This is based very roughly off of a book that I have been reading of late called 'The Singularity is Near'. It basically details all of the technological advancements of the next 50 years or so, and basically describes all of the social and theoretical impacts that this would have upon humanity.
There is one point that I would like to delve into a bit more, as a slight derivative of the recent cryogenics thread. People want to live forever, or at least wish to prolong their life. The Singularity is a definitive point in time in the next 50 years when the human brain can be copied to a hard drive (specifically the Singularity is a point in time of an explosion of technological advancement, but as mind uploading is a part of this explosion the term is interchangeable). Simply put, the average Joe Bloggs could walk into an institute and have his brain uploaded onto a computer.
So, firstly, there is the issue of the upload itself. Many feel that the upload would prove irreparably damaging of the human brain, especially if the process is through Serial Sectioning (freezing brain, cutting into layers, uploading each layer, re-building virtually). Other means may not be as damaging (such as nanobots monitoring brain activity), but still pose inherent risks. Then you need a computer to store it all on.
This brings me to the rate of technological advancement. There are two theories at the moment, linear growth and exponential growth. At this current stage there is would be little to differentiate between the two, but in twenty years time it will have become obvious which is the actual growth of technology. If linear, we will be waiting another century at least before we have machines capable of this kind of calculation. If exponential, it will be something more along the line of 10 years for a super computer, and about 30 for personal computers. So, it would be possible to upload your brain to your home PC in 30 years.
If the Singularity theory is conformed to, then at around the same time of this initial brain-uploading, other technologies will also have come into effect. These technologies would provide for these newly created PC-brains, allowing the brains to carry out tasks using a replicated human system, probably created from nanobots, or at least partially. With the main PC contained within a cranium-shaped computer, the human system could essentially be a human, living in a robotic body.
But in turn, could you class this 'thing' as human? There is something about being human that says a lot. Technically, the brain, the bit of a human that really gets us ticking, could live on for an infinite period of time. However, is a mechanical device human? Would it apply to the same laws, if it could make human decisions? If the brain was copied and not moved (leaving the original host intact rather than dead), would the two be the same person?
I realise that there is a great deal of science-fiction that appears to come across in this, but it is certainly far from science fiction in the eyes of many. Within our lifetimes, I feel we could be seeing a simple human being blurring the boundaries of what it means to be human, and instead, become Human 3.0. Be more than human, with long life and potentially infinite knowledge, but be less than human with no organic material in your 'body'.
0
The Singularity
Started By Libains, Sep 01 2009 23:59
6 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Gold Member
-
- 4950 posts
Light up life.
Posted 01 September 2009 - 23:59
For there can be no death without life.
#2
-
- Gold Member
-
- 3752 posts
Discount White Person
Posted 02 September 2009 - 02:03
I'm not exactly sure if you could classify it as human, or even a species to be honest. I would, however, support becoming a machine that could live indefinitely though. Not only would we be able to live forever without taking up much space, it would open up space as a true frontier, seeing as we'd be able to travel without having to worry about many of the resources we need to survive as humans.
Edited by Høbbesy, 02 September 2009 - 02:07.
#3
-
- Project Team
-
- 70 posts
Casual
Posted 02 September 2009 - 03:36
There are a few issues with the time frame you are presenting. But first, what was Human 1.0? Are you talking tribal humans, and 2.0 is civilized humans, and 3.0 is... Digital humans?
The main issue with any time frame involving this is technology in the general and more recognized sense has absolutely nothing to do with being able to capture a digital image of the brain. Moore's law is irrelevant, the speed at which technology improves is irrelivant. When technology is ready to calculate/transmit a brain onto a computer is a moot point, as we have next to no understanding of the brain. Medical knowledge has grown greatly in the past 300 years, but we are barely better off in our knowledge of the workings of the brain than the ancient greeks. This is the main obsticle in such an endevour, medical science will not be up to snuff in 100 or even 500 years time for such an operation.
Also, I feel the moral issue of "is it human" is hardly the most pressing social/economical issue.
Firstly, if it is simply a copy, the entity in the computer is not the entity in the human brain. I don't think a machine could effectively absorb the eletrical impulses of a brain to completely copy the entity over to a machine, even with all the technology in the world. It's the fucking brain, its not like copying a hard-drive, its not on any level a piece of code can understand. Brain cells are not 1's and 0's. You can't cut and paste a person, no matter how technologically advanced a society becomes.
How would eletronic people be handled? Would they have rights? Would they be taxed? Simply the taxation issue alone I think would stop any program such as this in its tracks. It would be harder to handle than anything government has ever faced, and they would simply ban it, ignore it, and not fund it in any way.
Speaking of funding, this program will never be directly funded. Unless other programs findings can support this, it won't happen. No company is going to risk the lawsuits that would come from any number of things that can go wrong in making a digital person. It would be corporate suicide. Not even Apple could pull such insanity off, and they can manage to get past exploding phones.
The main issue with any time frame involving this is technology in the general and more recognized sense has absolutely nothing to do with being able to capture a digital image of the brain. Moore's law is irrelevant, the speed at which technology improves is irrelivant. When technology is ready to calculate/transmit a brain onto a computer is a moot point, as we have next to no understanding of the brain. Medical knowledge has grown greatly in the past 300 years, but we are barely better off in our knowledge of the workings of the brain than the ancient greeks. This is the main obsticle in such an endevour, medical science will not be up to snuff in 100 or even 500 years time for such an operation.
Also, I feel the moral issue of "is it human" is hardly the most pressing social/economical issue.
Firstly, if it is simply a copy, the entity in the computer is not the entity in the human brain. I don't think a machine could effectively absorb the eletrical impulses of a brain to completely copy the entity over to a machine, even with all the technology in the world. It's the fucking brain, its not like copying a hard-drive, its not on any level a piece of code can understand. Brain cells are not 1's and 0's. You can't cut and paste a person, no matter how technologically advanced a society becomes.
How would eletronic people be handled? Would they have rights? Would they be taxed? Simply the taxation issue alone I think would stop any program such as this in its tracks. It would be harder to handle than anything government has ever faced, and they would simply ban it, ignore it, and not fund it in any way.
Speaking of funding, this program will never be directly funded. Unless other programs findings can support this, it won't happen. No company is going to risk the lawsuits that would come from any number of things that can go wrong in making a digital person. It would be corporate suicide. Not even Apple could pull such insanity off, and they can manage to get past exploding phones.
#4
-
- Member Test
-
- 1388 posts
Forum Pet
Posted 02 September 2009 - 05:53
I don't like the idea, not at all.
I find myself disturbed by it, it sounds like something from a nightmare. Humans are meant to be flesh and blood, not machine and data. It is not our path to become...that.
I wish I'll never live to see a time when that happens. It is the same as plastic surgery, disrespect to the body you are born with. the body you are meant to die with.
I find myself disturbed by it, it sounds like something from a nightmare. Humans are meant to be flesh and blood, not machine and data. It is not our path to become...that.
I wish I'll never live to see a time when that happens. It is the same as plastic surgery, disrespect to the body you are born with. the body you are meant to die with.
Quote
As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence.
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#5
-
- Member Test
-
- 3300 posts
<Charcoal tiles available>
Posted 02 September 2009 - 08:36
A simulated human could never "be" a human, simply because it's a biological definition. Whether it can make "human" decissions is a question of the technology used, basically when it's really a virtual simulation of a brain then its authenticity is simply based on the authenticity of the simulation - I figure that's very easily possible, but kind of defeats the point of technological enhancements (more on that one later). Seeing that laws are nothing but a construct of our own, whether they apply to simulated humans as well isn't a question of what SHs actually are, but simply if "we" want SHs to be covered by them.
When talking about creating a virtual simulation of an existing human mind it is IMO very important that this is in fact a copy. You cannot "upload" yourself on a computer the way you could put a suitcase in your car, instead you create a new being. This has special importance when the process of "uploading" destroys the original mind - it's in essence committing suicide to allow a semi-twin of yourself to live. On the same verge, I feel that uploading the human species will not allow us to break any bounds of our existence, it merely means replacing us with a "species" that isn't limited by the same restrictions. Whether one feels that this is a good or bad thing is up to debate, me personally, I don't like the thought.
What I prefer is cybernetic enhancements, i.e. directly linking a human being to cybernetic implants/machinery. The most important difference being that even if we aim for completely merging with technology, it's a gradual shift, not a clean cut. At least from my understanding, this is a very important issue for a species that has become accustomed to its meatbag status for several hundred thousands of years now.
When talking about creating a virtual simulation of an existing human mind it is IMO very important that this is in fact a copy. You cannot "upload" yourself on a computer the way you could put a suitcase in your car, instead you create a new being. This has special importance when the process of "uploading" destroys the original mind - it's in essence committing suicide to allow a semi-twin of yourself to live. On the same verge, I feel that uploading the human species will not allow us to break any bounds of our existence, it merely means replacing us with a "species" that isn't limited by the same restrictions. Whether one feels that this is a good or bad thing is up to debate, me personally, I don't like the thought.
What I prefer is cybernetic enhancements, i.e. directly linking a human being to cybernetic implants/machinery. The most important difference being that even if we aim for completely merging with technology, it's a gradual shift, not a clean cut. At least from my understanding, this is a very important issue for a species that has become accustomed to its meatbag status for several hundred thousands of years now.
Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!
#6
-
- Member
-
- 3328 posts
Humble darkspawn
Posted 02 September 2009 - 20:56
A human mind is not a human mind without a human body, as simply most of what we do is in response to what our body feels, also on the inside.
#7
-
- Member Test
-
- 1388 posts
Forum Pet
Posted 03 September 2009 - 05:52
Am I the only one who gets a Necron Deja Vú?
Quote
As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence.
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
