With a new project announced, a team of international scientists have proposed building a simulation of the entire world. The Living Earth Simulator will not be the type of simulator one first pictures, as in a graphic virtual world. Rather it is a software program which operates at on supercomputers to comb through and analyze the large amounts of data on the internet for a selected output.
Through the use of semantic web technologies, the software will be able to more efficiently mine the vast archives of data on the internet. This effectively brings the internet to a more organized form and allows the massive amount of data to be used much more productively, rather than just staying stagnant while waiting for somebody to possibly pick them up in a search engine query, as they often do now.
While this simulator would undoubtedly be an effective data organizer and a huge advantage for scientists who need to simulate real world events for experiments, it could also be the first step towards creating environments in which AI can exist.
If software can "intelligently" comb the archives of the internet and produce given outputs, then the same software may be programmed to produce an AI. By searching the internet and finding all knowledge on computer science, mechanics, neural structure, and other relevant fields, the software could possibly have the capability to create the first true AI.
This project is sure to be years away and it would certainly be years after its initial availability that it would be sophisticated enough to create AI's, but this (or a later version of it) may be the missing link between us and the digital world that will ultimately create the long-coveted AI's.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Savant World
We have all heard stories about people who can remember every detail of their life, and some who can even perform superhuman feats such as learn a language in a week, solve extremely complex mathematical problems, or recite passages from an array of literature, a la Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. These cases are however very far and few in between, making them extraordinary in their own right. With brain-enhancement advanced technologies, artificial consciousnesses (AC's) (and mind clones) to be developed within the next few decades, it may be possible that we will be living in a world of "savants."
I use the term savant, not necessarily in the traditional, biological nature, but rather for beings who can seamlessly harness the vast array of human knowledge through the internet and who can use technological cognitive enhancers to perform seemingly impossibly complex functions internally.
Take for example, there are people living today who have the natural ability to remember nearly every moment of their life. We call it photographic memory. It may not be too long before this ability will be common amongst people. I see two ways of this occurring.
The first way is through advanced lifelogging technology, as I've discussed before, in which every moment of one's life is digitally archived on computers. Along with the visual and audio archiving, thoughts and sensual experiences (however detailed) are also archived through brain-machine technology that monitors brain impulses. By syncing this information with the video and audio, this allows entire moments, not just images and movements, to be captured. Some method of digital recall will be implemented in the form of brain-machine devices connected to retinal-implants that allow one to switch from biological sight to "digital sight." The basic technologies for this recall are already being implemented. Microchips will presumably be able to replace natural light with digital images or create an augmented reality while a brain implant will trick the sense receptors into sensing the archived sensual information.
The other way for a photographic memory to become common in humans is through a more conventional means. That is through medical technology, such as cognitive enhancers and possibly neural-altering surgery. As medical technology advances, I expect cognitive enhancers to become increasingly common and may lead to an intelligence boom as more people expand their cognitive capabilities. I see the surgery prospect less plausible, as it would require a "miracle" breakthrough in the understanding of the brain to enhance cognitive function enough to the point that people will be willing to have brain surgery for it. It would also require a stunt in the growth of cognitive enhancers, which I see as unlikely.
Of course extreme cognitive enhancements will have an effect on the very nature of identity. Our definition and current understanding of identity may need to be rewritten once we achieve these abilities. Identity itself is built on the understanding of the world around us and our internal thoughts. Once we have a higher understanding of the world around us and have higher mental capabilities in which our thoughts are born, we will thus have dramatically altered the very nature of human identity. Identity is created through our cognitive ability. By my count, there are five elements of cognitive function, in which each one has its own impact on our identities. They are:
1) Technical processing (i.e. mathematics, engineering)
2) Abstract facts (i.e. historical dates, political events)
3) Abstract thought (i.e. ideologies, opinions)
4) Memory (i.e. personal events, world events)
5) Emotions (i.e. happiness, sadness)
Of these five elements, most of them are related. For example, emotions are generally influenced and thus defined by memories. It may be that once we have more control over our memories, we will thus have more control over our emotions. Our emotions may just be the mind's attempt to scrap pieces of memories together to make sense of the present, causing us to act and feel certain ways. Additionally, abstract thought is fundamentally the merger of memory, abstract facts, technical processing, and possibly emotions. These relations could go on, however the five elements are fundamentally different in their respective rights.
Transhumanism is often described as the point when humans become post-human, i.e. human 2.0. While I believe human 3.0 is when we become fully mechanical, implementing mind cloning technologies and AC's, I believe that 2.0 will only be achieved once all five cognitive elements are technologically enhanced. As I described earlier, memory will be dramatically altered this century with archiving technologies. Emotions will not be too difficult to alter, as we already have "mood drugs," and paired with memory enhancements, these will also be controllable.
Technical processing is another obstacle which poses not too big of a problem. Cognitive enhancers from medical technology will greatly improve technical processing, and eventually brain implants will ave the ability to speed up our brain's processing power.
Abstract facts are, in my opinion, going to be dealt with through seamless interaction with the internet. As we now can sit at a desktop, laptop, or smart phone and search the internet for facts, in a few decades we will have this ability wired directly to our brains. Possibly through brain-machine devices that read one's questions (through brain waves) and relay the answers either through retinal microchips or audio, facts will become easily attainable. Paired with memory enhancers, people will not forget or disregard these facts right after using them, as some argue people (particularly students) are doing now, thus making them dumber. Instead, people will be able to recall these facts even more seamlessly at later times from their memory.
Abstract thought, to me, is the last domino in the row. With enhancements in the other four elements, one will have more resources and processing power to create personal opinions, beliefs, and ideologies.
All of these technologies and prospects have been about enhancing our biological beings, yet I believe that we will possibly first see these functions being achieved by AC's, or mind clones. These beings will undoubtedly have the upper hand in terms of technical processing, abstracts facts, and memories soon after their development. It is abstract thought and emotions in which it may take a while longer before they can perform them as well as humans.
In the virtual environment in which the AC's will live, we may be able to control evolution towards achieving emotion and abstract thought rather quickly. In other words, we could favor the AC's that show signs of emotions and abstract thought, while destroying or not interacting with those that don't display these qualities. Thus, these qualities may be achievable if we understand how to correctly speed up artificial evolution.
Identity will undoubtedly be redefined, both for humans 2.0 and for AC's. Instead of thinking we know who we are and what we know, we will "know" who we are and what we know. In other words, our lives will be much more purpose-driven, detailed, and structured, rather than oblivious and unsure.
I use the term savant, not necessarily in the traditional, biological nature, but rather for beings who can seamlessly harness the vast array of human knowledge through the internet and who can use technological cognitive enhancers to perform seemingly impossibly complex functions internally.
Take for example, there are people living today who have the natural ability to remember nearly every moment of their life. We call it photographic memory. It may not be too long before this ability will be common amongst people. I see two ways of this occurring.
The first way is through advanced lifelogging technology, as I've discussed before, in which every moment of one's life is digitally archived on computers. Along with the visual and audio archiving, thoughts and sensual experiences (however detailed) are also archived through brain-machine technology that monitors brain impulses. By syncing this information with the video and audio, this allows entire moments, not just images and movements, to be captured. Some method of digital recall will be implemented in the form of brain-machine devices connected to retinal-implants that allow one to switch from biological sight to "digital sight." The basic technologies for this recall are already being implemented. Microchips will presumably be able to replace natural light with digital images or create an augmented reality while a brain implant will trick the sense receptors into sensing the archived sensual information.
The other way for a photographic memory to become common in humans is through a more conventional means. That is through medical technology, such as cognitive enhancers and possibly neural-altering surgery. As medical technology advances, I expect cognitive enhancers to become increasingly common and may lead to an intelligence boom as more people expand their cognitive capabilities. I see the surgery prospect less plausible, as it would require a "miracle" breakthrough in the understanding of the brain to enhance cognitive function enough to the point that people will be willing to have brain surgery for it. It would also require a stunt in the growth of cognitive enhancers, which I see as unlikely.
Of course extreme cognitive enhancements will have an effect on the very nature of identity. Our definition and current understanding of identity may need to be rewritten once we achieve these abilities. Identity itself is built on the understanding of the world around us and our internal thoughts. Once we have a higher understanding of the world around us and have higher mental capabilities in which our thoughts are born, we will thus have dramatically altered the very nature of human identity. Identity is created through our cognitive ability. By my count, there are five elements of cognitive function, in which each one has its own impact on our identities. They are:
1) Technical processing (i.e. mathematics, engineering)
2) Abstract facts (i.e. historical dates, political events)
3) Abstract thought (i.e. ideologies, opinions)
4) Memory (i.e. personal events, world events)
5) Emotions (i.e. happiness, sadness)
Of these five elements, most of them are related. For example, emotions are generally influenced and thus defined by memories. It may be that once we have more control over our memories, we will thus have more control over our emotions. Our emotions may just be the mind's attempt to scrap pieces of memories together to make sense of the present, causing us to act and feel certain ways. Additionally, abstract thought is fundamentally the merger of memory, abstract facts, technical processing, and possibly emotions. These relations could go on, however the five elements are fundamentally different in their respective rights.
Transhumanism is often described as the point when humans become post-human, i.e. human 2.0. While I believe human 3.0 is when we become fully mechanical, implementing mind cloning technologies and AC's, I believe that 2.0 will only be achieved once all five cognitive elements are technologically enhanced. As I described earlier, memory will be dramatically altered this century with archiving technologies. Emotions will not be too difficult to alter, as we already have "mood drugs," and paired with memory enhancements, these will also be controllable.
Technical processing is another obstacle which poses not too big of a problem. Cognitive enhancers from medical technology will greatly improve technical processing, and eventually brain implants will ave the ability to speed up our brain's processing power.
Abstract facts are, in my opinion, going to be dealt with through seamless interaction with the internet. As we now can sit at a desktop, laptop, or smart phone and search the internet for facts, in a few decades we will have this ability wired directly to our brains. Possibly through brain-machine devices that read one's questions (through brain waves) and relay the answers either through retinal microchips or audio, facts will become easily attainable. Paired with memory enhancers, people will not forget or disregard these facts right after using them, as some argue people (particularly students) are doing now, thus making them dumber. Instead, people will be able to recall these facts even more seamlessly at later times from their memory.
Abstract thought, to me, is the last domino in the row. With enhancements in the other four elements, one will have more resources and processing power to create personal opinions, beliefs, and ideologies.
All of these technologies and prospects have been about enhancing our biological beings, yet I believe that we will possibly first see these functions being achieved by AC's, or mind clones. These beings will undoubtedly have the upper hand in terms of technical processing, abstracts facts, and memories soon after their development. It is abstract thought and emotions in which it may take a while longer before they can perform them as well as humans.
In the virtual environment in which the AC's will live, we may be able to control evolution towards achieving emotion and abstract thought rather quickly. In other words, we could favor the AC's that show signs of emotions and abstract thought, while destroying or not interacting with those that don't display these qualities. Thus, these qualities may be achievable if we understand how to correctly speed up artificial evolution.
Identity will undoubtedly be redefined, both for humans 2.0 and for AC's. Instead of thinking we know who we are and what we know, we will "know" who we are and what we know. In other words, our lives will be much more purpose-driven, detailed, and structured, rather than oblivious and unsure.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Programming for Creativity
The human mind is composed of numerous elements, all serving their respective purpose. It is understood that the right side of the brain is generally active in decision-making and the left side processes language. These two sides function cooperatively to produce what we consider to be a "working mind." However, the two sides may also be in a constant struggle for dominance, thus neither is able to reach its full potential.
In the case of mind clones/artificial consciousnesses (AC's), it should be possible to alter the ratio in which the two sides function. For example, one could have its "left side" processes turned down in order to give the right side processes more room to function. Once we have a more thorough understanding of the effects that each process has on others, we may be able to program the AC's specifically for certain tasks (i.e. art, mathematics, politics, etc.).
A recent report suggests that people who have damage to the left side of their brain are generally more creative than those with no damage. Regardless of the validity of this claim, I find it inarguable that shutting off certain parts of the brain, or certain functions, will alter the way in which the mind functions.
Thus, as we discover, through human tests or simulated experiments, what each brain section does and the effects they have on other parts of the brain, we will undoubtedly have the ability to customize our AC's to be the ultimate "whatever we want them to be."
The obstacle in which we must somehow overcome is the effects that shutting off one side of the "brain" in AC's will have on their virtual experience as a whole. It seems impossible that we could turn one side of a human brain down and then turn it back up without that human feeling as though something was wrong with his/her experience during that time.
If AC's are truly conscious, they may have the same incomplete feeling that humans would experience were one side to be turned downed. Possibly the solution would be to create AC's who do not function as true AC's, or only do until they have learned enough, then alter their process ratio for the remainder of their existence, effectively grooming them for their specific purpose.
In the case of mind clones/artificial consciousnesses (AC's), it should be possible to alter the ratio in which the two sides function. For example, one could have its "left side" processes turned down in order to give the right side processes more room to function. Once we have a more thorough understanding of the effects that each process has on others, we may be able to program the AC's specifically for certain tasks (i.e. art, mathematics, politics, etc.).
A recent report suggests that people who have damage to the left side of their brain are generally more creative than those with no damage. Regardless of the validity of this claim, I find it inarguable that shutting off certain parts of the brain, or certain functions, will alter the way in which the mind functions.
Thus, as we discover, through human tests or simulated experiments, what each brain section does and the effects they have on other parts of the brain, we will undoubtedly have the ability to customize our AC's to be the ultimate "whatever we want them to be."
The obstacle in which we must somehow overcome is the effects that shutting off one side of the "brain" in AC's will have on their virtual experience as a whole. It seems impossible that we could turn one side of a human brain down and then turn it back up without that human feeling as though something was wrong with his/her experience during that time.
If AC's are truly conscious, they may have the same incomplete feeling that humans would experience were one side to be turned downed. Possibly the solution would be to create AC's who do not function as true AC's, or only do until they have learned enough, then alter their process ratio for the remainder of their existence, effectively grooming them for their specific purpose.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Dialectical Process of Government
Humans have been running an experiment for around three millennium called government. Through this experiment, we have come up with a few systems, as described by Plato and other philosophers. These systems are monarchies, democracies, republics, anarchism, and others. Our experiment is still in progress, due to the fact that we have not yet created a government which truly meets the needs of its citizens.
This idea of a Utopia, in which everybody is happy and the government truly acts to fulfill the needs of all its citizens, has permeated philosophical novels for centuries. This illusive society, however common in literature, has never been able to exist in practice; at least not in large societies.
The reason for the lack of Utopian societies is undoubtedly due to the complexity and diversity of society, along with economic-political and human behavioral problems. From greed to selfishness, prejudice, fear, incompetency, and other unfortunate human traits, all have been at the root of government systems due to their human origin.
As societies grow larger, more complex, and more diverse, it is becoming increasingly harder for governments to adhere to the needs of all of their citizens. This is less a lack of resources as it is a fault in humans and our ability to work as a group towards meeting everybody's needs. This leaves us with two choices, either continue down the path of an increasingly widening gap between the rich and the poor, or redefine government and create a system in which everybody is taken care of. The problem may be that we are incapable of creating such a system.
As AI's and mind clones evolve, they will acquire the ability of independent analyzing and problem solving. As their computational power increases, so too does their analyzing ability. Thus, I believe we will eventually benefit by using them to create new government systems customized to the current times. In fact, in a century or so, we will have machine judges that may or may not work beside human judges, providing more accurate and unbiased decisions. We will also have machine politicians, working in ways similar to current politicians, but without the backstabbing and unproductive nature of current politicians. The machines will most likely work better together than humans and create more rational decisions than we do.
This may sound scary, but imagine a government in which decisions are based upon the advice given by an artificial intelligence. This AI will have all the information needed about the country to create rules and laws that provide the best living situations for the most people. Economies will be ran by AI's, along with foreign relations policies and other government aspects.
I, for one, believe that this will benefit humankind as a whole, as long as AIs stay unbiased and are not given full control of society. By this I mean that they will create laws and government systems, but humans should still maintain some sort of control to prevent the AI's from effectively taking over the world.
This idea of a Utopia, in which everybody is happy and the government truly acts to fulfill the needs of all its citizens, has permeated philosophical novels for centuries. This illusive society, however common in literature, has never been able to exist in practice; at least not in large societies.
The reason for the lack of Utopian societies is undoubtedly due to the complexity and diversity of society, along with economic-political and human behavioral problems. From greed to selfishness, prejudice, fear, incompetency, and other unfortunate human traits, all have been at the root of government systems due to their human origin.
As societies grow larger, more complex, and more diverse, it is becoming increasingly harder for governments to adhere to the needs of all of their citizens. This is less a lack of resources as it is a fault in humans and our ability to work as a group towards meeting everybody's needs. This leaves us with two choices, either continue down the path of an increasingly widening gap between the rich and the poor, or redefine government and create a system in which everybody is taken care of. The problem may be that we are incapable of creating such a system.
As AI's and mind clones evolve, they will acquire the ability of independent analyzing and problem solving. As their computational power increases, so too does their analyzing ability. Thus, I believe we will eventually benefit by using them to create new government systems customized to the current times. In fact, in a century or so, we will have machine judges that may or may not work beside human judges, providing more accurate and unbiased decisions. We will also have machine politicians, working in ways similar to current politicians, but without the backstabbing and unproductive nature of current politicians. The machines will most likely work better together than humans and create more rational decisions than we do.
This may sound scary, but imagine a government in which decisions are based upon the advice given by an artificial intelligence. This AI will have all the information needed about the country to create rules and laws that provide the best living situations for the most people. Economies will be ran by AI's, along with foreign relations policies and other government aspects.
I, for one, believe that this will benefit humankind as a whole, as long as AIs stay unbiased and are not given full control of society. By this I mean that they will create laws and government systems, but humans should still maintain some sort of control to prevent the AI's from effectively taking over the world.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The First Stages of Mind Uploading
Often I speculate how exactly mind uploading will evolve and what path it will take before it becomes a reality. As I discussed in a previous post, one possibility is a "super Facebook," or a website that stores virtually all of one's personal qualities and quirks to the point of recreating the person's personality, or consciousness. This would require incredibly complex algorithms that generate personalities based on people's individual preferences and rely on sharing experiences, thus it may be impractical, if not impossible.
Another, perhaps more practical route would be in the form of brain-machine technology. Eventually, it will become common to connect our brains with computers and the vast resources of the internet. The majority of us will have visual and auditory recording devices embedded into our sensory organs, thus digitizing our senses. These devices will effectively record everything we see and hear (basically the mature version of lifecasting).
Additionally, we will be able to connect our brains to devices that monitor our reactions to external events. Through analyzing our responses to daily situations and having access to our memory banks in the form of recorded media, we will have made the first steps towards truly replicating human personalities.
It may be more difficult to create independently intelligent artificial beings, but these archived personalities will likely be our first steps toward creating truly virtual humans. Thus this is the path I believe mind uploading will take as it matures into a realized technology.
Another, perhaps more practical route would be in the form of brain-machine technology. Eventually, it will become common to connect our brains with computers and the vast resources of the internet. The majority of us will have visual and auditory recording devices embedded into our sensory organs, thus digitizing our senses. These devices will effectively record everything we see and hear (basically the mature version of lifecasting).
Additionally, we will be able to connect our brains to devices that monitor our reactions to external events. Through analyzing our responses to daily situations and having access to our memory banks in the form of recorded media, we will have made the first steps towards truly replicating human personalities.
It may be more difficult to create independently intelligent artificial beings, but these archived personalities will likely be our first steps toward creating truly virtual humans. Thus this is the path I believe mind uploading will take as it matures into a realized technology.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Humankind in the Post-Sexuality Phase
If you are a believer of the singularity, you adhere to the belief that we will eventually become integrated with machines, thus forming a superhuman or post-human. These beings, though first being dual-species (human and machine) may ultimately realize the advantages of immortality and infinite intelligence are only achievable in machine form. Thus, our biological bodies will be shed in favor of our fully-machine descendants.
Before I touch on that possibility, I want to discuss a more nearer prospect, which is the uploading of our consciousnesses onto computers. Once our consciousnesses (personalities) are uploaded onto computers, I see no reason why they would need to retain their sexuality. Of course we could program them to retain them, but I see no reason other than personal gratification. As has been the case in the past, what we think is important today may turn out to be useless once we come to a technological realization.
If our consciousnesses are preserved in digital form, and they have the ability to function in said form, what role would our concept of sexuality play in their "thinking?" Obviously, they are digital, so they have no biological sexual characteristics, unless pre-assigned by us. They would have no use of reproduction, as they are effectively immortal. Thus, survival of the fittest becomes survival by all and biological advantage becomes intellectual advantage in the digital world of our clones.
Within mind uploading, the paradox lies with whether to keep the uploaded consciousnesses restrained within our control or to allow them to function freely. If it is the former, as many people may choose, sexuality will be embedded into the consciousnesses; as we are, after all, sexual beings. However, if it is the latter, these advanced personal consciousnesses (APC's) will soon shed their sexuality as it is a trivial trait in the digital world. Where biology is irrelevant, so is sexuality.
These APC's will interact with each other and us as sexually neutral beings. It is difficult for us to imagine, but consider that we lived forever, we would have no concept of reproductive necessity nor would we have any traits that rendered us attractive for reproduction (i.e. gender differences). I believe this shedding of sexuality will be a shock to those who first interact with APC's, but it is not too different to accept.
I must acknowledge the fact that much of our history has been progression from desire to impress the opposite sex. I could cite specific examples of this, as there are many, but I will go further and say that every human achievement has been at its core a method for elevating sexual attractiveness for its originator. So, one may argue that a lack of sexuality will stunt progress. I retort by stating that the digital world is entirely separate from our physical world and thus new motives will arise to provide the fuel needed for the AI's to progress. These may come in the form of digital or hardware enhancements given by us as rewards. Alternatively, it is possible that the AI's will have no concept of reward-based labor and will continue to perform without compensation, or will function for some other motive in which we cannot provide.
The asexual digital consciousnesses will have the ability to analyze problems based on rational thought and logic, rather than gender-specific ideas propagated by society, and thus will come to more practical ideas and solutions to problems in which we are not equipped to solve. Without the baggage of worrying about intellectually trivial aspects of our lives (sexual attraction, living expenses, relationships), APC's can "think" without interruption or worry because, after all, they are not physically bound to our biologically limited form.
Eventually, as mind clones become more sophisticated and our technology more advance, we will be able to embed digital consciousness into robots. These robots have the potential to replace us as a species if we all succumb to the advantages of mechanical bodies. The advantages of mechanical bodies are great, granted uploading our consciousnesses is possible, as we will lose all our biological limitations and can transfer our consciousnesses to new bodies if our current ones start to fail. Along with these advantages comes the loss of sexuality, as mechanical beings have no use for sex. If this is the path we are headed to, Human sexuality has a grim future, whether good or bad.
The worst effect I can imagine for the loss of human sexuality is that we become a species without compassion or we rely on pure logic without emotion, which is an unprecedented thought process, and that could result in detrimental effects to ourselves and our planet.
On the opposing argument, the eradication of human sexuality may result in a significant drop in tension and desire to beat the competition, allowing a more harmonious society to develop and work together to solve problems which we currently cannot.
It may be decades, even centuries, before it happens, but eventually we will all become integrated with technology, in the form of computer assisted thinking or full-on mechanical embodiment. The only possibility I see for the current biological human surviving this post-singularity phase is if we colonize space and thus allow more diversity to exist, otherwise this small planet will become entirely post-human in a matter of centuries.
Before I touch on that possibility, I want to discuss a more nearer prospect, which is the uploading of our consciousnesses onto computers. Once our consciousnesses (personalities) are uploaded onto computers, I see no reason why they would need to retain their sexuality. Of course we could program them to retain them, but I see no reason other than personal gratification. As has been the case in the past, what we think is important today may turn out to be useless once we come to a technological realization.
If our consciousnesses are preserved in digital form, and they have the ability to function in said form, what role would our concept of sexuality play in their "thinking?" Obviously, they are digital, so they have no biological sexual characteristics, unless pre-assigned by us. They would have no use of reproduction, as they are effectively immortal. Thus, survival of the fittest becomes survival by all and biological advantage becomes intellectual advantage in the digital world of our clones.
Within mind uploading, the paradox lies with whether to keep the uploaded consciousnesses restrained within our control or to allow them to function freely. If it is the former, as many people may choose, sexuality will be embedded into the consciousnesses; as we are, after all, sexual beings. However, if it is the latter, these advanced personal consciousnesses (APC's) will soon shed their sexuality as it is a trivial trait in the digital world. Where biology is irrelevant, so is sexuality.
These APC's will interact with each other and us as sexually neutral beings. It is difficult for us to imagine, but consider that we lived forever, we would have no concept of reproductive necessity nor would we have any traits that rendered us attractive for reproduction (i.e. gender differences). I believe this shedding of sexuality will be a shock to those who first interact with APC's, but it is not too different to accept.
I must acknowledge the fact that much of our history has been progression from desire to impress the opposite sex. I could cite specific examples of this, as there are many, but I will go further and say that every human achievement has been at its core a method for elevating sexual attractiveness for its originator. So, one may argue that a lack of sexuality will stunt progress. I retort by stating that the digital world is entirely separate from our physical world and thus new motives will arise to provide the fuel needed for the AI's to progress. These may come in the form of digital or hardware enhancements given by us as rewards. Alternatively, it is possible that the AI's will have no concept of reward-based labor and will continue to perform without compensation, or will function for some other motive in which we cannot provide.
The asexual digital consciousnesses will have the ability to analyze problems based on rational thought and logic, rather than gender-specific ideas propagated by society, and thus will come to more practical ideas and solutions to problems in which we are not equipped to solve. Without the baggage of worrying about intellectually trivial aspects of our lives (sexual attraction, living expenses, relationships), APC's can "think" without interruption or worry because, after all, they are not physically bound to our biologically limited form.
Eventually, as mind clones become more sophisticated and our technology more advance, we will be able to embed digital consciousness into robots. These robots have the potential to replace us as a species if we all succumb to the advantages of mechanical bodies. The advantages of mechanical bodies are great, granted uploading our consciousnesses is possible, as we will lose all our biological limitations and can transfer our consciousnesses to new bodies if our current ones start to fail. Along with these advantages comes the loss of sexuality, as mechanical beings have no use for sex. If this is the path we are headed to, Human sexuality has a grim future, whether good or bad.
The worst effect I can imagine for the loss of human sexuality is that we become a species without compassion or we rely on pure logic without emotion, which is an unprecedented thought process, and that could result in detrimental effects to ourselves and our planet.
On the opposing argument, the eradication of human sexuality may result in a significant drop in tension and desire to beat the competition, allowing a more harmonious society to develop and work together to solve problems which we currently cannot.
It may be decades, even centuries, before it happens, but eventually we will all become integrated with technology, in the form of computer assisted thinking or full-on mechanical embodiment. The only possibility I see for the current biological human surviving this post-singularity phase is if we colonize space and thus allow more diversity to exist, otherwise this small planet will become entirely post-human in a matter of centuries.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Effects of Mind Cloning on Human Space Exploration
It is one of the possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox that extra-terrestrial civilizations (ETC's) are so into their virtually constructed realities that they have no desire to explore the physical universe. More perversely, they are so enthralled by their self-pleasuring technological devices that they lose their grip on objective reality. I wonder if we are near developing this exploration-stunting technology in the form of mind cloning and/or more realistic virtual experiences?
Regarding virtual reality technologies, I believe it will be in the far future (over one century) before the "experience" is life-like enough to truly pull people away from their grip on reality. I am referring to situations similar to the "sleepers" in the movie Inception or the "Matrix" in the film of the same name, not so much the "surrogates" of the movie with the same title. These are worlds which are indistinguishable from reality in terms of sense perception, though not in physical laws; worlds in which someone can truly experience a fantasy and act it out as they desire, while physically being still.
I believe that it is inevitable that we will develop a technology in which people's brains are connected to highly advanced computers while the computers run simulated worlds in which the user can explore. The person would also have his/her sense receptors in their brain redirected to the computer simulation in order to truly feel as though they are in that world. This virtual reality would truly feel as though it exists, and I assume may pull people away from objective reality. I assume this from observation of today's relatively simple technology of remote-controlled video games and the addictive nature they currently have on millions of people. I can only imagine how addicting this virtual simulation will be.
Now this technology will have the ability to pull people away from objective reality, but it may not cause our civilization to cease exploring our physical universe. In fact, it may be able to contribute towards our exploration. I can imagine one situation in which this technology may help space exploration. Imagine an interstellar ship built for long journeys to other star systems. That journey may be too lonely and isolated for humans to bare over long periods. As a solution, this virtual simulation technology could be brought along as an escape method for the passengers to experience when feeling depressed or longing.
Therefore, the effect that virtual reality will have on our collective progress in space exploration as a species will depend on the amount in which the technology spreads and its sophistication. If it becomes extremely widespread and sophisticated, it may plausibly take control of us as a species if we collectively prefer to live in that world compared to the physical world. I believe the only way to stop that from becoming the case is to create a sort of time limit on which one can spend in that world, effectively preventing people from becoming trapped in the simulation.
I must acknowledge the fact that of course not every person on the planet will live in this simulation, thus allowing those who are "free" to continue space exploration. Still, I believe it would greatly contribute to less progress in space exploration as those "more educated and privileged" people who have historically been the ones who lead in space exploration will most likely be the first to engage in the virtual simulations and thus the most susceptible to addiction, effectively halting space exploration.
As for mind clones, I believe this is less of a problem than virtual simulations, as mind clones would only extend human consciousness to computers and would not take humans away from physical reality. In fact, mind clones may more likely increase human space exploration, as they and original AI will be able to create solutions to problems of space travel that we cannot solve. Their superior ability to process information and analyze situations will make them great candidates for creating space exploration technologies and their indefinite lifespans will also make them ideal for spaceship passengers, rather than biologically-limited humans.
Eventually, we may be using our advanced personal consciousnesses (mind clones with upgraded processing power) and original AI (AI independent of any individual's personal traits) to explore space where we cannot physically go without extreme protection. The space ships of our civilization will most likely be occupied by our digital intelligence, not our biological intelligence. That is, until we find practical ways of traveling long interstellar distances in short amounts of time (antimatter engines, wormholes, etc.), but until then we will use mind clones and original AI.
Regarding virtual reality technologies, I believe it will be in the far future (over one century) before the "experience" is life-like enough to truly pull people away from their grip on reality. I am referring to situations similar to the "sleepers" in the movie Inception or the "Matrix" in the film of the same name, not so much the "surrogates" of the movie with the same title. These are worlds which are indistinguishable from reality in terms of sense perception, though not in physical laws; worlds in which someone can truly experience a fantasy and act it out as they desire, while physically being still.
I believe that it is inevitable that we will develop a technology in which people's brains are connected to highly advanced computers while the computers run simulated worlds in which the user can explore. The person would also have his/her sense receptors in their brain redirected to the computer simulation in order to truly feel as though they are in that world. This virtual reality would truly feel as though it exists, and I assume may pull people away from objective reality. I assume this from observation of today's relatively simple technology of remote-controlled video games and the addictive nature they currently have on millions of people. I can only imagine how addicting this virtual simulation will be.
Now this technology will have the ability to pull people away from objective reality, but it may not cause our civilization to cease exploring our physical universe. In fact, it may be able to contribute towards our exploration. I can imagine one situation in which this technology may help space exploration. Imagine an interstellar ship built for long journeys to other star systems. That journey may be too lonely and isolated for humans to bare over long periods. As a solution, this virtual simulation technology could be brought along as an escape method for the passengers to experience when feeling depressed or longing.
Therefore, the effect that virtual reality will have on our collective progress in space exploration as a species will depend on the amount in which the technology spreads and its sophistication. If it becomes extremely widespread and sophisticated, it may plausibly take control of us as a species if we collectively prefer to live in that world compared to the physical world. I believe the only way to stop that from becoming the case is to create a sort of time limit on which one can spend in that world, effectively preventing people from becoming trapped in the simulation.
I must acknowledge the fact that of course not every person on the planet will live in this simulation, thus allowing those who are "free" to continue space exploration. Still, I believe it would greatly contribute to less progress in space exploration as those "more educated and privileged" people who have historically been the ones who lead in space exploration will most likely be the first to engage in the virtual simulations and thus the most susceptible to addiction, effectively halting space exploration.
As for mind clones, I believe this is less of a problem than virtual simulations, as mind clones would only extend human consciousness to computers and would not take humans away from physical reality. In fact, mind clones may more likely increase human space exploration, as they and original AI will be able to create solutions to problems of space travel that we cannot solve. Their superior ability to process information and analyze situations will make them great candidates for creating space exploration technologies and their indefinite lifespans will also make them ideal for spaceship passengers, rather than biologically-limited humans.
Eventually, we may be using our advanced personal consciousnesses (mind clones with upgraded processing power) and original AI (AI independent of any individual's personal traits) to explore space where we cannot physically go without extreme protection. The space ships of our civilization will most likely be occupied by our digital intelligence, not our biological intelligence. That is, until we find practical ways of traveling long interstellar distances in short amounts of time (antimatter engines, wormholes, etc.), but until then we will use mind clones and original AI.
Friday, December 3, 2010
The Manifestation of Information
Intelligence creates information. Information cannot exist without intelligence. If this is true, than does information created by a different intelligence produce different information? If information is the product of intelligence and the all we know is human so far, than how do we know that information created by beings other than ourselves would be the same?
In the same way that alien biology is assumed to be different from ours, I propose that their information type may be different as well. I cannot say for sure what an alternative information type would be, as we have only one example, but if this concept were true, it may be the solution to Fermi's Paradox (although I personally believe that the solution is that civilizations that have invented technology advanced enough to travel interstellar distances in short amounts of time will also discover how to travel to alternate dimensions/universes, thus eliminating the need/want to travel through our physical galaxy).
I believe that our first opportunity to test this hypothesis will come when we create artificial intelligences, or mind clones. In a type of experiment, we could presumably upload one's mind to the "computer," simulate the conditions in which the original person also experiences, and observe whether or not the AI produces the same information as the original person.
If, indeed, information is not universal, it poses a very interesting question in what other forms or manifestations can information take? If an alien civilization has advanced to the point of creating super-computers beyond our imagination, they may have figured out a way to control information in a more complex and useful manner than we do. Thus, they effectively have an entirely different form of information than we are currently aware of and we would not be able to detect it, even if it was amongst us.
In the same way that alien biology is assumed to be different from ours, I propose that their information type may be different as well. I cannot say for sure what an alternative information type would be, as we have only one example, but if this concept were true, it may be the solution to Fermi's Paradox (although I personally believe that the solution is that civilizations that have invented technology advanced enough to travel interstellar distances in short amounts of time will also discover how to travel to alternate dimensions/universes, thus eliminating the need/want to travel through our physical galaxy).
I believe that our first opportunity to test this hypothesis will come when we create artificial intelligences, or mind clones. In a type of experiment, we could presumably upload one's mind to the "computer," simulate the conditions in which the original person also experiences, and observe whether or not the AI produces the same information as the original person.
If, indeed, information is not universal, it poses a very interesting question in what other forms or manifestations can information take? If an alien civilization has advanced to the point of creating super-computers beyond our imagination, they may have figured out a way to control information in a more complex and useful manner than we do. Thus, they effectively have an entirely different form of information than we are currently aware of and we would not be able to detect it, even if it was amongst us.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Bahira's Vision
What gives a thought its existence? As we generally assume, it is our mind that gives a thought its existence. Still, this is very nondescript in determining the true origins or functions of a thought. If our "mind" is what we describe as our advanced brain computational abilities, does this mean that thoughts are just products of complex computations, similar to answers to math problems?
A thought, some say, is never original. I argue that thoughts are and always will be original. In the same way that no individual is the same physically, no individual can have the exact same thought. Thoughts are products of the environments in which they dwell, the human mind, which is unique to each individual. But if we can harness thoughts and thus act upon them consciously, how dramatically can we act upon thoughts unconsciously?
Our unconscious, as we know, is vastly more fit in terms of solving problems or basic computational power. Therefore, I believe that every thought that we consciously visualize becomes the subject of our unconscious, rather than our conscious. In other words, do we don't act upon ideas according to our conscious thoughts and will, it is the subconscious force that controls our actions and, to an extent, the actions of others around us. To put it more cynically, our unconscious minds are only allowing us to be aware of thoughts at their discretion, only after computing the outcome of our visualizing the thought.
This seems untestable at the moment, and it may very well stay that way. But if our unconscious minds are indeed the puppet masters of our thoughts, what power do we have, both consciously and unconsciously, over our thoughts? In the story of Bahir, he is said to have seen Muhummad's future as a prophet. Regardless of the validity of this claim, I wonder what would give Bahir the ability to foresee this future. Is it a computational advantage that Bahir gained from inward spiritual awareness that allowed him to see what could have easily been seen by others were they to possess the connection with their subconscious that Bahir had?
I wonder if our thoughts (or our actions upon these thoughts) are mediated by our commonality as a species in order to further our advancement. By this I'm referring to the "butterfly effect," which I describe as a metapsychological conundrum. If our unconscious minds are all "working together" to further our species, they would allow only certain ideas and thoughts to become conscious in certain individuals at certain times, creating the action needed for progress. It may be that this unconscious syncing is what spurred our evolution as far as intelligence goes.
Thoughts, viewed simply as complex computations by the human brain, can therefore become more complex if a more complex computational device is used. As we know, computers are headed towards supremacy over the human brain in terms of computational power in a matter of years.
To get to the point of my post, I am curious what effects the thoughts of AI's will have on humans and the physical world. As I stated before, our thoughts may be mediated to ensure the survival of our species, but if complex thoughts are created by AI's, they will presumably have no indifference regarding preservation of the human species and will therefore produce thoughts that we are not biologically capable of producing. Once these thoughts are created, I am curious to see if we will be able to resist those that are harmful to the species or if we will ignore the instinctual warnings of acting upon these alien thoughts.
As mind clones and true AI are introduced, I believe that they will harness both the power of our unconscious mind and our conscious mind and produce thoughts that are beyond human comprehension.Once mind clones have the ability to use their far more advanced computational power, they will create theories and complex questions that humans may not even be able to do anything with. Eventually, there will be two schools of thought, machine and human. I am willing to bet that machines will out think humans within the next few decades.
A thought, some say, is never original. I argue that thoughts are and always will be original. In the same way that no individual is the same physically, no individual can have the exact same thought. Thoughts are products of the environments in which they dwell, the human mind, which is unique to each individual. But if we can harness thoughts and thus act upon them consciously, how dramatically can we act upon thoughts unconsciously?
Our unconscious, as we know, is vastly more fit in terms of solving problems or basic computational power. Therefore, I believe that every thought that we consciously visualize becomes the subject of our unconscious, rather than our conscious. In other words, do we don't act upon ideas according to our conscious thoughts and will, it is the subconscious force that controls our actions and, to an extent, the actions of others around us. To put it more cynically, our unconscious minds are only allowing us to be aware of thoughts at their discretion, only after computing the outcome of our visualizing the thought.
This seems untestable at the moment, and it may very well stay that way. But if our unconscious minds are indeed the puppet masters of our thoughts, what power do we have, both consciously and unconsciously, over our thoughts? In the story of Bahir, he is said to have seen Muhummad's future as a prophet. Regardless of the validity of this claim, I wonder what would give Bahir the ability to foresee this future. Is it a computational advantage that Bahir gained from inward spiritual awareness that allowed him to see what could have easily been seen by others were they to possess the connection with their subconscious that Bahir had?
I wonder if our thoughts (or our actions upon these thoughts) are mediated by our commonality as a species in order to further our advancement. By this I'm referring to the "butterfly effect," which I describe as a metapsychological conundrum. If our unconscious minds are all "working together" to further our species, they would allow only certain ideas and thoughts to become conscious in certain individuals at certain times, creating the action needed for progress. It may be that this unconscious syncing is what spurred our evolution as far as intelligence goes.
Thoughts, viewed simply as complex computations by the human brain, can therefore become more complex if a more complex computational device is used. As we know, computers are headed towards supremacy over the human brain in terms of computational power in a matter of years.
To get to the point of my post, I am curious what effects the thoughts of AI's will have on humans and the physical world. As I stated before, our thoughts may be mediated to ensure the survival of our species, but if complex thoughts are created by AI's, they will presumably have no indifference regarding preservation of the human species and will therefore produce thoughts that we are not biologically capable of producing. Once these thoughts are created, I am curious to see if we will be able to resist those that are harmful to the species or if we will ignore the instinctual warnings of acting upon these alien thoughts.
As mind clones and true AI are introduced, I believe that they will harness both the power of our unconscious mind and our conscious mind and produce thoughts that are beyond human comprehension.Once mind clones have the ability to use their far more advanced computational power, they will create theories and complex questions that humans may not even be able to do anything with. Eventually, there will be two schools of thought, machine and human. I am willing to bet that machines will out think humans within the next few decades.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Irrelevance of Education in the Future
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
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
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)