2002.07.31
New Section
Sentient Developments now has a newsgroup. Feel free to start any discussions, or add your comments, questions, retorts, or anything that relates to this Website.
2002.07.28
Section Removal
I removed the Buddhism section because I felt that it deviated too far from the scope of this Website. Perhaps some other time, some other Website, some other incarnation...
2002.07.28
Intelligence and Rationality (Part III)
I am filled with astonishment that a computer could evolve through natural selection, but that's exactly what has happened here on earth. Any organism that has a brain actually has a little computer that helps it navigate through life. Until now, we have failed to conceptualize this about our minds, mostly because we lacked the proper language to describe it. How could biologists in the 19th century regard the brain as a computer without any frame of reference? And whenever science fails to describe how something works, the inevitable reaction seems to be the application of divine or mystic intervention. The path to understanding our consciousness has experienced this rule, and vitalogy remains a common conviction.
Science is the ability to accurately describe natural phenomenon using language. Language evolves over time and new words are added regularly. Technological innovations contribute to this trend, as new words have to be applied to describe new concepts and devices. For example, every computer has a gadget in it that that controls its functions and computations. The word 'processor' was chosen to describe this device. Now that we understand the brain as a computer, we can use the language of computation to describe our minds. Thus, we need to start referring to our consciousnesses as processors. More specifically, our consciousness needs to be regarded as a massively parallel sentient processor.
Our processor performs a very important role: it is the moment by moment cognition that we do. Breaking it down further, it's how we compute (i.e. think), learn, make decisions, retrieve data, and perceive sensory data from the environment. As time elapses, the processor's experiences are recorded into memory -- and it does this fairly poorly, I might add; the things we remember vs. the things we forget virtually betray any semblance of rationality. Moreover, our memories contain such cursory and vague recollections -- it's very hard to remember an event exactly as it happened. I heard one theory recently that suggested that we remember things based on their importance to us. That sounds like it could be right, but that means our processor has to decide what's important, and therefore, how to prioritize it in our memory banks for future reference. I believe this is a largely autonomous function dictated by evolutionary vestigial tendencies (i.e. our bodies intrinsically know what's important to remember, like the consequence of putting a hand in fire). But we can also consciously decide to remember something, like the lyrics of a song or the lineup of the 1968 Toronto Maple Leafs. Yet, even when we consciously decide to remember something, we just can't quite recall it exactly.
How our processor functions and how our memories are stored are two discreet tasks. People who cannot store and access their memories are still conscious. (e.g. Alzheimer's victims, people with no short-term memory, amnesiatics, etc.). But quite obviously, this is a terrible and unfortunate way to live. Future health professionals will better understand this and be capable of treating people with these conditions.
But by no means do we understand the big picture of consciousness or existence. We still need to figure out what the link is between conscious observation and the coherence of the physical world. Clearly, conscious thought is tied to the quantum. What does this mean in the large scheme of things? Does mind-splitting answer this question? See the Many Worlds Interpretation FAQ and Stuart Hameroff for more. Also, how does a processor become self-aware? What kind of a software tweak is that? What does it mean to be self-aware? Is a dog sentient? How about a goldfish? Does "I think therefore I am" still apply? I don't know. Perhaps we need to look at such things as our free-will, rationality, and decision making skills.
What are the ramifications to transhumanists of this insight into the human brain? Again, I remain largely optimistic, but it introduces some interesting (if not unsettling) realities for the future. Not only will future posthumans insist on ownership of their personal genetic information, but their mind's source code as well. What a strange new world we're heading into. But the positive aspects are profound. We we be able to rev up our brain's software. We'll get rid of the bad parts (e.g. psychological disorders), improve upon the good parts (e.g. memory, intelligence, math skills, etc.), and maybe even add some new unforeseen parts. I look forward to meeting Homo sapiens sapiens v2.0.
As a final note, I still believe that humans will merge with their machines. The suggestion that we will live alongside our artificially intelligent robot progeny is not true. We are robots, too. Why would we not improve ourselves, and instead unleash superior replacements? Obviously, we shouldn't and we won't. Unless, of course, collective stupidity and shortsightedness reigns. This is one of the reasons why transhumanism interests me.
2002.07.27
Updated Section
Added a new prediction to the Prescience section.
2002.07.27
Updated Section
Added a new quote to the Buddhism section.
2002.07.26
Updated Section
Added some new quotes (Moravec, Einstein, Pinker, Welesa, FM-2030, Rush lyrics, etc.)
2002.07.26
Updated Article
Version 3.0 of The Drive to be Posthuman: An Inexorable and Necessary Human Imperative has been posted.
2002.07.26
New Section
Buddhism - exploring Buddhism, existence, values, and the future through the lens of quantum physics.
2002.07.26
Intelligence and Rationality (Part II)
How did the goldfish evolve such that it has hardwired rules to govern its actions? If its reaction to a situation resulted in a poor finish, namely death or severe injury, then that script would not be passed down genetically. On the other hand, if its action resulted in continued survival, then that script would be passed down. For example, if the fish was being attacked by a predator, and it survived the experience by swimming away as fast as it could -- the action a result of an existing hardwired script, one that was a mutation of a previous one -- then that was a valid strategy (or gene) as far as the fish is concerned. Thus, the 'good decision' script gets passed on.
The pain and pleasure principle works as well, and it's needed in a discussion of human decision making. Animals that avoid pain tend to do better than those that don't. Thus, actions that result in pain are a warning to the organism: "what you're doing is bad!" Consequently, actions that result in pleasure are affirmations of decisions that are good for the organism (e.g. eating, sex, playing).
But humans aren't puppets to hardwired scripts. We exhibit common sense and rational decision making skills. How did we evolve this? Why would this be a good adaptation? For an intelligent species like humans, making decisions involves rational thought. We know we're being irrational when we experience cognitive dissonance, which is perceived as mental pain. Thus, humans tend to avoid making decisions that would result in this sort of psychological anguish. To compliment this, humans developed the cognitive skills to declare something as 'correct' or 'incorrect' (not necessarily in the moral sense, but more in the rational or computational sense, i.e. 2+2=4 is correct). We simply refuse to acknowledge the verity of a statement that is quite obviously incorrect. As humans evolved over millions of years, whenever they made rational decisions, they fared better than when they did not. In other words, rational understandings of the environment and rational decision making are good adaptations, as it endowed humans with the ability to select safer and more predictable courses of action.
2002.07.24
Eschatology
I believe that there is a strong possibility that further scientific and philosophical advancements in quantum physics will result in an eschatological paradigm shift. Three things are becoming increasingly clear IMO: 1) quantum physics is actually quantum computation that expresses the physical world (see David Deutsch), 2) the cosmos is infinite (good places to start on this topic include the anthropic principle and the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics), and 3) consciousness is directly tied to the quantum (see Stuart Hameroff). This tells me that Buddhist beliefs of rebirth and the denial of the permanent self is more in tune with what actually happens than traditional Western religious eschatologies. I am starting to believe that our consciousness is expressed an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways, and that we always find ourselves observing a universe (see Hans Moravec's paper, "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence").
If this is correct (and somehow scientifically demonstrable and obvious), can we expect this revelation to trickle down from the sciences and into the general public's awareness? Can this result in a new appraisal and approach to life? Or, am I making too much of this? Would this essentially change nothing? Would it really matter to people that they are eternal and that a kind of 'reincarnation' is possible? Can Buddhism and science help us craft a moral and ethical code for the social realities of the 21st century? Will superintelligence clear up some of this confusion?
2002.07.24
Intelligence and Rationality (Part I)
Intelligence is a good adaptation, and I'm not just talking about intelligence on the scale of the human brain. Goldfish are also intelligent, but in a much more primitive way. What does it mean to be 'intelligent'? I believe it's directly tied to the notion of rationality. What do I mean by rationality? The ability to make a 'good' or 'right' or 'satisficing' decision after processing data. When we're being rational, we're actually following rules. Thus, 'intelligence' is another way of saying 'rational' which is another way of saying 'the ability to follow rules.' Goldfish follow rules that are hardwired into their brains. I doubt if a goldfish actually learns anything during its lifetime; predetermined scripts tell it what to do when it's facing specific situations (so it also has to be able to properly interpret situations and feelings, which is why the senses are so important -- the goldfish needs to input the data before it can process and act on it). Humans, on the other hand, do learn, but they must make decisions and exercise common sense that fall outside of hardwired scripts. In a sense, humans have to make up rules for situations as they go along. And the more rational humans are about those rules, the better off they are getting through the day (e.g. walking in front of a bus is irrational because we know the consequences).
2002.07.24
Biological Realities
I'm not entirely sure what a distant-future posthuman will look like, especially if artificial components are involved. At what age should a person be allowed to augment themselves? Obviously, genetic changes will be biologically intrinsic, but not the mechanical. I've also heard about the prospect of developing artificial wombs that would 'free' women from the dangers and inconveniences of having to carry and give birth to a child. Before we enter into this Huxlian world, we should bear a few things in mind.
First, all fetus's require nutrients from the mother's blood stream. This means that an artificial womb would somehow have to duplicate the mother's blood exactly. Moreover, the mother's blood changes hour to hour depending on her intake; pregnant women have unpredictable food cravings and aversions during pregnancy -- all of which are evolutionary adaptations that help in the gestational process. Moreover, infants require motion, tactile stimulation (e.g. expectant mothers rub their bellies), and auditory and even visual stimulation. After child birth, babies need to breastfeed. Pregnancy prepares the mother's body physically and hormonally to nuture infants outside of the womb. Newborns require skin-to-skin contact that helps in bonding and perceptual development. And no artificial baby milk has come even close to matching mother's milk. There is more than just the ideal proportion of proteins, fats (including long-chain polyunsaturated lipids that are essential for optimal neurodevelopment), and carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals present in breastmilk that change even during one feed; breastmilk also contains human-specific immune factors, growth factors, anti-bacterial agents, anti-viral properties, anti-fungal properties, and anti-inflammatory properties. Also, the health risks associated with not bearing children or lactating must be weighed against the potential health benefits to a woman for not bearing children. Specifically, breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers are significantly lower for women who have born and breastfed children.
Thus, what may appear as 'dangerous' or 'inconvenient' from a woman's perspective may be necessary to guarantee the physical and cognitive health of the baby. [thanks A for the input]
2002.07.24
Singularity
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky's, Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
2002.07.23
Futuriography
This reality check is brought to you by Robin Hanson: "Dreams of Autarky." In this paper, Hanson argues that the majority of futurists have overestimated the degree of change that's been slated to occur in the 21st century.
2002.07.23
Transhumanist Art
Stelarc
2002.07.22
A Democratic Transhumanist Agenda (from James Hughes's article, Democratic Transhumanism)
1. Build the transhumanist movement
2. Guarantee morphological freedom and bodily autonomy; people should have a right to change and control their minds and bodies, including the right to take drugs, have themselves frozen, opt for physician-assisted suicide, and use germinal choice technologies on themselves and their children
3. Defend scientific research and technological innovation from Luddite bans, while embracing the need for public regulation for safety and efficacy
4. Protect scientific access to knowledge from overly aggressive intellectual property law
5. Expand federal funding for research into transhuman technologies, including genetic therapy, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence
6. Create national health plans which guarantee equitable access to life extension and enhancement technologies
7. Expand federal support to education, especially math, science, engineering and medical education
8. Provide job retraining and a guaranteed minimum income to the structurally unemployed
9. Solidarize with sexual, cultural, and racial minorities, especially with morphological minorities such as the disabled and transgendered
10. Support rights for great apes, dolphins and whales
11. Expand, strengthen and democratize transnational governance to regulate the apocalyptic threats from transhuman technologies.
2002.07.22
The Age of Transition
I've never been a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but he recently described the coming decades as 'The Age of Transition.' This was a remarkably apt observation, and I hope that he will start to inspire other political leaders to get their heads out of the sand and start working towards more progressive bioethical policies.
In the article "Vision for the Converging Technologies" Newt Gingrich proposes to reinvent government for the "Age of Transition" that we have just entered, where the combined effect of converging NBIC (Nano, Bio, Info, Cogno) technologies accelerates. Gingrich believes in explaining new options to the voters in the clearest possible language: "They may not understand plasma physics or the highest levels of the human genome project. But they can surely understand the alternative between having Alzheimer and not having it". Explaining his vision for the Age of Transition, he proposes riding the NBIC wave instead of trying to delay it, and acknowledges that current public policies and initiatives are moving much slower than technological change.
2002.07.22
Nature Vs. Nurture
The human brain is a computer. It's a wonderfully complex parallel processor that runs at about 1016 calculations per second (Kurzweil, 1999). We don't have a computer that comes even close to this kind of power -- but the gap is narrowing. Yet, the hardware appears to be the easy part of the problem -- it's the software that will prove to be the most difficult challenge for the developers of AI. They have to create a dynamic software program that can learn and make decisions. Thankfully, we have our own brains as a model, and AI engineers are looking at exactly that -- the reverse engineering of the human brain.
The learning aspect may be easier than the decision making. We're born with a certain amount of 'ROM' hardwired into our brains. For the most part, our ROM is our autonomous nervous system and other behaviours that are beyond our control (e.g. newborn rooting behaviour, hormonal influences, the fight-or-flight response, etc.). Most importantly, the ROM provides us with the kick-start program to life so that we can eventually become autonomous decision making machines.
We also have a 'RAM' component to our minds; we're able to learn and adapt to our environment regardless of what our ROM says. So long as we're properly nurtured, educated (especially language), and introduced to our environment, our dynamic 'software' develops properly (for example, if a child is deprived of language during the first 2-4 years of life, the proper cognitive tools for learning language completely fail to develop, and the person forever loses the the capacity for language). [note: if AI engineers aren't looking at early childhood development for clues, they really should.]
Both the ROM and RAM can be damaged -- we are machines after all, and even the software needs a physical place to reside. The mind-software can be damaged by physical injury, or improper/insufficient development such as physical and mental abuse, improper socialization, and a myriad of genetic disorders.
But how do we make decisions? Is it a kind of fuzzy logic? Do we access scripts and somehow choose the proper course of action? Or is there a free-will 'algorithm' in there somewhere? This question goes beyond my expertise, but I believe the capacity to be rational is something we need to understand.
2002.07.22
Posted new predictions in the Prescience section.
2002.07.21
Quantum Physics
We now know of two worldly domains: the physical and the quantum realms. And it appears that the quantum expresses what we observe as the physical. What does this mean in the large scheme of things? Here's a good Edge article by Lee Smolin.
2002.07.21
Posted a new prediction in the Prescience section.
2002.07.21
Rise of the machines...not!
I do not believe that we will be superceded by our artificial progeny; instead, we will merge and evolve with them.
2002.07.20
Contact Info
You can now e-mail me at sentdev@hotmail.com. If you tried to e-mail me at my old address at some point over the past two weeks, I probably didn't get it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
2002.07.19
Observation: After the Turn of the Century Syndrome
During the 90s, as the turn of the century drew nearer, it was hard to ignore the near hysterical millenarism that pervaded the popular psyche (we are already mocking ourselves over the Y2K fiasco). As it was happening though, many people were quite self-aware of their irrationality and the ludicrousness of what they were doing; they were reminded of historical precedents and the millenarism associated with previous turn-of-the-centuries. Similarly, once the century had safely rolled by, the exact opposite sentiment emerged: hyper-optimism. During the early part of the 20th century, a number of idealists espoused their 'glorious' and utopian visions for the 20th century, namely communists, fascists, and anarchists. I see the same pattern repeated today as the extropians and transhumanists dream of 21st century technotopia. However, there's a major difference: both groups are quite aware of history and self. The transhumanists in particular are very sensitive to the totalitarian comparisons. But unlike the fascists and communists of the early 20th century, transhumanists do not seek power, merely to influence it. Moreover, both ideologies celebrate the rights of the individual, which is the opposite stance of totalitarianism which seeks to destroy man. And finally, transhumanism is a broad-based and grass-roots movement that contains an entire spectrum of sub-ideologies (leftists, libertarians, greens, spiritualists, feminists, etc. For an excellent overview read James Hughes's paper, The Politics of Transhumanism).
2002.07.19
Theory on Human Evolution
Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins focused on different aspects of evolutionary biology that at times put the two at lauger heads. Gould was a proponent of the punctuated equilibria theory, while Dawkins prefers the gradualist approach and talks of morphological fitness peaks. I believe that the two perspectives are complementary and can be used together. For example, I believe that the human race is currently in a state of punctuated equilibria and that we may eventually settle into a fitness peak for a very long time (this would only happen if there is a physical and conceptual limit to technological advancement -- which may not be the case!). We have been in such a state for the past 13,000 years because of our capacity for technological innovation. Our physical evolution is still quite slow, but our technological enhancements have enabled us to evolve at a frightening pace -- and it's getting faster (see James Gleick's Faster and Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines). It appears that the 21st century will see humans physically merge with technology; we are turning into cyborgs. Thus, the punctuated equilibria phase may last for some time yet. Eventually, however, there may come a time when we cannot advance technically any further. This would result in a morphological fitness peak, where we would remain relatively unchanged for a long time. [Of course, what would a discussion of human evolution be without one of my patented doomsday warnings: Gould noted that evolution has no direction or focus, and that it eventually leads to awkward over-specialisation; past reward is no indication of future gain. However, the human race has two major advantages over blind evolution: we are evolution that has become conscious of itself (see Julian Huxley), and we will soon have the capacity to completely control our evolutionary destiny.]
2002.07.19
Posted a new prediction in the Prescience section.
2002.07.19
Hopeful & Wishful Thinking
Virtual reality is limiting in its own right. What I'm really hoping for is mind-to-mind communication. Imagine if you and I could have a two-way conversation with each other with our consciousnesses instead of our mouths or fingers typing on a keyboard. Imagine if you could access my memory for some information that you require, or for an experience that I've had. With a bit of hand-waving technology, I can foresee the day when we post our streams of consciousness online on our personal Web pages: "Hey, I wonder what George is thinking about right now? Well, what's his URL?" In addition, you might even be able to feel my emotions. Concerned about privacy? Well, don't worry -- there may come a day when there will be no such thing, and privacy will be regarded as a relic of the past.
2002.07.19
Metaphysics Theory (revised From 2002.05.29)
The Universe is Finely Tuned for a Great Filter to Exist: Intelligent Life as Infection
Let's assume that the following propositions are true: a) the Great Filter exists and it exists in our future, and b) the universe is a dynamic system that replicates itself, not unlike an organism, and is therefore subject to the laws of natural selection. Let's also assume that our universe is a 'successful adaptation,' and it will have no difficulty reproducing itself. As a side-effect of its adaptation, once in a while intelligent life evolves on a planet. This side-effect has nothing to do with the universe's reproductive cycle, and can therefore be regarded as an infection. However, if intelligent life were allowed to evolve to its full potential, it would eventually figure out how the universe works, and end up controlling its inner workings. This could prove fatal to the universe's reproductive strategy. Therefore, the universe has evolved such that intelligent life will go extinct just prior to its ability to control the universe. [Personally, I don't believe my theory to be true, mostly because if one chooses to apply the fine tuning argument, they must apply it to the notion of the presence of conscious observers (i.e. the universe does not exist without observers)]
2002.07.09
NSF Report
Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science
2002.07.08
Transhumanism
I am now a member of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) and a contributing editor for Transhumanity e-zine.
2002.07.08
Defending Transhumanism
I recently posted my comments on the KurzweilAI page to an article posted by James John Bell entitled 'Technotopia and the Death of Nature.' Here's what I had to say: "James John Bell's assertion that transhumanists "can hardly wait for the Singularity to arrive," and that they "are actively organizing not just to bring the Singularity about, but to counter what they call ‘techno-phobes’ and ‘neo-luddites’” is as sweeping as it is unfair and inaccurate. Not all transhumanists believe in the Singularity, while many of those who do are very worried about its potential negative ramifications. In fact, transhumanists are actively seeking ways in which to ease the transitions of the coming years by encouraging research, foresight, and open discussions. They are not so much ‘countering’ anti-technologists as they are on the defensive; it seems to me that individuals such as Bill Joy and Jeremy Rifkin are the ones on the attack (not to mention Ted Kaczynski). Moreover, transhumanism and environmentalism are not mutually exclusive terms; there are a number of greens that are active members of the transhumanist community. I strongly encourage Bell and others to read up on transhumanism (www.transhumanism.org) and stop proliferating misinformation about this broad-based grass-roots movement." -- July 4, 2002
2002.07.08
Good Article
What's So New In A Newfangled Science? by George Johnson, New York Times.
2002.07.08
Cool Scientist, Writer
2002.07.08
Cool Theologian, Scientist
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)
2002.07.01
Memetics
Urban legend memes are interesting to consider (as are superstitions and old wives tales). These memes get passed on almost exclusively through word of mouth and are virtually unverifiable. Yet, they strike a chord in the human psyche, enough that one is compelled to pass on the meme to someone else -- even though they know the story is most likely untrue. But therein lies the rub: they often make for such good yarns that it's hard to resist. Thus, wee see the potency of the urban legend meme and its effective 'survival strategy.'
July 1, 2002
June 1, 2002
June 2002
2002.06.27
Theory of History
Is human history just “one damned fact another another?” Is it just an unpredictable and chaotic narrative? Or, do ‘great men’ set the course of events? What would happen if we could rewind history back about 2500 years, jumble the people around, and press play again? Would history unfold radically differently or somewhat differently? Obviously, it would not replay identically, but I am quite certain that it would not be too different than what we have witnessed. Social change is most profoundly affected by our interpretation of the environment and how well we can control and draw resources and information from it. So, assuming our 'human history simulation' has the same environment and the same species (but different individuals), why should we expect things to unfold drastically differently?
What are the commonalities? We’ve observed that some things change over time without the intervention of ‘great’ individuals. For example, human society has evolved from band to tribe to chiefdom to state. (see Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel). Additionally, since the late 18th century, societies have increasingly rejected monarchist, authoritarian, and totalitarian rulerships in favour of capitalist democracies (this may be what happens when an 'enlightened,' educated and affluent society faces population pressures, or it may be due to the efficacy of the capitalist system which seems to demand a democratic politic). Liberal democracies and capitalism are the ‘accepted’ modes of political and economic conduct today (see Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man). The (inevitable?) totalitarian experiments of the 20th century were all failures. The Soviet Union and her allies experienced economic and social collapses, while China appears to have no choice but to reform. African nations are also experiencing the democratic urge, albeit slowly. In addition, I would argue that globalization has been a high-level tendency from the very start of human civilizations. Societies are in constant cycles of expansion and consolidation (Europe is finally on this path).
Even certain technological innovations and scientific discoveries are inevitable after certain developmental stages have been attained (e.g. the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution). The Industrial Revolution was a product of many different innovations and inventions, independent of key historical figures. Does anyone really believe that the existence of cars, planes, computers, and electric toothbrushes are dependent on key inventors? I find it hard to believe that without Edison we wouldn't have the light bulb. And in the sciences, it was only a matter of time before such discoveries as the laws of physics, relativity, and genetics (nature abhors a vacuum). Had Darwin not posited his theory of natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace (or someone else) would have certainly done so eventually.
I could go on and on about this, but I believe I’ve made my point. Human history is complicated and intricate. Incredible historical figures and societies do influence events. History's micro-events are truly unpredictable. Yet, at a macro level, the great forces and trends of history cannot be attributed to ‘great men’ alone. As Otto von Bismarck said, “The statesman's task is to hear God's footsteps marching through history, and to try to catch on to his coattails as He marches past."
2002.06.27
Observation/Theory
Taylorism (i.e. the 'assembly line' approach to production) was an early attempt at turning the human being into an automated machine, or in other words, a virtual robot. Workers on an assembly line have their actions constrained and scripted, and this is very 'robotic' when you think about it. In a sense, their directives during work are not unlike a set of instructions in a software program. It's no wonder that robotics are playing such a huge role in modern factories. Similarly, people who work in phone support must stick to their scripts. [Note: soldiers are also scripted, but they still retain some autonomy in that individual actions and decision making is allowed and necessary. And furthermore, it can be argued that many of our instinctual behaviours (of which we are mostly unconscious of) are scripts of a sort as well.
2002.06.27
Note: I am currently reading Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines. Ya, I know: what took me so long!? This will inevitably lead to some streams on the topics of AI, the Singularity, consciousness, and the future of intelligence.
2002.06.27
Observation
History is not written by the victors, it is written by the survivors.
2002.06.25
Culture
Added my review of Spielberg's Minority Report to the Articles section.
2002.06.25
Futurology
Added a prediction to the Prescience section.
2002.06.25
Cool Scientist
David Deutsch, quantum theorist
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html
2002.06.25
Cool Philosopher
Nick Bostrom, Yale University, Department of Philosophy
http://www.nickbostrom.com
2002.06.20
Metaphysics For Your Consideration
Okay, so there you are, sitting in front of the computer reading the content of this Website. Please pause for a moment to acknowledge the fact that you are alive at this point in time and observing the universe. Obviously, you are not preborn or dead, otherwise you wouldn't be observing anything. Does it surprise you that you are alive right now and not preborn/dead? Obviously not. Of course you're alive right now. This just happens to be your time. Alright then, let's put this into perspective.
The universe has been around for 15 billion years (that's 15,000,000,000 years). That's a long time. A REALLY long time. And depending on whether the universe eventually contracts or keeps on expanding, it could continue to exist for an equally long time. Let's assume that you live to be 100 years old, and the universe goes on for another 20 billion years. When all is said and done, you only got to observe 0.00003% of the universe's duration (but if the universe goes on to expand forever this figure becomes completely meaningless in its insignificance). Therefore, the fact that you are observing the universe right now at this exact point in time seems highly improbable (at least it seems that way to me). And this says nothing to the events that had to transpire for you to be alive in the first place (e.g. your parents meeting, your grandparents meeting, and so on). So yes, your existence at this point in time is so improbable, it's practically at the point of near infinite improbability. But there you are! observing the universe and reading this meandering article!
Can we take this improbability anywhere, or do we just have to accept it? It's most likely the latter, but let's work with it. Hans Moravec believes that the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics may suggest that we live in an infinite universe (see his essay, "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence"). Thus, it is conceivable that each one of us experiences an infinite number of lives. When we're preborn/dead, we don't observe (when we're dead we're absolutely senseless and time cannot be perceived). Moreover, we know from experience that we have no memories of prior lives (deja vu not withstanding). Thus, you are never not observing as far as you are concerned. Or, as Moravec states, "we will always find ourselves in worlds where we exist and never in ones where we don't." (from "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence") The time gaps between lives is irrelevant as you have no sense of time elapsement. So, the moment you die, you are born again, ready to observe your new universe.
So, for all you know, you’ve already read this article an infinite number of times, and you will read it again an infinite number of times. Remind me to do a spell check…
2002.06.20
Metaphysics For Your Consideration
There are times when I think that existence isn't improbable at all. In fact, it may be quite the opposite. In an infinite cosmos, where all observations are made, existence is necessary and completely inevitable.
2002.06.20
Environmentalist Commentary
Will the 21st century be our make-or-break century? I don't see how it can't. In E. O. Wilson's essay, "The Bottleneck: The Future of Life", he states "for every person in the world to reach present U.S. levels of consumption with existing technology would require four more planet earths." I was devastated when I first read that, and my initial instinct was to concede the hopelessness of our situation; it was Thomas Malthus all over again (see his 1798 essay, "The Principles of Population"). Thankfully, however, Malthus's assertion that population numbers increase geometrically while foodstuffs grow at an arithmetic rate was incorrect (or was it?). So, is E. O. Wilson also mistaken? Well, his math is most assuredly right given current growth and consumption rates. Thus, the real issue is: can and will we resolve this real dilemma? In my never ending and futile quest to solve all the world's problems, here are some suggestions:
· the adoption of smarter eating habits in the modern world - we've got to start eating less fast-food and meat (especially beef)
· a pragmatic distribution of resources and technologies is necessary (e.g. renting, leasing, sharing, borrowing, reusing, recycling, restoring, etc.)
· smarter, leaner packaging and bundling of products
· a greater emphasis on efficient and clean energy sources that aren't resource pigs, and alternative materials to replace wood and other natural resources that are hard to replace
I'm sure there are many other tips I'm forgetting, but it's clear that modernized countries cannot go on consuming and producing at the current rate. Perhaps the lifestyle changes that I'm advocating can be summed up in the following credo: live simply. But alas, I remain somewhat pessimistic. Once businesses and people have established a viable standard of operating and living, they almost never voluntarily scale back. The changes that are required will only come about when the environment becomes visibly and obviously stressed, and consequently, when businesses and people will be compelled to change their habits by law.
2002.06.18
Observations in Cosmology
John Archibald Wheeler's mantra is "How come the quantum? How come existence?" Wheeler's recent insight into information physics and the notion that the universe can be understood as a computer (remember, he's not suggesting that the universe is a computer, he's saying it can be understood as a computer) has some serious metaphysical ramifications. By using the analogy to cellular automata, Wheeler noted that the universe and its apparent order could have emerged from chaos [I can't believe how biblical that sounds]. Wheeler believes that quantum theory is the key to understanding this issue. For more on this debate, go here.
2002.06.18
Question
Will futurology ever be able transcend its station as a philosophical endeavor and become a true scientific discipline? Meteorology is a credible (but frustrating) form of futurology, as are the futures markets. I suppose it all depends on how far into the future your prognostications run. I predict that simulations technology will have a lot to say about this over the next 25 years. [Er, did I just make a philosophical prediction, or a scientific one?]
2002.06.18
Observations in Science
Are we currently in another scientific golden age? It seems that every week there's a new study or paper that's extremely thought provoking. For example, we've recently had contributions from John Archibald Wheeler on information physics, Seth Lloyd's article in Physical Review Letters on universal computation capacity, and Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science. Actually, cosmology in general has had a collective burst of insight recently. Other examples include advances in quantum computation, string theory (although string theorists seem a little tied up in knots these days -- but check out this quote from Edward Witten: "String theory is 21st century physics that fell accidently in the 20th century."), neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, genomics, AI, information theory, neo-Darwinism, and sociobiology (including consilience and (arguably) memetic socioanalysis). New and exciting scientific disciplines include information physics, the study of extra-solar planets, and planetary geology. Even philosophers have gotten into the act -- some cosmologists have conceded the efficacy of the anthropic principle in their methodologies. As Paul Davies stated, "We can't avoid some anthropic component in our science, which is interesting, because after three hundred years we finally realize that we do matter."
2002.06.18
Books
Here are some books that I've read recently:
- Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
- James Gleick's Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything
- Richard Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable
- Sian Griffiths's (editor) Predictions: 30 Great Minds on the Future
2002.06.17
Changes
I made a number of grammatical corrections to this section and added some content to existing streams.
2002.06.17
Observation/Commentary/Social Theory
Both secular and non-secular conceptions of the Teilhardian Omega Point are modern manifestations of religion. As Teilhard said, "There is less difference than people think between research and adoration." Similarly, singularitarianism is a modern version of the salvation/apocalypse dilemma. It's fascinating when historical social patterns repeat themselves; it's even more fascinating when people fail to see it. Yes, we have to acknowledge that we've made some pretty spectacular scientific discoveries over the past 250 years. But I would argue that until we have the Final Theory to Everything, we don't know how far to the finish line we really are! As a result, our Singularity futurology may be as off-the-mark as the Apocalyptic futurology from hundreds of years ago. Remember: our ancestors believed they were being as rational as we believe we are now. We just happen to have more data than they did.
2002.06.17
For Your Consideration:
Is the 'fine tuning' argument absurd? Take this statement, for example: "The universe is finely tuned so that observers can discuss the fine tuning argument." Consequently, does the 'fine tuning' argument mean that the universe is determined? If so, is it an absolute determinism; in other words, if you were to hit the universal rewind button, would everything unfold exactly the way it is unfolding now? I guess my point is this: at what point do we stop saying the universe is finely tuned? At the point where an observer can exist? Why stop there? Thus, virtually everything in the universe could make the claim that the universe is finely tuned for its existence (e.g. my left shoe and this piece of spinach stuck between my front teeth).
2002.06.17
Commentary
Memetic socioanalysis is valuable insofar as it is revealing, provocative, and oftentimes profound. Only time will tell if it's a valid methodology. My main concern with memetics is the suggestion that people are docile hosts to the meme -- the insinuation that people are as unconscious about the reproductive process as the meme. The problem with this is we are conscious of our memes. As a result, we can engineer our memes much like we engineer our livestock or crops. Sure, some memes will survive this weeding process (i.e. a good 'adaptation'), but ultimately, we are in control of which ones get plucked. So, I caution memeticians: do not fixate on the meme itself, but instead, study why the meme was allowed to exist and survive in the first place. In this sense, memetic analyses change nothing.
2002.06.17
For Your Consideration:
Revolutionaries and nihilists understand how data works in society. They are both paradigm destroyers: by 'deleting' old data, they hope to make room for new versions. It's the deliberate and subjective sorting of memes and meme-sets. Similarly, radical fundamentalists try to prevent the dissemination of new contrarian ideas, while groups like the Amish and Mennonites just calmly ignore them altogether. [new memes don't like the Amish, and the Amish don't like them ;-) ]
2002.06.16
Correction
I caught a calculation error in the Fermi Paradox article (I never was good at math). The corrected sentence now reads: "This length of time represents only 0.1% of the total age of the Galaxy, which is 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) years old." My apologies for the error.
2002.06.13
New Article
The Drive to be Posthuman: An Inexorable and Necessary Human Imperative
2002.06.13
Commentary
Karl Marx should go down in history as the most dangerous and irresponsible scientist of all time. It’s one thing to posit a theory of history, or to develop a method of sociological analysis. It’s quite another to promote one’s theories -- which he claimed were scientifically irrefutable and beyond reproach -- in a recipe book that demands violent and merciless social action. Many advocates of Marx believe that the Soviet experience was a perversion of his teachings. These people need to revisit his Communist Manifesto and read it very carefully; there is very little that Lenin and Stalin did that was not prescribed in that book. The end result: a failed social experiment conducted on actual people that resulted in possibly 60 to 80 million deaths.
2002.06.12
Theory
Is it possible that we will eventually know too much about the universe and ourselves, and thus shatter the illusion that is our reality? Or similarly, what if we come predict the fate of our species? I would argue that we're indirectly trying to doing this (e.g. Fermi Paradox, Great Filter, foresight activities). Imagine a scenario where we predict the fate of the human race and discover that nothing can be done to prevent it, and that it will happen in relative short order. [Yikes.]
2002.06.12
Theory
The universe can be understood as a computer that runs algorithms allowing for physical laws (see John Archibald Wheeler and Seth Lloyd). In our universe, the physical laws are such that they allow for the presence of life. What is life? Any discreet system that exists continuously (i.e. uninterruptedly) or replicates over time. In this context, even idea propagation can be considered life-like (i.e. memetics). If this is the case, since the physical laws exist over time, and because they exhibit systemic qualities, can the laws of the universe be regarded as life forms unto themselves (e.g. the law of gravity as life form)? Does that mean the universe is a life form? [By my broad definition, I suppose it has to.]
2002.06.12
Observation
Yesterday's micros are tomorrow's singular macro.
2002.06.12
Observation & Theory
At any given developmental stage, the benefits of technology are equally proportional to their detriments. If you can create heaven, you can create hell.
2002.06.08
Theory
Are hedonistic tendencies a result of our biological heritage? Would the desire for such things as pleasure and happiness disappear with the removal of our biological components? If so, what does this say about artificial intelligence? What about uploading?
2002.06.08
Observation continues to impress me. It is truly becoming the front-end of the Web. You can actually conduct a search through Google by asking it a question (essentially, a more successful take on the Ask Jeeves concept -- and furthermore, a step in the Noosphere direction). But not only that, if the search results fail to yield a desired answer, you can have an associate of Google do the research for you (but at a price). Other cool things that Google can do include a new glossary (definitions for words, phrases and acronyms) and sets (automatically create sets of items from a few examples). And of course, this is in addition to the already standard sections: images, groups, and directories.
2002.06.07
Observation
Edward O. Wilson's Consilience is the Baconianism of our time.
2002.06.07
For Your Consideration
Simulationist Solipsist Realism (or the Truman Show meets Tron; also see Vanilla Sky): The belief that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and that nothing exists or is real but the self, while all objects, persons, ideas, and concepts are constructs of a computer simulation. [In this day in age, where philosophers muse about the possibility of reality as a computer simulation, one has to wonder if he's the hero in someone's video game...I wonder how I'm doing ;-) A man should never want to prove such as thing, lest he go mad.]
2002.06.07
Commentary
In order to treat something, like a disease for example, one must first seek to understand it. Being cynical about it won't help.
2002.06.07
Theory
Humans don't have 5 senses, they have 6; sentience is not so much a mental state as it's a sense (i.e. the sense you have that there is a self).
2002.06.05
Theory
Consciousness -- that is, the sense or feeling that we are a sentient entity -- can be broken up into discreet parts which: 1) short and long term memory, 2) rational/logical processing and intelligence, and 3) biological components such as instinct, emotions, cravings, etc. [I may be off the mark (I'm sure S. Pinker and D. Dennett have something to say on this matter), but it's something I've been considering recently. I wonder -- if someone were to upload themselves, would they cast off the biological vestiges of their personality? Would you feel like the same person? How would this affect your value system (e.g. would you become a pure logician? Would you continue to function in a 'desirable' way?) Note: do not underestimate how much of your personality is affected by your biology. Your brain is constantly being influenced by hormones, pheromones, genetic predispositions, gender, age, and so on.]
2002.06.05
Commentary
Ethnobiologists are on the right track: to understand a society we must understand what they knew about their environment and how they interpreted that knowledge. In turn, ethnobiologists need to examine how this information translated into culture, institutions, motives, metaphysical beliefs, and so on. Additionally, this approach applies to ancient cultures as it does to our own.
2002.06.03
Theory
Culture is a society's outward expression of information that has been gathered, processed, interpreted, and passed on. Put another way, culture is how societies express the accumulation of data.
2002.06.03
Theory:
Humans demand order. Where there is order, there is life; where there is disorder, there can only be death. As a result, rational agents in an ordered world gather, process, and refine information as a survival strategy. For prehistoric man, this behaviour resulted in a positive feedback loop, where the more data that was accumulated, the more control he had over his physical environment. And control of the environment, like order, allows for life. [Note: in the bible it was written that God created the world from chaos.]
2002.06.03
Observation
I've recently noticed a conceptual paradigm shift in the scientific and medical community's approach to ageing; it is coming to be regarded as a disease that can be greatly controlled and restrained -- if not defeated altogether. Traditionally, ageing has been treated as an inexorable consequence of living. Like conceptions of gravity prior to Newton, most people failed to properly grasp the phenomenon. Recent advances in the medical sciences have shown that longevity may be possible to an unprecedented degree. Moreover, extropists and those who speculate about uploads (the uploading of the human consciousness into a machine) bring an entirely new and radical dimension to the issue. The war against ageing will not be simple, though. There are many different facets to human senescence, and it will be a very lengthy and piecemeal process to weed out all contributing factors. Moreover, justifying research time and money to this field may be interpreted by the general public as a gross misappropriation of resources in consideration of issues with much higher priorities, namely global overpopulation, poverty, and ecological problems. Furthermore, the philosophical and psychological issues that extreme longevity and immortality bring to the table are as sweeping as they are profound. As Ray Kurzweil notes: "Take death for example. A great deal of our effort goes into avoiding it. We make extraordinary efforts to delay it and often consider its intrusion a tragic event. Yet we’d find it hard to live without it. Death gives meaning to our lives. It gives importance and value to time. Time would become meaningless if there were too much of it. If death were indefinitely put off the human psyche would end up, well, like the gambler of the Twilight Zone episode." Time stops for the immortal...
2002.06.03
For Your Consideration
The Demi-God Hypothesis: The traditional definition of God comes from St. Anselm: 'that which nothing greater can be conceived.' However, I believe a new definition of God is in order -- one that accommodates the notion that God can be less than perfect -- and one that can be applied to teleological arguments. Metaphysical propositions referring to an 'intelligent designer' (as opposed to St. Anselm's definition) are not cognitively meaningless; a 'cosmological programmer' falls within the realm of scientific conceivability. The supposed death knell offered by logical positivists to all arguments that refer to God offered is thus thwarted as the universe becomes increasingly understood as a finely tuned entity. Moreover, as mathematical/Platonic realism makes a comeback (probably inspired by such things as information theory and quantum computational theory), it becomes increasingly plausible that all we observe may be contrived by a higher-order being. Now don't get me wrong -- I do not subscribe to intelligent design theories. The burden of proof still lies with them; just because something looks 'finely tuned' doesn't mean that it was consciously designed to be finely tuned. The universe appears that way because if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it. But essentially, my argument is this: the design argument remains a valid argument so long as it attempts to prove the existence of just that: a designer.
2002.06.03
Observation
To date, human society has proven malleable enough to survive and adapt to all scientific paradigm shifts (e.g. Heliocentrism, Darwinianism, and quantum physics (although we don't really understand this yet)). It is conceivable that a future scientific paradigm shift may disrupt the social order of things irrevocably. For example, what if we discover that we are in fact living in a simulation (see Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument), or something inconceivably radical and ludicrous as far as our current sensibilities are concerned?
2002.06.02
For Your Consideration
Cartesian Pantheism: "I think, therefore I am God."
2002.06.01:
Observation/Commentary
Every ideologue aspires to achieve what that he believes is right, and by consequence, believes there are some things to be hated, feared, or fought. Where ideologues differ is in how they contend with these dichotomies.
Theory of History
Is human history just “one damned fact another another?” Is it just an unpredictable and chaotic narrative? Or, do ‘great men’ set the course of events? What would happen if we could rewind history back about 2500 years, jumble the people around, and press play again? Would history unfold radically differently or somewhat differently? Obviously, it would not replay identically, but I am quite certain that it would not be too different than what we have witnessed. Social change is most profoundly affected by our interpretation of the environment and how well we can control and draw resources and information from it. So, assuming our 'human history simulation' has the same environment and the same species (but different individuals), why should we expect things to unfold drastically differently?
What are the commonalities? We’ve observed that some things change over time without the intervention of ‘great’ individuals. For example, human society has evolved from band to tribe to chiefdom to state. (see Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel). Additionally, since the late 18th century, societies have increasingly rejected monarchist, authoritarian, and totalitarian rulerships in favour of capitalist democracies (this may be what happens when an 'enlightened,' educated and affluent society faces population pressures, or it may be due to the efficacy of the capitalist system which seems to demand a democratic politic). Liberal democracies and capitalism are the ‘accepted’ modes of political and economic conduct today (see Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man). The (inevitable?) totalitarian experiments of the 20th century were all failures. The Soviet Union and her allies experienced economic and social collapses, while China appears to have no choice but to reform. African nations are also experiencing the democratic urge, albeit slowly. In addition, I would argue that globalization has been a high-level tendency from the very start of human civilizations. Societies are in constant cycles of expansion and consolidation (Europe is finally on this path).
Even certain technological innovations and scientific discoveries are inevitable after certain developmental stages have been attained (e.g. the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution). The Industrial Revolution was a product of many different innovations and inventions, independent of key historical figures. Does anyone really believe that the existence of cars, planes, computers, and electric toothbrushes are dependent on key inventors? I find it hard to believe that without Edison we wouldn't have the light bulb. And in the sciences, it was only a matter of time before such discoveries as the laws of physics, relativity, and genetics (nature abhors a vacuum). Had Darwin not posited his theory of natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace (or someone else) would have certainly done so eventually.
I could go on and on about this, but I believe I’ve made my point. Human history is complicated and intricate. Incredible historical figures and societies do influence events. History's micro-events are truly unpredictable. Yet, at a macro level, the great forces and trends of history cannot be attributed to ‘great men’ alone. As Otto von Bismarck said, “The statesman's task is to hear God's footsteps marching through history, and to try to catch on to his coattails as He marches past."
2002.06.27
Observation/Theory
Taylorism (i.e. the 'assembly line' approach to production) was an early attempt at turning the human being into an automated machine, or in other words, a virtual robot. Workers on an assembly line have their actions constrained and scripted, and this is very 'robotic' when you think about it. In a sense, their directives during work are not unlike a set of instructions in a software program. It's no wonder that robotics are playing such a huge role in modern factories. Similarly, people who work in phone support must stick to their scripts. [Note: soldiers are also scripted, but they still retain some autonomy in that individual actions and decision making is allowed and necessary. And furthermore, it can be argued that many of our instinctual behaviours (of which we are mostly unconscious of) are scripts of a sort as well.
2002.06.27
Note: I am currently reading Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines. Ya, I know: what took me so long!? This will inevitably lead to some streams on the topics of AI, the Singularity, consciousness, and the future of intelligence.
2002.06.27
Observation
History is not written by the victors, it is written by the survivors.
2002.06.25
Culture
Added my review of Spielberg's Minority Report to the Articles section.
2002.06.25
Futurology
Added a prediction to the Prescience section.
2002.06.25
Cool Scientist
David Deutsch, quantum theorist
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html
2002.06.25
Cool Philosopher
Nick Bostrom, Yale University, Department of Philosophy
http://www.nickbostrom.com
2002.06.20
Metaphysics For Your Consideration
Okay, so there you are, sitting in front of the computer reading the content of this Website. Please pause for a moment to acknowledge the fact that you are alive at this point in time and observing the universe. Obviously, you are not preborn or dead, otherwise you wouldn't be observing anything. Does it surprise you that you are alive right now and not preborn/dead? Obviously not. Of course you're alive right now. This just happens to be your time. Alright then, let's put this into perspective.
The universe has been around for 15 billion years (that's 15,000,000,000 years). That's a long time. A REALLY long time. And depending on whether the universe eventually contracts or keeps on expanding, it could continue to exist for an equally long time. Let's assume that you live to be 100 years old, and the universe goes on for another 20 billion years. When all is said and done, you only got to observe 0.00003% of the universe's duration (but if the universe goes on to expand forever this figure becomes completely meaningless in its insignificance). Therefore, the fact that you are observing the universe right now at this exact point in time seems highly improbable (at least it seems that way to me). And this says nothing to the events that had to transpire for you to be alive in the first place (e.g. your parents meeting, your grandparents meeting, and so on). So yes, your existence at this point in time is so improbable, it's practically at the point of near infinite improbability. But there you are! observing the universe and reading this meandering article!
Can we take this improbability anywhere, or do we just have to accept it? It's most likely the latter, but let's work with it. Hans Moravec believes that the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics may suggest that we live in an infinite universe (see his essay, "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence"). Thus, it is conceivable that each one of us experiences an infinite number of lives. When we're preborn/dead, we don't observe (when we're dead we're absolutely senseless and time cannot be perceived). Moreover, we know from experience that we have no memories of prior lives (deja vu not withstanding). Thus, you are never not observing as far as you are concerned. Or, as Moravec states, "we will always find ourselves in worlds where we exist and never in ones where we don't." (from "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence") The time gaps between lives is irrelevant as you have no sense of time elapsement. So, the moment you die, you are born again, ready to observe your new universe.
So, for all you know, you’ve already read this article an infinite number of times, and you will read it again an infinite number of times. Remind me to do a spell check…
2002.06.20
Metaphysics For Your Consideration
There are times when I think that existence isn't improbable at all. In fact, it may be quite the opposite. In an infinite cosmos, where all observations are made, existence is necessary and completely inevitable.
2002.06.20
Environmentalist Commentary
Will the 21st century be our make-or-break century? I don't see how it can't. In E. O. Wilson's essay, "The Bottleneck: The Future of Life", he states "for every person in the world to reach present U.S. levels of consumption with existing technology would require four more planet earths." I was devastated when I first read that, and my initial instinct was to concede the hopelessness of our situation; it was Thomas Malthus all over again (see his 1798 essay, "The Principles of Population"). Thankfully, however, Malthus's assertion that population numbers increase geometrically while foodstuffs grow at an arithmetic rate was incorrect (or was it?). So, is E. O. Wilson also mistaken? Well, his math is most assuredly right given current growth and consumption rates. Thus, the real issue is: can and will we resolve this real dilemma? In my never ending and futile quest to solve all the world's problems, here are some suggestions:
· the adoption of smarter eating habits in the modern world - we've got to start eating less fast-food and meat (especially beef)
· a pragmatic distribution of resources and technologies is necessary (e.g. renting, leasing, sharing, borrowing, reusing, recycling, restoring, etc.)
· smarter, leaner packaging and bundling of products
· a greater emphasis on efficient and clean energy sources that aren't resource pigs, and alternative materials to replace wood and other natural resources that are hard to replace
I'm sure there are many other tips I'm forgetting, but it's clear that modernized countries cannot go on consuming and producing at the current rate. Perhaps the lifestyle changes that I'm advocating can be summed up in the following credo: live simply. But alas, I remain somewhat pessimistic. Once businesses and people have established a viable standard of operating and living, they almost never voluntarily scale back. The changes that are required will only come about when the environment becomes visibly and obviously stressed, and consequently, when businesses and people will be compelled to change their habits by law.
2002.06.18
Observations in Cosmology
John Archibald Wheeler's mantra is "How come the quantum? How come existence?" Wheeler's recent insight into information physics and the notion that the universe can be understood as a computer (remember, he's not suggesting that the universe is a computer, he's saying it can be understood as a computer) has some serious metaphysical ramifications. By using the analogy to cellular automata, Wheeler noted that the universe and its apparent order could have emerged from chaos [I can't believe how biblical that sounds]. Wheeler believes that quantum theory is the key to understanding this issue. For more on this debate, go here.
2002.06.18
Question
Will futurology ever be able transcend its station as a philosophical endeavor and become a true scientific discipline? Meteorology is a credible (but frustrating) form of futurology, as are the futures markets. I suppose it all depends on how far into the future your prognostications run. I predict that simulations technology will have a lot to say about this over the next 25 years. [Er, did I just make a philosophical prediction, or a scientific one?]
2002.06.18
Observations in Science
Are we currently in another scientific golden age? It seems that every week there's a new study or paper that's extremely thought provoking. For example, we've recently had contributions from John Archibald Wheeler on information physics, Seth Lloyd's article in Physical Review Letters on universal computation capacity, and Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science. Actually, cosmology in general has had a collective burst of insight recently. Other examples include advances in quantum computation, string theory (although string theorists seem a little tied up in knots these days -- but check out this quote from Edward Witten: "String theory is 21st century physics that fell accidently in the 20th century."), neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, genomics, AI, information theory, neo-Darwinism, and sociobiology (including consilience and (arguably) memetic socioanalysis). New and exciting scientific disciplines include information physics, the study of extra-solar planets, and planetary geology. Even philosophers have gotten into the act -- some cosmologists have conceded the efficacy of the anthropic principle in their methodologies. As Paul Davies stated, "We can't avoid some anthropic component in our science, which is interesting, because after three hundred years we finally realize that we do matter."
2002.06.18
Books
Here are some books that I've read recently:
- Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
- James Gleick's Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything
- Richard Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable
- Sian Griffiths's (editor) Predictions: 30 Great Minds on the Future
2002.06.17
Changes
I made a number of grammatical corrections to this section and added some content to existing streams.
2002.06.17
Observation/Commentary/Social Theory
Both secular and non-secular conceptions of the Teilhardian Omega Point are modern manifestations of religion. As Teilhard said, "There is less difference than people think between research and adoration." Similarly, singularitarianism is a modern version of the salvation/apocalypse dilemma. It's fascinating when historical social patterns repeat themselves; it's even more fascinating when people fail to see it. Yes, we have to acknowledge that we've made some pretty spectacular scientific discoveries over the past 250 years. But I would argue that until we have the Final Theory to Everything, we don't know how far to the finish line we really are! As a result, our Singularity futurology may be as off-the-mark as the Apocalyptic futurology from hundreds of years ago. Remember: our ancestors believed they were being as rational as we believe we are now. We just happen to have more data than they did.
2002.06.17
For Your Consideration:
Is the 'fine tuning' argument absurd? Take this statement, for example: "The universe is finely tuned so that observers can discuss the fine tuning argument." Consequently, does the 'fine tuning' argument mean that the universe is determined? If so, is it an absolute determinism; in other words, if you were to hit the universal rewind button, would everything unfold exactly the way it is unfolding now? I guess my point is this: at what point do we stop saying the universe is finely tuned? At the point where an observer can exist? Why stop there? Thus, virtually everything in the universe could make the claim that the universe is finely tuned for its existence (e.g. my left shoe and this piece of spinach stuck between my front teeth).
2002.06.17
Commentary
Memetic socioanalysis is valuable insofar as it is revealing, provocative, and oftentimes profound. Only time will tell if it's a valid methodology. My main concern with memetics is the suggestion that people are docile hosts to the meme -- the insinuation that people are as unconscious about the reproductive process as the meme. The problem with this is we are conscious of our memes. As a result, we can engineer our memes much like we engineer our livestock or crops. Sure, some memes will survive this weeding process (i.e. a good 'adaptation'), but ultimately, we are in control of which ones get plucked. So, I caution memeticians: do not fixate on the meme itself, but instead, study why the meme was allowed to exist and survive in the first place. In this sense, memetic analyses change nothing.
2002.06.17
For Your Consideration:
Revolutionaries and nihilists understand how data works in society. They are both paradigm destroyers: by 'deleting' old data, they hope to make room for new versions. It's the deliberate and subjective sorting of memes and meme-sets. Similarly, radical fundamentalists try to prevent the dissemination of new contrarian ideas, while groups like the Amish and Mennonites just calmly ignore them altogether. [new memes don't like the Amish, and the Amish don't like them ;-) ]
2002.06.16
Correction
I caught a calculation error in the Fermi Paradox article (I never was good at math). The corrected sentence now reads: "This length of time represents only 0.1% of the total age of the Galaxy, which is 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) years old." My apologies for the error.
2002.06.13
New Article
The Drive to be Posthuman: An Inexorable and Necessary Human Imperative
2002.06.13
Commentary
Karl Marx should go down in history as the most dangerous and irresponsible scientist of all time. It’s one thing to posit a theory of history, or to develop a method of sociological analysis. It’s quite another to promote one’s theories -- which he claimed were scientifically irrefutable and beyond reproach -- in a recipe book that demands violent and merciless social action. Many advocates of Marx believe that the Soviet experience was a perversion of his teachings. These people need to revisit his Communist Manifesto and read it very carefully; there is very little that Lenin and Stalin did that was not prescribed in that book. The end result: a failed social experiment conducted on actual people that resulted in possibly 60 to 80 million deaths.
2002.06.12
Theory
Is it possible that we will eventually know too much about the universe and ourselves, and thus shatter the illusion that is our reality? Or similarly, what if we come predict the fate of our species? I would argue that we're indirectly trying to doing this (e.g. Fermi Paradox, Great Filter, foresight activities). Imagine a scenario where we predict the fate of the human race and discover that nothing can be done to prevent it, and that it will happen in relative short order. [Yikes.]
2002.06.12
Theory
The universe can be understood as a computer that runs algorithms allowing for physical laws (see John Archibald Wheeler and Seth Lloyd). In our universe, the physical laws are such that they allow for the presence of life. What is life? Any discreet system that exists continuously (i.e. uninterruptedly) or replicates over time. In this context, even idea propagation can be considered life-like (i.e. memetics). If this is the case, since the physical laws exist over time, and because they exhibit systemic qualities, can the laws of the universe be regarded as life forms unto themselves (e.g. the law of gravity as life form)? Does that mean the universe is a life form? [By my broad definition, I suppose it has to.]
2002.06.12
Observation
Yesterday's micros are tomorrow's singular macro.
2002.06.12
Observation & Theory
At any given developmental stage, the benefits of technology are equally proportional to their detriments. If you can create heaven, you can create hell.
2002.06.08
Theory
Are hedonistic tendencies a result of our biological heritage? Would the desire for such things as pleasure and happiness disappear with the removal of our biological components? If so, what does this say about artificial intelligence? What about uploading?
2002.06.08
Observation continues to impress me. It is truly becoming the front-end of the Web. You can actually conduct a search through Google by asking it a question (essentially, a more successful take on the Ask Jeeves concept -- and furthermore, a step in the Noosphere direction). But not only that, if the search results fail to yield a desired answer, you can have an associate of Google do the research for you (but at a price). Other cool things that Google can do include a new glossary (definitions for words, phrases and acronyms) and sets (automatically create sets of items from a few examples). And of course, this is in addition to the already standard sections: images, groups, and directories.
2002.06.07
Observation
Edward O. Wilson's Consilience is the Baconianism of our time.
2002.06.07
For Your Consideration
Simulationist Solipsist Realism (or the Truman Show meets Tron; also see Vanilla Sky): The belief that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and that nothing exists or is real but the self, while all objects, persons, ideas, and concepts are constructs of a computer simulation. [In this day in age, where philosophers muse about the possibility of reality as a computer simulation, one has to wonder if he's the hero in someone's video game...I wonder how I'm doing ;-) A man should never want to prove such as thing, lest he go mad.]
2002.06.07
Commentary
In order to treat something, like a disease for example, one must first seek to understand it. Being cynical about it won't help.
2002.06.07
Theory
Humans don't have 5 senses, they have 6; sentience is not so much a mental state as it's a sense (i.e. the sense you have that there is a self).
2002.06.05
Theory
Consciousness -- that is, the sense or feeling that we are a sentient entity -- can be broken up into discreet parts which: 1) short and long term memory, 2) rational/logical processing and intelligence, and 3) biological components such as instinct, emotions, cravings, etc. [I may be off the mark (I'm sure S. Pinker and D. Dennett have something to say on this matter), but it's something I've been considering recently. I wonder -- if someone were to upload themselves, would they cast off the biological vestiges of their personality? Would you feel like the same person? How would this affect your value system (e.g. would you become a pure logician? Would you continue to function in a 'desirable' way?) Note: do not underestimate how much of your personality is affected by your biology. Your brain is constantly being influenced by hormones, pheromones, genetic predispositions, gender, age, and so on.]
2002.06.05
Commentary
Ethnobiologists are on the right track: to understand a society we must understand what they knew about their environment and how they interpreted that knowledge. In turn, ethnobiologists need to examine how this information translated into culture, institutions, motives, metaphysical beliefs, and so on. Additionally, this approach applies to ancient cultures as it does to our own.
2002.06.03
Theory
Culture is a society's outward expression of information that has been gathered, processed, interpreted, and passed on. Put another way, culture is how societies express the accumulation of data.
2002.06.03
Theory:
Humans demand order. Where there is order, there is life; where there is disorder, there can only be death. As a result, rational agents in an ordered world gather, process, and refine information as a survival strategy. For prehistoric man, this behaviour resulted in a positive feedback loop, where the more data that was accumulated, the more control he had over his physical environment. And control of the environment, like order, allows for life. [Note: in the bible it was written that God created the world from chaos.]
2002.06.03
Observation
I've recently noticed a conceptual paradigm shift in the scientific and medical community's approach to ageing; it is coming to be regarded as a disease that can be greatly controlled and restrained -- if not defeated altogether. Traditionally, ageing has been treated as an inexorable consequence of living. Like conceptions of gravity prior to Newton, most people failed to properly grasp the phenomenon. Recent advances in the medical sciences have shown that longevity may be possible to an unprecedented degree. Moreover, extropists and those who speculate about uploads (the uploading of the human consciousness into a machine) bring an entirely new and radical dimension to the issue. The war against ageing will not be simple, though. There are many different facets to human senescence, and it will be a very lengthy and piecemeal process to weed out all contributing factors. Moreover, justifying research time and money to this field may be interpreted by the general public as a gross misappropriation of resources in consideration of issues with much higher priorities, namely global overpopulation, poverty, and ecological problems. Furthermore, the philosophical and psychological issues that extreme longevity and immortality bring to the table are as sweeping as they are profound. As Ray Kurzweil notes: "Take death for example. A great deal of our effort goes into avoiding it. We make extraordinary efforts to delay it and often consider its intrusion a tragic event. Yet we’d find it hard to live without it. Death gives meaning to our lives. It gives importance and value to time. Time would become meaningless if there were too much of it. If death were indefinitely put off the human psyche would end up, well, like the gambler of the Twilight Zone episode." Time stops for the immortal...
2002.06.03
For Your Consideration
The Demi-God Hypothesis: The traditional definition of God comes from St. Anselm: 'that which nothing greater can be conceived.' However, I believe a new definition of God is in order -- one that accommodates the notion that God can be less than perfect -- and one that can be applied to teleological arguments. Metaphysical propositions referring to an 'intelligent designer' (as opposed to St. Anselm's definition) are not cognitively meaningless; a 'cosmological programmer' falls within the realm of scientific conceivability. The supposed death knell offered by logical positivists to all arguments that refer to God offered is thus thwarted as the universe becomes increasingly understood as a finely tuned entity. Moreover, as mathematical/Platonic realism makes a comeback (probably inspired by such things as information theory and quantum computational theory), it becomes increasingly plausible that all we observe may be contrived by a higher-order being. Now don't get me wrong -- I do not subscribe to intelligent design theories. The burden of proof still lies with them; just because something looks 'finely tuned' doesn't mean that it was consciously designed to be finely tuned. The universe appears that way because if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it. But essentially, my argument is this: the design argument remains a valid argument so long as it attempts to prove the existence of just that: a designer.
2002.06.03
Observation
To date, human society has proven malleable enough to survive and adapt to all scientific paradigm shifts (e.g. Heliocentrism, Darwinianism, and quantum physics (although we don't really understand this yet)). It is conceivable that a future scientific paradigm shift may disrupt the social order of things irrevocably. For example, what if we discover that we are in fact living in a simulation (see Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument), or something inconceivably radical and ludicrous as far as our current sensibilities are concerned?
2002.06.02
For Your Consideration
Cartesian Pantheism: "I think, therefore I am God."
2002.06.01:
Observation/Commentary
Every ideologue aspires to achieve what that he believes is right, and by consequence, believes there are some things to be hated, feared, or fought. Where ideologues differ is in how they contend with these dichotomies.
May 1, 2002
May 2002
2002.05.31
Commentary
Futurists and futurologists who ignore our changing environment and the resultant societal ramifications do so at their own peril.
2002.05.30
For Your Consideration
Environmental aspects and traits (i.e. all that is accepted as existing through the application of observation and reason, e.g. matter, algebra, physical laws, etc.) regulates and constrains the experience of intelligent life. This sounds obvious, but it's a good starting point in trying to quantify those experiential factors that are common to all intelligent observers.
2002.05.29
Theory
Is the universe (unconsciously) finely tuned for life to exist? It sure seems that way. Okay then, try this theory on for size: Assuming that the Great Filter exists, and that it resides in our future, then the universe is finely tuned for life to exist -- including intelligent life -- but only up until the point where an intelligent species reaches a critical stage of scientific/technological development. Perhaps the Great Filter resides just before the stage where intelligent life would be capable of controlling the inner workings of the universe. In other words, the universe is finely tuned for intelligent life to exist AND for the Great Filter to be in effect. This would also make sense in light of the suggestion from some cosmologists that the universe is subject to the laws of natural selection much like organisms are; if the universe were not this way, then intelligent life would interfere with its reproductive process. [Sounds like an outlandish theory, eh? Well, let's remember what J. B. S. Haldane once said: "The universe is not only queerer that we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."]
2002.05.28
Observation & Theory
The Transhumanist 'technology postulate' can be viewed as both a new ideological weltanschauungen and as a socio-analytical paradigm shift. Or, I could just be exaggerating this point: humans have been improving themselves with technology for the past 13,000 years -- it's instinctual.
2002.05.28
Say What?
Quantum physics confuses me terribly. Does the Many Worlds Interpretation suggest that existence is merely about probabilities? If so, how does one assess probabilities in reference to infinite possibilities? Help... [I love this quote from Richard Feynman: "It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem [with quantum mechanics]. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm sure there's no real problem."
2002.05.28
Commentary
Amongst other things, Marx was a conspiracy theorist. To him, history was nothing more than the study of ruling classes pulling the wool over the eyes of the subjugated.
2002.05.28
Observation & Commentary
Is it me, or are television ads getting quite potent? I find myself nearly hypnotized by certain commercials, and I can tell when the advertiser is trying to tap into my psyche's more primitive instincts. There are times when I feel that my consciousness has been violated! So, this begs the question: to what extent should advertisers be allowed to persuade and grab the attention of its viewers? Are there such things as viewership rights (i.e. freedom from psychological persuasion and manipulation)? Or, is advertising just another artistic expression that deserves its freedom? Or, am I completely blowing this out of proportion? Well at the very least, let's keep our eye the advertisers. And watch less TV.
2002.05.27
Observation
Like all good paradigm shifts, quantum physics is a completely unexpected, profound, and wonderful turn. And like all other paradigm shifts, it's a reaffirmation of what we have learned so far, and a devastating reminder as to how much there is still to know. Its ramifications are still truly hard to fathom; whatever the Final Theory reveals, it will not be subtle. The discovery of quantum mechanics caused Einstein to devote the last two decades of his life in trying to prove the theory wrong. Roger Penrose felt the same way. Resultantly, Penrose has put forth some rather outlandish cosmological theories of his own -- outlandish enough that if it wasn't for his brilliance in mathematics he would surely be regarded as a crackpot. And as for David Deutsch (a quantum physics guru) -- he compares the development of the Many Worlds theory to Copernicus's declaration that the Earth spins around the Sun -- in other words, a radical perceptual shift. And for the record, according to M. C. Price's Hugh Everett Many Worlds FAQ: "Amongst the "Yes, I think the Many Worlds Interpretation is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died)."
2002.05.27
Theory
Can the violence meme be understood as a replicating idea that gets caught in a positive feedback loop? The old truism after all is that violence begets violence.
2002.05.26
And so it begins
Sentient Developments is now George P. Dvorsky's home page.
Commentary
Futurists and futurologists who ignore our changing environment and the resultant societal ramifications do so at their own peril.
2002.05.30
For Your Consideration
Environmental aspects and traits (i.e. all that is accepted as existing through the application of observation and reason, e.g. matter, algebra, physical laws, etc.) regulates and constrains the experience of intelligent life. This sounds obvious, but it's a good starting point in trying to quantify those experiential factors that are common to all intelligent observers.
2002.05.29
Theory
Is the universe (unconsciously) finely tuned for life to exist? It sure seems that way. Okay then, try this theory on for size: Assuming that the Great Filter exists, and that it resides in our future, then the universe is finely tuned for life to exist -- including intelligent life -- but only up until the point where an intelligent species reaches a critical stage of scientific/technological development. Perhaps the Great Filter resides just before the stage where intelligent life would be capable of controlling the inner workings of the universe. In other words, the universe is finely tuned for intelligent life to exist AND for the Great Filter to be in effect. This would also make sense in light of the suggestion from some cosmologists that the universe is subject to the laws of natural selection much like organisms are; if the universe were not this way, then intelligent life would interfere with its reproductive process. [Sounds like an outlandish theory, eh? Well, let's remember what J. B. S. Haldane once said: "The universe is not only queerer that we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."]
2002.05.28
Observation & Theory
The Transhumanist 'technology postulate' can be viewed as both a new ideological weltanschauungen and as a socio-analytical paradigm shift. Or, I could just be exaggerating this point: humans have been improving themselves with technology for the past 13,000 years -- it's instinctual.
2002.05.28
Say What?
Quantum physics confuses me terribly. Does the Many Worlds Interpretation suggest that existence is merely about probabilities? If so, how does one assess probabilities in reference to infinite possibilities? Help... [I love this quote from Richard Feynman: "It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem [with quantum mechanics]. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm sure there's no real problem."
2002.05.28
Commentary
Amongst other things, Marx was a conspiracy theorist. To him, history was nothing more than the study of ruling classes pulling the wool over the eyes of the subjugated.
2002.05.28
Observation & Commentary
Is it me, or are television ads getting quite potent? I find myself nearly hypnotized by certain commercials, and I can tell when the advertiser is trying to tap into my psyche's more primitive instincts. There are times when I feel that my consciousness has been violated! So, this begs the question: to what extent should advertisers be allowed to persuade and grab the attention of its viewers? Are there such things as viewership rights (i.e. freedom from psychological persuasion and manipulation)? Or, is advertising just another artistic expression that deserves its freedom? Or, am I completely blowing this out of proportion? Well at the very least, let's keep our eye the advertisers. And watch less TV.
2002.05.27
Observation
Like all good paradigm shifts, quantum physics is a completely unexpected, profound, and wonderful turn. And like all other paradigm shifts, it's a reaffirmation of what we have learned so far, and a devastating reminder as to how much there is still to know. Its ramifications are still truly hard to fathom; whatever the Final Theory reveals, it will not be subtle. The discovery of quantum mechanics caused Einstein to devote the last two decades of his life in trying to prove the theory wrong. Roger Penrose felt the same way. Resultantly, Penrose has put forth some rather outlandish cosmological theories of his own -- outlandish enough that if it wasn't for his brilliance in mathematics he would surely be regarded as a crackpot. And as for David Deutsch (a quantum physics guru) -- he compares the development of the Many Worlds theory to Copernicus's declaration that the Earth spins around the Sun -- in other words, a radical perceptual shift. And for the record, according to M. C. Price's Hugh Everett Many Worlds FAQ: "Amongst the "Yes, I think the Many Worlds Interpretation is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died)."
2002.05.27
Theory
Can the violence meme be understood as a replicating idea that gets caught in a positive feedback loop? The old truism after all is that violence begets violence.
2002.05.26
And so it begins
Sentient Developments is now George P. Dvorsky's home page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)