Education? What is its use today; and why do we value it so? We spend years learning the same information in order to ingrain it into our long-term memory. It is the inefficiency of the human brain's memory that requires us to attend school for 12+ years just to be competent enough to find decent-paying jobs. What if we removed the need for education? What would our world look like?
It is inarguable that computers (and the internet) are rapidly evolving at an exponential rate. In 2010, we have thousands of times more computing power than computer owners of 1990 had. In twenty years, this difference will be applied to the computer owners of that year. We possibly may see an even greater leap in computing power than ever before if quantum computing takes off.
As the internet increasingly gathers information to the point of containing virtually all of human knowledge in it, its use as a tool will become more and more vital to us. Eventually, we will have the internet more connected to us than ever before. Decades from now, we will have the internet connected to our brains, possibly through wireless brain impulse readers or other technologies. The point is, we will get to where memorization is irrelevant because the internet will provide us with the answers to the questions of our daily lives.
Imagine flying to another country, donning an internet-connected brain-machine device, and conversing with the locals of that country without ever having learned their language. Instead, you are using an internet translating service that immediately translates the words of the locals and reads your thoughts while giving you the your answers in their language. There goes those four years of foreign language you would have had in high school. Apply this scenario to solving math equations, economical questions, and any other task that requires non common-sense knowledge.
This future may be only 40 or so years away, soon enough to honestly contemplate what education's role will be once that happens. What will children do for the first 18-24 years of their lives? Will school even be necessary? Obviously, it would still be wise to build social skills in some sort of peer-interacting environment. Will these places be schools or just "playgrounds?" It may be that "school" will consist of learning how to use this brain-machine technology. (Another option is virtual socialization, of which I'll cover in another post)
Children will presumably not automatically know what a complex equation means in their head even if it is the right answer to the problem they were solving. Therefore, learning to use this technology would be similar to teaching children how to use the internet today, only slightly more complicated depending on the crudeness of the brain-machine device. This training seems like it would take much less time, however, than today's current curriculum takes.
Like the brain-machine devices that people will wear to replace knowledge memorization, mind clones will presumably have the internet at their disposal in their virtual world. These mind clones, with their faster processing power, will therefore be upgraded human minds. Besides logical knowledge, would a mind clone's superior processing power be able to analyze emotions more accurately than humans? If it could, that would completely alter the way humans interact on many levels.
Eventually, as mind clones and internet-brain devices advance, I believe that the mind clones will be able to "live" inside of humans through the internet, while physically being stored on super-speed servers. Once this merger becomes complete, we will truly transform ourselves into humans, version two. On another note, will we still call ourselves homo sapiens, or would a better term be homo techinus?
Related: Cheaper teaching, faster learning
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Reality of Virtuality
We assume that we know what is real. We can describe reality as something which our senses can detect. Does reality, however, have to be something that only biological beings can inhabit. Can a virtual world or being be considered real? It can be detected by us through sight inarguably, along with other senses more controversially. What defines reality and who are we to judge what it is?
Virtual worlds are inhabited by virtual people; that is how things go. If a virtual person were to possess a consciousness and awareness rivaling (even surpassing) that of our own, who are we to tell them that they are not real? Assuming that mind doubles come to inhabit their own world, what would make them less based in reality than ourselves? If, as is likely, they become more intelligent and conscious than ourselves, would we have to define their virtual world as real as ours? What is the threshold upon which we attribute reality?
This problem does not have much relevance at the moment, but it will likely become a philosophical obstacle in the next few decades, as virtual worlds and beings become more advanced and thus more "real." Throughout history, we have known only one reality; one biological truth and system. With the advent of digital technology, we have created a new system of evolution. Instead of biological evolution being the only variable, we now have another process which far surpasses its predecessor in terms of growth.
Computing technology has exponentially grown since its inception, as anybody familiar with Moore's law will tell you. Still, we haven't yet computed what we define as consciousness, or what is the complexity of the human brain. It is believed that this feat is not far off, however, within decades.
Once we have come to grasp the computing mechanisms of consciousness and created beings that replicate our own minds, what gives us the right to say that these beings (even though they are clones) are not real? As an analogy, we consider biological clones to be real even though they are copies, so wouldn't digital clones be real?
One may argue that the reason for denying a virtual world or beings the adjective of real is that we can "pull the plug" at anytime and that they are under our control. I retort by reminding people that we grow animals for the purpose of food and that we indeed "pull the plug" on their lives routinely, yet we consider these animals to be real.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that reality has always been stranger than fiction, and that the most ironic aspect of this is that reality may not just be biological, but can also be digital.
Virtual worlds are inhabited by virtual people; that is how things go. If a virtual person were to possess a consciousness and awareness rivaling (even surpassing) that of our own, who are we to tell them that they are not real? Assuming that mind doubles come to inhabit their own world, what would make them less based in reality than ourselves? If, as is likely, they become more intelligent and conscious than ourselves, would we have to define their virtual world as real as ours? What is the threshold upon which we attribute reality?
This problem does not have much relevance at the moment, but it will likely become a philosophical obstacle in the next few decades, as virtual worlds and beings become more advanced and thus more "real." Throughout history, we have known only one reality; one biological truth and system. With the advent of digital technology, we have created a new system of evolution. Instead of biological evolution being the only variable, we now have another process which far surpasses its predecessor in terms of growth.
Computing technology has exponentially grown since its inception, as anybody familiar with Moore's law will tell you. Still, we haven't yet computed what we define as consciousness, or what is the complexity of the human brain. It is believed that this feat is not far off, however, within decades.
Once we have come to grasp the computing mechanisms of consciousness and created beings that replicate our own minds, what gives us the right to say that these beings (even though they are clones) are not real? As an analogy, we consider biological clones to be real even though they are copies, so wouldn't digital clones be real?
One may argue that the reason for denying a virtual world or beings the adjective of real is that we can "pull the plug" at anytime and that they are under our control. I retort by reminding people that we grow animals for the purpose of food and that we indeed "pull the plug" on their lives routinely, yet we consider these animals to be real.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that reality has always been stranger than fiction, and that the most ironic aspect of this is that reality may not just be biological, but can also be digital.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The End of Religion?
In a world of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Judists, Hindus, and the few in between, is there really any more room for a new organized religion? It seems that the entire world has separated itself based upon a few belief systems and that those systems are the only viable options or those seeking to convert. But is this how it will always be?
The history of organized religion is documented, however thoroughly, and can be traced back to millenia ago. From the Egyptians to the Romans to Muhammad, variations of organized worship practices are abundant. It is understood that at the dawn of human civilization, religions were the tools of the rulers, providing justification for them to reign while also unifying the society.
Where we are increasingly globalized and compliant with the institution of government today, is there any unfulfilled void left as far as religions purposes goes; or are Jesus, Muhummad, and Siddhattha the last prophets humanity will witness and/or need?
With the rise of science during the last few centuries, it seems that religion has taken less a role in explaining natural phenomena. Now we can go to the doctor and ask exactly what is wrong with us instead of relying on a shaman. We can see stars and planets light-years away, instead of attributing them to Gods. Tsunamis and thunder are understood scientifically. The list can go on, but it is clear that we no longer need to be told what things are by somebody who claims to have direct connection with a spiritual world.
So, then, what purpose does religion play? Governments are quite well established throughout the world, virtually eliminating the need for a religion to justify their existence. Of course, religion does still play a role in unifying communities, however large. But, it also does much to divide communities and people to the point of hatred and even violence.
Therefore, can the argument that it helps unify be justified given the evidence for its effect to do just the opposite? This is an arguable issue, but I want to point out that religion is not the only method of unifying people and that there are more and more methods developing as we become less of an agrarian people and more urban-concentrated. I'm referring to things like entertainment venues, malls, and other structures where people gather and can share a sense of unity.
I ask again, what is religion good for? Is it just that we as a species cannot let go one of our earliest inventions? Do we really biologically need to believe in a higher power to survive? I would think not. May it be a "side-effect" of our ego? I would point to this as the most logical explanation as to why religion has persisted for so long. A perfect example is the fact that in the Bible it is said that God created man in his image. This serves no purpose, in my opinion, other than to glorify man and to picture man as God-like, thereby boosting our ego.
Therefore, it is the ego's vulnerability as a fragile, wanted, and deceitful entity, along with human's early curiosity and imagination and the need for a unifying structure in the past that led to religion in the first place. Now, I believe, the major contributor to religion's existence is human's resistance to cultural changes, the exercise of the imagination that it can fulfill, and the fear of post-life suffering that many religions threaten.
Because this blog is about mind uploading, I find it necessary to contemplate what form religion may take in a world, virtual or physical, inhabited by virtual consciousnesses. I believe the fundamental question to this is: Would virtual minds have imagination? It is human's imagination that has provided the foundation for religion to flourish. If clones do not have imagination, does that mean that they cannot fathom a higher being unrelated to the physical world?
This poses another question, is imagination computable? Imagination can be simply described as "exploring alternative possibilities or realities." If, however, a mind clone has access to all the information of the internet and also has the ability to process it, it seems that it could compute alternative possibilities and ultimately the possibility that there is a higher being unbeknown to both us humans and the clones.
I personally find it more believable that mind clones may start off with religious beliefs, due to their duplicating nature and the fact that their "originals" may be religious. But, if we let mind clones function independently of our own control in a virtual space/world, I believe that they would begin to have much more scientifically/logic-driven minds.
One's argument against letting clones get rid of religious beliefs may be that it also gets rid of their moral beliefs and their sense of community, thereby corrupting their personality. Personally, I see no base for that conclusion and find it false and arrogant to believe that atheists/realists are immoral and cannot have a sense of community. So that argument is irrelevant in my opinion.
Finally, as we progress scientifically into the next few centuries, will we need religion anymore? Maybe we can learn from the clones and let go of our fantasies in return for more scientific, reality-based beliefs.
To return to my original question, maybe the clones will create a religion of their own. Not one based on visions or prophecies, but one entirely unlike we have ever seen, because we did not create it. I can't imagine what this religion, if it could be called that, would even be like. It may be too advanced for our minds to comprehend. Will we see religious "start-ups" that compete in a capitalistic fashion? Would that mean that those virtual religions last for only a limited amount of time before a "better" one comes along? All I know is that nothing lasts forever, and the major world religions of our day are no exception.
Related: Will posthumans all be atheists?
The history of organized religion is documented, however thoroughly, and can be traced back to millenia ago. From the Egyptians to the Romans to Muhammad, variations of organized worship practices are abundant. It is understood that at the dawn of human civilization, religions were the tools of the rulers, providing justification for them to reign while also unifying the society.
Where we are increasingly globalized and compliant with the institution of government today, is there any unfulfilled void left as far as religions purposes goes; or are Jesus, Muhummad, and Siddhattha the last prophets humanity will witness and/or need?
With the rise of science during the last few centuries, it seems that religion has taken less a role in explaining natural phenomena. Now we can go to the doctor and ask exactly what is wrong with us instead of relying on a shaman. We can see stars and planets light-years away, instead of attributing them to Gods. Tsunamis and thunder are understood scientifically. The list can go on, but it is clear that we no longer need to be told what things are by somebody who claims to have direct connection with a spiritual world.
So, then, what purpose does religion play? Governments are quite well established throughout the world, virtually eliminating the need for a religion to justify their existence. Of course, religion does still play a role in unifying communities, however large. But, it also does much to divide communities and people to the point of hatred and even violence.
Therefore, can the argument that it helps unify be justified given the evidence for its effect to do just the opposite? This is an arguable issue, but I want to point out that religion is not the only method of unifying people and that there are more and more methods developing as we become less of an agrarian people and more urban-concentrated. I'm referring to things like entertainment venues, malls, and other structures where people gather and can share a sense of unity.
I ask again, what is religion good for? Is it just that we as a species cannot let go one of our earliest inventions? Do we really biologically need to believe in a higher power to survive? I would think not. May it be a "side-effect" of our ego? I would point to this as the most logical explanation as to why religion has persisted for so long. A perfect example is the fact that in the Bible it is said that God created man in his image. This serves no purpose, in my opinion, other than to glorify man and to picture man as God-like, thereby boosting our ego.
Therefore, it is the ego's vulnerability as a fragile, wanted, and deceitful entity, along with human's early curiosity and imagination and the need for a unifying structure in the past that led to religion in the first place. Now, I believe, the major contributor to religion's existence is human's resistance to cultural changes, the exercise of the imagination that it can fulfill, and the fear of post-life suffering that many religions threaten.
Because this blog is about mind uploading, I find it necessary to contemplate what form religion may take in a world, virtual or physical, inhabited by virtual consciousnesses. I believe the fundamental question to this is: Would virtual minds have imagination? It is human's imagination that has provided the foundation for religion to flourish. If clones do not have imagination, does that mean that they cannot fathom a higher being unrelated to the physical world?
This poses another question, is imagination computable? Imagination can be simply described as "exploring alternative possibilities or realities." If, however, a mind clone has access to all the information of the internet and also has the ability to process it, it seems that it could compute alternative possibilities and ultimately the possibility that there is a higher being unbeknown to both us humans and the clones.
I personally find it more believable that mind clones may start off with religious beliefs, due to their duplicating nature and the fact that their "originals" may be religious. But, if we let mind clones function independently of our own control in a virtual space/world, I believe that they would begin to have much more scientifically/logic-driven minds.
One's argument against letting clones get rid of religious beliefs may be that it also gets rid of their moral beliefs and their sense of community, thereby corrupting their personality. Personally, I see no base for that conclusion and find it false and arrogant to believe that atheists/realists are immoral and cannot have a sense of community. So that argument is irrelevant in my opinion.
Finally, as we progress scientifically into the next few centuries, will we need religion anymore? Maybe we can learn from the clones and let go of our fantasies in return for more scientific, reality-based beliefs.
To return to my original question, maybe the clones will create a religion of their own. Not one based on visions or prophecies, but one entirely unlike we have ever seen, because we did not create it. I can't imagine what this religion, if it could be called that, would even be like. It may be too advanced for our minds to comprehend. Will we see religious "start-ups" that compete in a capitalistic fashion? Would that mean that those virtual religions last for only a limited amount of time before a "better" one comes along? All I know is that nothing lasts forever, and the major world religions of our day are no exception.
Related: Will posthumans all be atheists?
Digital Sleep?
In pondering the behaviors that a "mind clone" would have in its virtual world, I came to an interesting idea regarding sleep. Would a digital clone of one's conscious need to sleep/dream, and additionally, would it contain an unconscious?
It is currently believed that we, as humans, spend a third of our life sleeping in order to let our biological functions rest and "recoup." Most importantly, our brains need sleep in order to continue to function properly. If we go for a few days without it, we start to experience negative side effects.
Along with recouping, it is also believed that our subconscious is most active during this time and that our lives are "figured out" during sleep. By analyzing experiences more rationally and undisturbed, our unconscious deals with problems that our conscious mind is not capable of dealing with. REM sleep seems to be the most critical aspect towards our mental functions in that during it, there is increased brain activity and this is where most dreams occur.
A virtual self would not be held by the biological processes which we have become adapted to. So, would the virtual self therefore have one third more time than us to be "conscious?" Would a virtual clone possess a subconscious, or would it be an advanced hybrid of both conscious and subconscious of which we do not possess?
Is there a way that possibly a process for separating what constitutes as conscious and unconscious could be calculated, allowing for the digital clone to have both types of conscious? For example, a program that explicitly inhibits things tagged as subconscious traits from playing a large role in an "awake" clone, while allowing them to play a larger role if the clone is "asleep."
Also, would programming a digital self to rest be an advantage to it, or would it just hinder its evolution? If one were to upload one's conscious onto a machine, there could possibly be a way to run simulations that would allow one to find out the outcome were certain situations to occur. Similar to the Matrix training programs, one could be virtually placed into an environment and perform activities to determine what would happen in the real world.
In conclusion, I believe that in order to maintain their "clone" status, we would have to program mind uploads to behave exactly as the user, in terms of behaviors like sleep and possessing a subconscious. However, it may be that these uploads could becomes more than just clones, but rather more intelligent versions of ourselves. Through the elimination of sleep and a more alert subconscious, these clones could surpass our mental functions and transcend the limits of biological thinking.
It is currently believed that we, as humans, spend a third of our life sleeping in order to let our biological functions rest and "recoup." Most importantly, our brains need sleep in order to continue to function properly. If we go for a few days without it, we start to experience negative side effects.
Along with recouping, it is also believed that our subconscious is most active during this time and that our lives are "figured out" during sleep. By analyzing experiences more rationally and undisturbed, our unconscious deals with problems that our conscious mind is not capable of dealing with. REM sleep seems to be the most critical aspect towards our mental functions in that during it, there is increased brain activity and this is where most dreams occur.
A virtual self would not be held by the biological processes which we have become adapted to. So, would the virtual self therefore have one third more time than us to be "conscious?" Would a virtual clone possess a subconscious, or would it be an advanced hybrid of both conscious and subconscious of which we do not possess?
Is there a way that possibly a process for separating what constitutes as conscious and unconscious could be calculated, allowing for the digital clone to have both types of conscious? For example, a program that explicitly inhibits things tagged as subconscious traits from playing a large role in an "awake" clone, while allowing them to play a larger role if the clone is "asleep."
Also, would programming a digital self to rest be an advantage to it, or would it just hinder its evolution? If one were to upload one's conscious onto a machine, there could possibly be a way to run simulations that would allow one to find out the outcome were certain situations to occur. Similar to the Matrix training programs, one could be virtually placed into an environment and perform activities to determine what would happen in the real world.
In conclusion, I believe that in order to maintain their "clone" status, we would have to program mind uploads to behave exactly as the user, in terms of behaviors like sleep and possessing a subconscious. However, it may be that these uploads could becomes more than just clones, but rather more intelligent versions of ourselves. Through the elimination of sleep and a more alert subconscious, these clones could surpass our mental functions and transcend the limits of biological thinking.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Lifecasting and Mind Uploading
I have, along with mind uploading, become fascinated with the prospect of lifecasting. The thought that one could digitize one's entire life is amazing. Having grown up in an era in which video cameras were a household item, I have been fortunate enough to have much of the important moments of my life videotaped. Recently, I embarked on a project to convert all of the hundreds of hours-worth of analog home video to digital. Through this endeavor, I have contemplated the possibility of having nearly every moment of my life captured on camera.
Apparently, I'm not the only person who has contemplated this. A man named Gordon Bell seems to have taken this idea to the extreme. He is currently in the process of "lifecasting." Lifecasting is, in fact, recording one's entire life. As crazy as this may sound, there are technological advances that increasingly make this a reality. The miniaturization of cameras and cpu's are allowing more discrete recording than ever before.
I'll admit, I've experimented with this technology by purchasing a hidden camera pen and wearing it on my shirt while performing my daily activities. Surprisingly, the video quality was not bad and the audio was acceptable. Still, there is much to go as far as the technology goes. First of all, the battery only listed less than two hours and the camera wasn't completely hidden, as my pen was still visible.
Eventually, cameras will be embedded into clothing, glasses, appliances, and other discrete locations as to allow complete invisibility of the fact that one is even lifecasting.
I believe that this technology is related to that of mind uploading, in that "memories" could be constantly analyzed as one uploads their experiences in the form of lifecasting. Imagine a world in which our biological memories are all but obsolete due to computers storing them and sorting through them as need be. This could effectively provide the information needed to recreate one's personality in digital form.
Through speech-to-text technology, one's entire day's dialogue could be recorded, along with the visual experiences. Additionally, advanced algorithms could record one's answers to questions in conversations and build an extensive vocabulary closely matching the user's.
There are many possibilities to consider when discussing lifecasting. I, for one, am most excited about its use in conscious duplicating.
Apparently, I'm not the only person who has contemplated this. A man named Gordon Bell seems to have taken this idea to the extreme. He is currently in the process of "lifecasting." Lifecasting is, in fact, recording one's entire life. As crazy as this may sound, there are technological advances that increasingly make this a reality. The miniaturization of cameras and cpu's are allowing more discrete recording than ever before.
I'll admit, I've experimented with this technology by purchasing a hidden camera pen and wearing it on my shirt while performing my daily activities. Surprisingly, the video quality was not bad and the audio was acceptable. Still, there is much to go as far as the technology goes. First of all, the battery only listed less than two hours and the camera wasn't completely hidden, as my pen was still visible.
Eventually, cameras will be embedded into clothing, glasses, appliances, and other discrete locations as to allow complete invisibility of the fact that one is even lifecasting.
I believe that this technology is related to that of mind uploading, in that "memories" could be constantly analyzed as one uploads their experiences in the form of lifecasting. Imagine a world in which our biological memories are all but obsolete due to computers storing them and sorting through them as need be. This could effectively provide the information needed to recreate one's personality in digital form.
Through speech-to-text technology, one's entire day's dialogue could be recorded, along with the visual experiences. Additionally, advanced algorithms could record one's answers to questions in conversations and build an extensive vocabulary closely matching the user's.
There are many possibilities to consider when discussing lifecasting. I, for one, am most excited about its use in conscious duplicating.
My Vision for Mind Uploading
I believe that the first steps in mind uploading will be equivalent to a "super Facebook," in that a user signs up and inputs preselected information (likes, dislikes, preferences) that will determine, through a complicated algorithm, how that person would act in the real world. It would be a much more organized and sophisticated system than any of Facebook's current features.
Along with simple likes and dislikes, the user will need to complete a series of personality tests that have been proven to be the most accurate. This will require a few hours of tests and inputting personal data, but I believe that people would be more than willing to do it if the end result is a virtual clone of oneself. Now I'm not saying that this process will be perfect in its first stages (maybe even ever), but I do believe that this is the most practical method and through constant refining it could very closely imitate people's attitudes, mannerisms, and other traits that compose our personalities.
Along with personality duplicating, I believe that the web service would include a pseudo-physical feature in the form of an avatar. Through an advanced avatar-building method, which involves uploading different angles of one's body and movements, a user would create a realistic virtual self. The avatar-builder would be more advanced than today's cartoon-like builders. It would require a user to upload preselected angles of their face and body to the service, which then analyzes, through face-detection technology, how that user is structured an recreates the user. In addition, preselected motions of the user would be uploaded to the service in the form of videos. Those videos are then analyzed with a body-detection technology that identifies the user's motion-traits.
Once the avatar is built, the user could explore the website's virtual world. This virtual world would have to be as sophisticated and life-like as possible, so the virtual clone could function in as close to an environment as the user's. One possibility for creating a truly life-like virtual world is a technology similar to Google's Streetview, but allows rendering of a 3d space, effectively transferring the real world to the internet.
Of course this is just a rough outline of what I envision the beginning of mind uploading will look like, but it should be enough to give one an idea. As new technologies emerge, so will the possibilities. I invite anybody to add any thoughts on this possibility and any useful additions to it. I have a more detailed description that I am currently working on, but I will post that when it is more refined.
In conclusion, this website would be a mix between a social networking site (i.e. Facebook, Lifenaut), a virtual world (i.e. Second Life, video games), and entirely new technology that will create the next step in human online presence.
Along with simple likes and dislikes, the user will need to complete a series of personality tests that have been proven to be the most accurate. This will require a few hours of tests and inputting personal data, but I believe that people would be more than willing to do it if the end result is a virtual clone of oneself. Now I'm not saying that this process will be perfect in its first stages (maybe even ever), but I do believe that this is the most practical method and through constant refining it could very closely imitate people's attitudes, mannerisms, and other traits that compose our personalities.
Along with personality duplicating, I believe that the web service would include a pseudo-physical feature in the form of an avatar. Through an advanced avatar-building method, which involves uploading different angles of one's body and movements, a user would create a realistic virtual self. The avatar-builder would be more advanced than today's cartoon-like builders. It would require a user to upload preselected angles of their face and body to the service, which then analyzes, through face-detection technology, how that user is structured an recreates the user. In addition, preselected motions of the user would be uploaded to the service in the form of videos. Those videos are then analyzed with a body-detection technology that identifies the user's motion-traits.
Once the avatar is built, the user could explore the website's virtual world. This virtual world would have to be as sophisticated and life-like as possible, so the virtual clone could function in as close to an environment as the user's. One possibility for creating a truly life-like virtual world is a technology similar to Google's Streetview, but allows rendering of a 3d space, effectively transferring the real world to the internet.
Of course this is just a rough outline of what I envision the beginning of mind uploading will look like, but it should be enough to give one an idea. As new technologies emerge, so will the possibilities. I invite anybody to add any thoughts on this possibility and any useful additions to it. I have a more detailed description that I am currently working on, but I will post that when it is more refined.
In conclusion, this website would be a mix between a social networking site (i.e. Facebook, Lifenaut), a virtual world (i.e. Second Life, video games), and entirely new technology that will create the next step in human online presence.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Introduction
As I sit here tonight attempting to write an interesting introduction to my labor of love blog I affectionately titled Tethered Mind, I would like to share with you what my vision is for this blog and what I plan for its future. First of all, tethered is of course the word describing a mobile device going online. I adjectivise mind with this word in order to express the future prospect that we may be able to "upload" our minds to the internet or a CPU that would allow us to effectively clone our consciousness.
The terms "mind uploading, cybernetic immortality, and transhumanism" all relate to the subject I am referring to. In the future, it is presumed that we will learn enough about the way in which our brains and minds work in order to reverse engineer them to the point of duplication. There are proposed biological duplication methods that have potential, but I am more interested in the cybernetic immortality aspect, as I see it more feasible and worthwhile.
Imagine a world in which one can, through a website (program), create a clone of their conscious. This conscious will have all of the user's (useful) memories, mannerisms, preferences, quirks, and effectively the same emotions as the user. Prospectively, from inputting the most important data about oneself, it could be possible that a virtual self could live in a virtual world, acting out one's life in that virtual world.
In my opinion, this is the only way to truly find the fountain of youth. Though we will eventually advance scientifically to the level of replacing dead and diseased cells with new ones and thus greatly expanding our life spans, it still does not remove us from the physical limits of our universe. If we are preserved in digital form, it would be much more difficult to terminate us as long as there is an energy-providing source.
There are people such as Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, and others who have tackled the prospect of mind uploading. Still, it is an emerging field in its infant (likely fetus) stage. Ethically and technically, there is still much to be learned about this technology. Science has always been about contemplating the possibilities until the desired goal or a better one is reached. I see mind uploading as no different, therefore I feel that contemplating and discussing its future is critical to human evolution. Welcome to Tethered Minds...
The terms "mind uploading, cybernetic immortality, and transhumanism" all relate to the subject I am referring to. In the future, it is presumed that we will learn enough about the way in which our brains and minds work in order to reverse engineer them to the point of duplication. There are proposed biological duplication methods that have potential, but I am more interested in the cybernetic immortality aspect, as I see it more feasible and worthwhile.
Imagine a world in which one can, through a website (program), create a clone of their conscious. This conscious will have all of the user's (useful) memories, mannerisms, preferences, quirks, and effectively the same emotions as the user. Prospectively, from inputting the most important data about oneself, it could be possible that a virtual self could live in a virtual world, acting out one's life in that virtual world.
In my opinion, this is the only way to truly find the fountain of youth. Though we will eventually advance scientifically to the level of replacing dead and diseased cells with new ones and thus greatly expanding our life spans, it still does not remove us from the physical limits of our universe. If we are preserved in digital form, it would be much more difficult to terminate us as long as there is an energy-providing source.
There are people such as Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, and others who have tackled the prospect of mind uploading. Still, it is an emerging field in its infant (likely fetus) stage. Ethically and technically, there is still much to be learned about this technology. Science has always been about contemplating the possibilities until the desired goal or a better one is reached. I see mind uploading as no different, therefore I feel that contemplating and discussing its future is critical to human evolution. Welcome to Tethered Minds...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)