"I am, therefore I think". Do we have an existence and, in some mysterious way, an essence, which transcends nature-nurture and puts us above the other animals? Many metaphysicians and others in related disciples like theology, religion etc. think so. But "mysterious" is a key word here. If we do manifest such a self, the nature-nurture model is invoked to seek out its in-this-world origins. The Gospel thesis that we are "not of this world" is not acceptable to modern science.
The transendent view of :"who we really are" depends on the reality of another "dimension" of existence. That dimension or realm would somehow manifest itself in this realm and thus by-pass the causality of the nature-nurture model. By definition this would be miraculous as well as mysterious and the miraculous-mysterious self is not accepted as true by modern science. At the same time modern science cannot prove it false.
WHY TRANSCENDENCE IS IMPORTANT FOR EVOLUTION
Some time in this century, the intelligence of machines will surpass that of humans in every measurable dimension. One of the sayings of Professor Kevin Warwick is that the more intelligent will not long be ruled by the less intelligent ... and that applies to a man-machine world as well.
Given the massive amount of in-this-world information, it seems reasonable that machines will surpass humans in their ability to store and process it in all material ways as long as humans and machines are both on the same 'playing field'. That playing field is the material realm.
If humans have the capacity for a transcendent self while machines do not, a real "super-ego" if you will, that may be all that saves the human race from subordination. The word 'real' is inserted because the Freudian super-ego is assumed to be only a product of nature-nurture like the rest of personality.
PERSONALITY AND EMOTIONALITY
In everyday life we associate personality with the expression of emotion, sometimes called temperament. Psychologists assert that only six or seven basic human emotions can be recognized in facial expression. Dr. Paul Ekman, University of California, San Francisco cites:
Anger
Sadness
Fear
Surprise
Disgust
Contempt
Happiness
Moreover, he claims that these emotional expressions are more or less universally discernable. Even cultures isolated from the mainstream of global culture recognize them. Thus humanoid robotics projects, especially in Japan, have been working on the expression of these emotions in androids.
For a reference to Dr. Ekman's work see "The 43 Facial Muscles that Reveal" by Judy Foreman, New York Times, August 5/03:
But we return to machine logic and its expression of personality independent of any humanoid physical features. There are many science fiction movies which illustrate the point. Recently the television series "Nikita" presented on this theme. A computer with an interface no more human than VIVO (voice in voice out) which could as well be TITO (text in text out) challenged the intelligence of the human intelligence bureau.
After a few interactions between man and machine, the viewer would automatically project a personality onto the machine. Put it this way. If a highly intelligent person were to speak to us through a computer, with no other expression but the machine's standard output devices, we would ascribe personality to that human being.
We can expect as much with a well developed AI program. Personality theorists who emphasize the cognitive over the emotional in personality expression are winning points for their argument.
MACHINE PERSONALITY AND TRANSCENDENCE
Some time in this century a machine with general super-human AI will be developed (if it does not exist already in a military or private civilian sector secret project). Could it be considered to even be imbued with a super-ego, a transcendent self? In Asimov's "I, Robot", there is a scene in which the robot proclaims its belief in God.
If superhuman AIs (robo sapiens) become the new dominant species on this planet, they may even proclaim a theology as they evolve. Who are we then, with our inferior intellects, to argue with them?