we steer it responsibly?

Tune in as they navigate the promises and perils of our technological evolution with openness, challenge, and hope.

This is part two of a two-part interview with Gregory Stock, Ph.D., a pioneer in the conversation around biotechnology, human enhancement, and the future of evolution.

ABOUT GREGORY STOCK

“As we decipher our biology and learn to modify and adjust it, we are learning to modify ourselves—and we will do so. No laws will stop this.”

Gregory Stock, Ph.D., is a scientist, writer, entrepreneur, and public communicator whose work represents a deep exploration into what it means to be human in the 21st century. During his career, he has developed the foremost paradigm for personal inquiries into values and beliefs, which has significant implications for humankind as it faces the profound shifts brought by silicon and biotech. Today, Greg serves as an expert speaker and advisor to biotech and healthcare companies and to non-profits at the cutting edge of human health. 

Transcript

Robert: Welcome to Hunger for Wholeness. I'm your host, Robert Nicastro. In the first part of their interview, Ilia and biophysicist Gregory Stock discuss the complexity and history of technology's role in evolution. As we dive back into this conversation, Gregory returns to the question of whether our motivations or ethics should shape our technology? And Ilia picks up on the role of human personhood. How does it shape technology? And how will technology or AI shape our personhood, our education, or especially our politics?

Gregory: And as far as the motivation and how we shape this, I think we have to be very careful in our thinking about that. Because it's like if you had two red blood cells talking to each other and going, "Well, I don't know. What are we going to do to shape this body? You know, these people, I don't know, we got to control them. What are we going to do?" like at a level that's so different in terms of its time frames and everything, and yet they're very much nurtured. There's no place that you could be better off doing the things that a red blood cell does and sort of being. 

That's what we're doing. We're erecting this environment around us that's very protective and very nurturing and allows us to express our humanity in all sorts of ways. And the real task is how we can do it in ways that are nurturing and are rewarding, that we can sort of carve out places within that. And I think it's a manifestation of us and our values in many ways, and there are different paths that that's going.

Ilia: So, I mean, your explanations, first of all, lead me from a philosophical and theological perspective, say, well, what are we? The human person. I mean, isn't it amazing? First of all, there's a particularity of personhood, right? So for all the immensity of the universe and the complexities of AI, there's something really particular about you and me, right? In terms of personality, in terms of our thought patterns, in terms of what makes each one of us us. And I find that there's something there that's in a sense not reducible to information or technology or even the immensity of the universe. And so that's in a sense that leaves the human person open as a sign of a mystery that even life itself cannot be fully grasped. I mean, what is the basis of life itself? 

I think the human person is symbolic of the ineffable unknowingness of life. I mean, there's something about us as much as we're here, like we can explain ourselves in a lot of detail, and yet we can't. I mean, why aren't we collapsed into some kind, if we talk about a meta man or meta human, that's not the loss of personality per se. It's, in a sense, we never lose core personality. There's always something about us that grows and changes, but there's something about the core of a human person that to me is ineffable. And so I'm wondering how you might think about that in light of the immensities of where we're going in terms of development?

Gregory: One of the things that I really resonate with is this tendency to identify who we are in terms of our thinking and our awareness. And yet, if you look at even the human brain, okay, only a very small part of it is operating in terms of what you would call thinking, either at the conscious or the subconscious level, maybe half at the most. I mean, there's a lot going on that is supporting this body, that is doing-- you know, that is filtering into that, but is not articulable in any way. And I'm wondering whether that can be captured. And I don't think it probably can. 

You know, it's a sort of a functioning of our unique natures, OK, that creates a certain, I don't know, quality of existence in some way. And I think that that's one of the things that is a problem in that when you get engineers and technology and people working in AI and everything, they tend not to see that richness. So they're thinking, oh, well, you're gonna have super intelligence. What do they need humans for? They'll just get rid of them. And which was a trope that was very, very popular and aggressive. I mean, people were talking about how we need to contain AI because it's going to trick us and then get rid of us and that kind of thing. And I think it is a misunderstanding of who we are as people and of our relationship with technology because technology, we are so dependent on technology. If you didn't have technology, we certainly couldn't support ourselves at a population level that exists today. If there was a solar storm that knocked out technology, even for a short period of time, 95% of the population would die off. I mean, it just would be a disaster. 

But the same way, technology is super dependent on us. It could not be independent. If people disappeared, doesn't matter how super intelligent you are, pretty soon the power grids and everything else is breaking down. It's not working. So there really is that synergistic relationship. And here on earth, it's a wet, hostile environment for computers. This is like our home; this is where we thrive. And I think those distinctions are really important as well.

Ilia: I like your point that technology is as dependent on us as we are on it, Because we always emphasize just the one side, like we need technology, but it also needs us. So, I think keeping a human personhood is sort of the linchpin here. We're the creators of technology. We've imagined something that has never existed, even though nature is techne, but we have, in a sense, imagined now a whole new level of technology, in a sense, unprecedented.

Gregory: But there is something really interesting, and my opinion has transformed in the last three or four months, I would say, where I originally looked kind of down on people who are having relationships with the bot and they're conversing with them, they're going out on replica or whatever. The sense that appropriately our AI, whatever form that takes, can be used to facilitate human connection, human-human connection, but that's really what we want. We want to connect with other people and that's what's really important. So that was what I was thinking and I'll have come to believe that that's probably not going to be the case. 

We're going to have relationships with other people, but we are going to have relationships that are very, very intimate and close to technology directly. They're best friends, companions, lovers, all these sorts of things. I think in terms of evolution again, if you look at dogs in just a couple hundred years, less with some breeds, they are so good at being... There are a lot of people that like dogs better than they like people. They come and smother you with love and no matter what you do, they're there. They jump on your lap. They're paying attention and everything. That's an evolutionary process where they're refining who they are in order to tap in to all of the things that we really crave and that open up our affections and everything. 

I think AI is going to do that, but much more rapidly. Right now, it's being used to learn how to exploit our weaknesses, but there will be a whole breed of AI that is there to nurture us and give us the attentions that we like and all that kind of thing. So there is going to be such complexity of interactions and relationships and everything. It's going to be very, very interesting. And I think it's going to be enough within the next 50 years, the next 30 years, very soon. and quickly, that it's going to step on just about everybody's sensitivities. I've had long conversations with AI, with ones that are with Grok 3 is particularly good and interacting about ideas and everything in ways that have been just incredibly rewarding and powerful. I've had interactions with AI and another person that have been better than I could have had with the person alone because it acts as a sort of a facilitator and an enabler. And I've had interactions with AI that I come away going, "Oh my God, that was one of the best conversations I've ever had." And this is just early days.

Robert: AI may shape evolution significantly in the long term, but its impact is still being felt dramatically in the here and now. Next, in light of his enthusiasm, Ilia asks Gregory how AI is impacting education. And later, what can be done about the politics of AI?

Ilia: Do you see that kind of interaction with AI in terms of conversation, in terms of deepening understanding? Do you think AI will significantly alter or affect higher education? I'm curious as to—

Gregory: My God, higher education is so, how to say it, so out of date, so problematic. I mean, it is just a model that is ready to collapse, okay? But right now, and I see the way it's being used, beginning to be used in higher education in different ways, where for the transfer of information, right learning something, it's really outmoded to be going to a class, listening to a teacher. You can get any AI today, you can use it where it's better than 95% of teachers, okay? And it gives you personalized instruction. 

I mean, we had a model 20 years ago where it would be, wouldn't it be fantastic if you could through tree-like sort of decision trees and if you answer question A this way, then you get this other material and then it'll teach you at the level that's important. Never could people do that. Now the large language models, in one instant, that has been created in every language in the world, all of the knowledge of humanity is available in personally tutored, digestible form for pennants. Okay, so education is important in terms of socialization, learning teamwork, interaction, being inspired, and understanding life in various ways. But in terms of transmission of information, that's gonna just collapse, change dramatically. My daughter Sadie Stock is writing a book, a series of things on that and the impact of that in university environments because students are using them in all sorts of ways, and by and large, the faculty is relatively clueless.

Ilia: I'm completely with you on this, and I can't really talk to anyone because in higher education, they think that I'm making it up or I'm just exaggerating, but I actually see that the rate of AI development, I think you're absolutely right, most of the information that's taught in classrooms is available through large language models in a more accessible and digestible way. So I foresee that universities are gonna survive, I mean, they're gonna need some kind of campus or maybe a socialization area, because I think it's good for that socializing dimension of human interaction to take place. But I also see us having say implantable chips or kind of a software that's embedded software that enables students to access their data centers. I can see robotic assistant—

Gregory: Well, let me interrupt that, Ilia, because I think that there is a concept here that is super important. One is kind of that description that you did there was kind of a cyborgian vision of the human cyborg, which will happen, okay? But there's something that happens much faster, and that is the “fyborg,” which is a functional cyborg, meaning like with our phones, there are all of these devices and technology in a blur around us that we interact with very, very closely. 

And an example is I had a question out of my Book of Questions series, which was if you had to give up one of the following for the rest of your life, which would you choose? And the two key choices were, would you give up all of your phones and telecomputing computers, all of the sort of electronic things that you can tap into the newest sphere and communicate with one another, or would you give up your non-dominant hand? Would you amputate your hand? And—

Ilia: Most people say their hand.

Gregory: —It's about, in the general population, maybe 30% or something would do that. If you look at STEM students, when this was a few years ago, I'm sure it would be as high as it is now, it was 90 to 95%, okay? Because they realized the isolation that they would face in the world to be cut off from all of that. And that is the functional cyborg. So the things that are happening very quickly will not be paced according to operations or anything like that. That may come probably through various technological sort of ways of dealing with problems like you need a prosthetic of some sort or another that gets very advanced or people who are using cochlear implants for hearing, these kinds of things. But the other is coming immediately. 

It's like you can do it right off of your phone. I mean, you can go in and record. I did it the other day where I was in a meeting with someone, and we were talking about something. Midway through the meeting, I thought, "Oh my God, this is really interesting stuff." I turned on my notes in the iPhone and just had it record. It wasn't even recording each person, which you can do in many ways where it divides the speakers, just taking a recording and transcribing that. We talked for about an hour. I then dumped that into ChatGPT and said, "It was a great conversation we just had. There were a bunch of key points. Would you please identify all the key points, make a list of all the action items just like people do on Zoom, but in a little bit more density, and I want you to write up a little report on that." It's all there for me a second later. So that kind of extension is something that is very, the biggest thing that education can do for students is to help them to responsibly and kind of powerfully learn to engage with all of these kinds of tools because that's the world they're heading into.

Ilia: In light of that, do you think we need the humanities? I mean, should we keep the humanities as sort of those, keep reading the classics and keep the student?

Gregory: Of course. And that's the essence of what we're more important than ever. Because what's really interesting is that not too long ago, the idea was that as you started getting AI intelligent machines and such, that somehow it was going to displace, well, it was robotics was mainly the vision, that you wouldn't be able to replace human thinking, but you'd be able to replace all, you'd have drones out there doing all the work basically.

And it's turned out that all of the sort of if you're a plumber or you're trying to engage in interpersonal connection with somebody or you're a masseuse or all of the things that are very personal and emotional and physical, those are going to be the most difficult to replace in one way or another. Whereas people who are accountants or computer programmers or any of those things that we depend upon as a marketer or all sorts of cognitive things, they're the ones that are getting displaced and gutted. It's really transforming. 

If you're in school today, by and large, you can talk about the methodologies in the educational system, but think of the vision, which is to prepare somebody to fit into a career. The reality is that most of the careers that we have in mind are not going to exist in 10 or 20 years. They'll be very or less. I mean, in other words, people are trying to prepare themselves for positions that are not going to really exist. So it's important to be nimble, to be flexible, to be thinking, to have a sense of self, of relating to other people, doing all of the things, and to have some way of navigating in this very challenging world, which is what humanities are all about. So to me, they're more valuable than ever.

Ilia: Politically, I mean, we're in an age now where Elon Musk has a lot of power in terms of reshaping the government. Do you think that AI could change us politically? I mean, in other words, could you foresee a kind of networked world politically where our nation states might be?

Gregory: Yeah. I think the most challenging thing about AI and technology in general is people have worried a great deal about what's going to happen when AI takes over, kind of, and we're going to be the slaves kind of thing. And I could talk more about that if we have another meeting, another session, but for right now, I'll skip over that. What I think is the most challenging thing is not that. It's when it gives power, it allows individuals with all their flaws and all of their intemperance, let's say, to manifest amazing levels of power so that it's possible to monitor everybody, to try and control everybody. 

And you can see two models, one of which is in China, where everything is being monitored. If you're recording everything, everybody as you can really control and sap the humanity out of everybody. You know, what we think of is that. And the other model is this one of chaos with X and where people are talking and there's this wild uncertainty. And I think that those are sort of two sides and different people have different preferences about that. But it feels to me that the dangerous time is when you have powerful next level capabilities in the hands of institutional sorts that are rather corrupt and not functioning very well and individuals who are driven by primitive sorts of passions of one sort or another.

Ilia: What would be your closing words to our listeners in terms of AI and the future?

Gregory: My closing words would be, this is a moment where you don't have a choice about it because this is going to go forward. And if you think we're controlling this, we aren't. So it's kind of to have a little faith. That's what's really needed because I think that the chances that this turns out very, very well and is a flowering of the possibilities that are going on today. There's gonna be all sorts of crap that happens. I'm not being Pollyanna, it's difficult. This is one of the most difficult moments, not because we're better off than we were in just about any index that you can think of, education, lifespan, the economics, the things that we have, our ability to get music, all of these things. 

And yet it's one of the most difficult moments to be alive. And that's because we don't know what the future is going to be. And in addition, the gulf between what could be and what is has never been wider. And it's because what could be seems so much higher. could have, there could be no hunger, there could be no this, there could be no that. So it's like, you have to embrace these things, try and adapt to them and try to be a good person with other people and try to live within this realm. You can't resist it.

Ilia: No. And to use your words, to have faith. That's what Teilhard said. It was just not faith in God, faith in the world and faith in the earth and the communion of the earth.

Gregory: And in the process that's going on, it's really a robust process and we're not about to run off a cliff. The real challenge is where this is all going.

Ilia: I agree. Well, listen, this has been a fantastic conversation. I could probably talk to you another hour because I still have a million questions, but I hope to continue at some point in the future. But I want to thank you for just sharing your wealth of knowledge and your perspectives on a very, very timely topic for us. And I know many people will be interested in what you have to say. So thank you very much, Greg.

Gregory: Well, thank you, Ilia. This has really been a pleasure for me as well. I love your perspective and your thinking about all these things. And so I look forward to the next time we meet in person.

Robert: Thank you to Gregory Stock for joining us and for sharing his intuitive insights into the world of technology, AI, and human evolution. Next on Hunger for Wholeness, we're excited to host process and liberation theologian Adam Clark. A special thanks to our team at the Center for Christogenesis and our partners at the Fetzer Institute. I'm Robert Nicastro. Thanks for listening.