April 11, 2004
TTA Social: Roundup
Thanks to everyone who came to the Red Room last night. As usual, a good time was had by all. I still can't get over how good that avocado-brie sandwich was. It's true what they say about the Red Room: poor service, but great food and at reasonable prices.
Last night I finally had the opportunity to meet Toronto transhumanist, Allan Randall. Allan, in addition to being a very cool guy, is a philosopher at York University who teaches math, physics, and chemistry. During our conversation he took me to school about some elements in quantum many worlds theory, concepts of infinity and probability, quantum computing, and some cosmology (he actually convinced me that in some alternate many world I have sprouted wings and can fly -- simply because it's computationally probable).
Allan has some incredible insight into metaphysics, particularly as far as computationalism is concerned (it helps that he has a background in computer science). He's particularly critical of the Tipleresque notion of cosmic immortality, but believes that some forms of immortality are theoretically possible. Allan has spoken to the Immorality Institute people about his ideas, and they recently invited him to an online chat.
Allan also attends a Unitarian church, which, I'm fairly convinced, has contributed to his open attitude towards transhumanist ideas (James Hughes is another transhumanist with a Unitarian background). Allan invited Simon Smith and myself to deliver a talk to Toronto Unitarians about transhumanism, an offer which we graciously accepted. That should be interesting.
Last night I finally had the opportunity to meet Toronto transhumanist, Allan Randall. Allan, in addition to being a very cool guy, is a philosopher at York University who teaches math, physics, and chemistry. During our conversation he took me to school about some elements in quantum many worlds theory, concepts of infinity and probability, quantum computing, and some cosmology (he actually convinced me that in some alternate many world I have sprouted wings and can fly -- simply because it's computationally probable).
Allan has some incredible insight into metaphysics, particularly as far as computationalism is concerned (it helps that he has a background in computer science). He's particularly critical of the Tipleresque notion of cosmic immortality, but believes that some forms of immortality are theoretically possible. Allan has spoken to the Immorality Institute people about his ideas, and they recently invited him to an online chat.
Allan also attends a Unitarian church, which, I'm fairly convinced, has contributed to his open attitude towards transhumanist ideas (James Hughes is another transhumanist with a Unitarian background). Allan invited Simon Smith and myself to deliver a talk to Toronto Unitarians about transhumanism, an offer which we graciously accepted. That should be interesting.
April 10, 2004
TTA Social Tonight
I'm off to the Red Room (444 Spadina) for a Toronto Transhumanist Association meet-and-greet. Hope to see some of you there.
April 9, 2004
New TV04 Symposium: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope
We've recently added a new event to the TransVision 2004 conference: The Faith, Transhumanism and Hope seminar. Here are the details:
Faith, Transhumanism and Hope
At first glance, religion and transhumanism may seem to have little to do with one another, or even be in direct conflict. Yet in the past few years transhumanists have emerged in a variety of religious traditions. A recent survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association found that a quarter of the members were religious or spiritual, based in more than a dozen different religious traditions. Meanwhile debate has emerged within religious communities about the potential outcomes of human enhancement technologies and a transhumanist worldview. Some images and ideals of the posthuman sit well within discussions of spiritual transformation and relate to religious longings. Others, such as pursuing transcendence through technology, stir up heated debate and antagonism. Discussion has emerged about whether a syncretic religious transhumanism is possible or desirable.
For this symposium and a special issue of The Journal of Evolution and Technology we are looking for contributions that address questions such as:
* Are transhumanism and religious faith compatible, complementary or antagonistic?
* How much is transhumanism a product of secular humanism?
* Are only specific theologies or faiths, such as religious humanism, technopaganism or Buddhism, compatible with transhumanism?
* What does a Christian transhumanist believe? A Buddhist transhumanist?
* Is transhumanism utopian or merely progressive?
* Do transhumanists deify technology?
* Is the transhumanist desire for immortality just a sublimation of a desire for heaven or nirvana?
* Is the transhumanist expectation of a Singularity just a sublimated religious millennialism?
* What does Jerusalem have to do with Silicon Valley?
* How long, oh Lord?! How many years are enough?
* Can robots ever have souls?
* Is humanity granted dominion over our own evolution along with dominion over nature?
* Have concepts of hubris and divine limits changed over the years? What ramifications do those changes have for theological interpretations of human enhancement?
* What are the spiritual implications of neurotheology and entheogenic technologies that create subjective experiences of meditative absorption, or religious awe and reverie?
* Do we have a moral obligation to use enhancement technology to make ourselves more compassionate, moral and wise beings?
* What are the spiritual implications of procreative liberty and procreative beneficence (using germinal choice technology to improve the lives of our children)?
* How can transhumanists improve dialogue with, and understanding among, suspicious people of faith?
Submit proposal
If submitting a proposal please include all of the following information in a proposal for your presentation:
* Title of presentation.
* Description of the content and format (300 words or less).
* Abstract (25-50 words) for inclusion in the conference program.
* Media to be used and audiovisual equipment needed (if any).
* Designated contact person (only one per proposal).
* Complete name, title, organization, address, phone and fax numbers, and email address for each session presenter.
* Brief biographical sketch (50 words or less) for each presenter.
Please submit your proposals electronically to conference chair James Hughes, Ph.D at james.hughes@trincoll.edu. The deadline is June 1, 2004. Proposals will be accepted on a rolling basis.
Please attach the paper the presentation is based on if it is already written.
We strongly encourage joint submission to The Journal of Evolution and Technology or Transhumanity e-zine.
The Journal of Evolution and Technology is a peer-reviewed electronic journal associated with the World Transhumanist Association, publishing contemporary research into future science and philosophy.
This special issue seeks to highlight issues related to technological innovation, the human condition and secular and religious worldviews, while mapping out a platform for conversation between transhumanism and faith communities. We seek articles that consider areas of commonality and overlap, as well as their points of divergence between transhumanist and varying religious perspectives. We also encourage discussion of new ways of thinking about and integrating discussion of religious faith and
transhumanism.
This issue on religion and transhumanism intends to present a variety of perspectives and hence is open in terms of topics covered.
Contributions in the form of full-length articles (5000-10,000 words) or forum pieces or position papers (2000-3000 words). Authors are encouraged to discuss their ideas with the editor or guest editor, Heidi Campbell - University of Edinburgh.
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the guidelines and be submitted by October 1, 2004. Please email completed manuscripts to Mark Walker, JET editor, at mark@permanentend.org or Heidi Campbell, guest editor, at hcampbe1@yahoo.co.uk.
Faith, Transhumanism and Hope
At first glance, religion and transhumanism may seem to have little to do with one another, or even be in direct conflict. Yet in the past few years transhumanists have emerged in a variety of religious traditions. A recent survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association found that a quarter of the members were religious or spiritual, based in more than a dozen different religious traditions. Meanwhile debate has emerged within religious communities about the potential outcomes of human enhancement technologies and a transhumanist worldview. Some images and ideals of the posthuman sit well within discussions of spiritual transformation and relate to religious longings. Others, such as pursuing transcendence through technology, stir up heated debate and antagonism. Discussion has emerged about whether a syncretic religious transhumanism is possible or desirable.
For this symposium and a special issue of The Journal of Evolution and Technology we are looking for contributions that address questions such as:
* Are transhumanism and religious faith compatible, complementary or antagonistic?
* How much is transhumanism a product of secular humanism?
* Are only specific theologies or faiths, such as religious humanism, technopaganism or Buddhism, compatible with transhumanism?
* What does a Christian transhumanist believe? A Buddhist transhumanist?
* Is transhumanism utopian or merely progressive?
* Do transhumanists deify technology?
* Is the transhumanist desire for immortality just a sublimation of a desire for heaven or nirvana?
* Is the transhumanist expectation of a Singularity just a sublimated religious millennialism?
* What does Jerusalem have to do with Silicon Valley?
* How long, oh Lord?! How many years are enough?
* Can robots ever have souls?
* Is humanity granted dominion over our own evolution along with dominion over nature?
* Have concepts of hubris and divine limits changed over the years? What ramifications do those changes have for theological interpretations of human enhancement?
* What are the spiritual implications of neurotheology and entheogenic technologies that create subjective experiences of meditative absorption, or religious awe and reverie?
* Do we have a moral obligation to use enhancement technology to make ourselves more compassionate, moral and wise beings?
* What are the spiritual implications of procreative liberty and procreative beneficence (using germinal choice technology to improve the lives of our children)?
* How can transhumanists improve dialogue with, and understanding among, suspicious people of faith?
Submit proposal
If submitting a proposal please include all of the following information in a proposal for your presentation:
* Title of presentation.
* Description of the content and format (300 words or less).
* Abstract (25-50 words) for inclusion in the conference program.
* Media to be used and audiovisual equipment needed (if any).
* Designated contact person (only one per proposal).
* Complete name, title, organization, address, phone and fax numbers, and email address for each session presenter.
* Brief biographical sketch (50 words or less) for each presenter.
Please submit your proposals electronically to conference chair James Hughes, Ph.D at james.hughes@trincoll.edu. The deadline is June 1, 2004. Proposals will be accepted on a rolling basis.
Please attach the paper the presentation is based on if it is already written.
We strongly encourage joint submission to The Journal of Evolution and Technology or Transhumanity e-zine.
The Journal of Evolution and Technology is a peer-reviewed electronic journal associated with the World Transhumanist Association, publishing contemporary research into future science and philosophy.
This special issue seeks to highlight issues related to technological innovation, the human condition and secular and religious worldviews, while mapping out a platform for conversation between transhumanism and faith communities. We seek articles that consider areas of commonality and overlap, as well as their points of divergence between transhumanist and varying religious perspectives. We also encourage discussion of new ways of thinking about and integrating discussion of religious faith and
transhumanism.
This issue on religion and transhumanism intends to present a variety of perspectives and hence is open in terms of topics covered.
Contributions in the form of full-length articles (5000-10,000 words) or forum pieces or position papers (2000-3000 words). Authors are encouraged to discuss their ideas with the editor or guest editor, Heidi Campbell - University of Edinburgh.
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the guidelines and be submitted by October 1, 2004. Please email completed manuscripts to Mark Walker, JET editor, at mark@permanentend.org or Heidi Campbell, guest editor, at hcampbe1@yahoo.co.uk.
April 4, 2004
Peter Passaro on AI, the Brain, and Techlepathy
Neuroscientist Peter Passaro will be presenting at TV04. Passaro will most likely be speaking about the logistics of consciousness uploading and how difficult it will be to achieve such a feat. Peter and I got talking about his work and he mentioned that he had some interesting new things to say about the brain, how it works and it's capacities. Here's our correspondence:
Me:
[W]ow -- I'd really like to hear [more of] your thoughts. Out of curiosity, do you take issue with Moravec's 10X16 IPS, or is that the wrong angle to take in both comprehending and analogizing human cognition? Also, are you also describing the computation required for consciousness-proper or just the overall raw computing power of the brain?
Passaro:
I'm compiling data to write an academic article on the complexity and intelligence issue. Here is my quick and dirty argument. I don't have a problem with Moravec's estimates of raw computing power, but I do have a problem with his estimate of memory, and a very big problem with the lack of discussion of specified complexity.
The standard measure of memory capacity used by AI/GI researchers is that one synapse equals one bit. I don't buy this at all (and neither does anyone in the neuro community) and I don't think we have a good enough handle on computation in small mammalian brain circuits to really understand memory storage completely, but there are good reasons to think that the estimates should be much much larger because you just can't equate a synapse with a bit.
At the heart of this argument is that specified complexity is what is determining the very special type of computation we see in brains. The current estimates of the number of synapses in a human brain is ~100 Trillion. The big deal here is in the way you can organize those 10^14 synapses. There is a recent paper that used a simple N choose R mathematical argument showing that the possible ways you could connect the neurons in the brain using 100 billion neurons and 1000 synapses/neuron is over 10^8000(bits)!!!!! Realize this is an upper bound and a ridiculously hyperastronomical number, but I still think this is a wake up call that we are dealing with an order of complexity unseen any where else in nature (the human brain is hyperastronomical in its *dynamics* and *degree of connectivity*!)
I think it likely we already have devices which have the requisite computational power in terms of speed, but I think we are far away from having the required level of connectivity and speed of altering that connectivity between information processing units (transistors or whatever fundamental substrate you are using) to produce the type of dynamics we see in neural systems. I think the hot areas for AI/GI on the software end should be network and distributed systems research and on the hardware end would be devices such as FPGAs which can quickly alter their structure (current thinking in AI/GI usually ignores the speed at which biological networks rearrange themselves as well).
Lastly we need to figure out how to arrange all this stuff in patterns that are organized to take advantage of information flows. This is what I meant by *specified* complexity. We have to figure out how things are arranged to produce the type of dynamics we see in brains and why I think you still need to do neuroscience to get to AI/GI. Evolutionary computing may be helpful in this regard as well (allowing the system to evolve through the possible space of structures), but neuroscience reverse engineering methods are going to help greatly reduce the search space of good computational structures for intelligence and consciousness. (part of the reason I do the research I do). So much for the quick and dirty :)
Me:
Peter, a few things:
- Yes, I love [Ben] Goertzel's work. I'm fairly convinced that his group will continually be on the cutting edge of AI/GI work for years to come.
- Wow, your figures on the upper-bound capacity of the brain's processing power is staggering to say the least. If you're right, this could significantly push back projections for the development of human-equivalent AI/GI, and even the hypothesized Singularity. You also rightly point out how this further reveals the complexity problem with the human brain. I will continue to mull over this potential discovery.
- Since your encounter with Stuart Hameroff last year [at TransVision 2003], have you considered quantum computation and/or quantum effects in your consciousness studies? Do you still believe that consciousness is an emergent property?
- In your work with neural interfaces, have you given any consideration to technologically endowed telepathy? If so, how do you see it being done? On this subject, check out [the] recent correspondence I had with Chuck Jorgensen of NASA's Ames Research Center.
Passaro:
I think that this whole competition over who will get there first, AI or IA, is just ridiculous. If we can create interactive systems in which machine intelligence learns to create better computational structures by observing biological neuronal networks, and uses that info create denser linkages to biological networks to learn more, we could be seeing progress on both fronts much faster. A self-teaching system for intelligence integration. In my mind the search for general intelligence should be one field. I think Ben may be one of the few AI researchers I'm aware of who would be sympathetic to this view.
The complexity figures are making me think that we seriously need to think about moving towards evolved systems (I know many of the GI gang are thinking in this direction) if we want AI/GI anytime soon and for my own research that I am really going to need the assistance of adaptable machine intelligence to deal with type of large scale processing I am attempting to study in biological neural systems.
I have given a lot more thought to my conversation with Hameroff. To be frank, I was not at all impressed by his argument and especially shocked to find he knew very little about how people in neuroscience mathematically model neurons or networks of them. It confirmed the impression from the publications that this group really just did not know what they are talking about. They are on to something about fast microtubule switching being involved in neuronal transmission of information, but this doesn't have anything to do with the quantum or consciousness (except at the fundamental level of single neuron information processing).
What has really convinced me the quantum processing is not involved in consciousness is the complexity scaling issue. You see certain transitions in the formation of more complex structures in the universe quarks->particles->atomic matter->solar systems->life->consciousness. The reach of the quantum world just does not go very high up that scale as far as information transmission due to the fact that there is just not enough capacity for organization at the level of the quantum, everything gets probabilistically filtered before you get to atomic matter. You have to go up several levels of organizational complexity before reaching structures which can be dynamically organized to produce something on the order of human intelligence (and these structures are probabilistically filtering lots of information from lots of neurons, which are probabilistic filtering lots of information from ion and molecule flows... etc.)
On "telepathic" interfaces - YES! I have given this some thought on a number of occasions. I have often thought that the killer app for public acceptance of nonmedical neural implantation is the implantable cell phone. Technologically, I think it is doable NOW! This combination of subvocalized output along with input through something like a cochlear implant is exactly the device I was imagining. I have seriously played around with business plans for how to get this done, and if no one does it before I graduate this is one of the directions I may try to head. The only thing that bothers me is I know who the initial target market would be and major funding source would be - DARPA - which kind of turns my stomach a bit. They would love to have SEAL teams, and fighter pilots, and intelligence operatives running around with these things. I would hate to see this technology classified and restricted for their use only. Imagine how effective a small team of people who could communicate like this would be. The only major technological problem is transmission at a distance, which requires significant power that you want to get away from biological tissue, but these issues are already being dealt with by the cell phone industry and should have workable solutions soon.
BTW, the next step up in these devices would be to go after the part of the motor cortex responsible for output for the region of the throat and mouth or slightly higher up, the language output centers, in a similar fashion to what Nicolelis has done for arm movements, i.e. you wouldn't need any muscular movement at all, just thought, to produce language output. This could also be done with current microelectrode technology.
The mappings Chuck is talking about are exactly the same type of thing we are trying to correlate within our system, but because we are working in an in vitro system with no native structure we are trying to determine general rules for how systems set up in response to sensory input and what the state space of their output will be. Once these rules are determined it will become much easier to produce cortical implants. I am becoming more and more convinced that we dont need to be directly interfaced to lots of single neurons to get information out we just need an array of listening electrodes. Putting information in is going to be more difficult because no one is sure how to use extracellular field stimulation to get information into cortical neural networks except in the simplest of cases, luckily cochlear information is the simplest of cases :)
Me:
[W]ow -- I'd really like to hear [more of] your thoughts. Out of curiosity, do you take issue with Moravec's 10X16 IPS, or is that the wrong angle to take in both comprehending and analogizing human cognition? Also, are you also describing the computation required for consciousness-proper or just the overall raw computing power of the brain?
Passaro:
I'm compiling data to write an academic article on the complexity and intelligence issue. Here is my quick and dirty argument. I don't have a problem with Moravec's estimates of raw computing power, but I do have a problem with his estimate of memory, and a very big problem with the lack of discussion of specified complexity.
The standard measure of memory capacity used by AI/GI researchers is that one synapse equals one bit. I don't buy this at all (and neither does anyone in the neuro community) and I don't think we have a good enough handle on computation in small mammalian brain circuits to really understand memory storage completely, but there are good reasons to think that the estimates should be much much larger because you just can't equate a synapse with a bit.
At the heart of this argument is that specified complexity is what is determining the very special type of computation we see in brains. The current estimates of the number of synapses in a human brain is ~100 Trillion. The big deal here is in the way you can organize those 10^14 synapses. There is a recent paper that used a simple N choose R mathematical argument showing that the possible ways you could connect the neurons in the brain using 100 billion neurons and 1000 synapses/neuron is over 10^8000(bits)!!!!! Realize this is an upper bound and a ridiculously hyperastronomical number, but I still think this is a wake up call that we are dealing with an order of complexity unseen any where else in nature (the human brain is hyperastronomical in its *dynamics* and *degree of connectivity*!)
I think it likely we already have devices which have the requisite computational power in terms of speed, but I think we are far away from having the required level of connectivity and speed of altering that connectivity between information processing units (transistors or whatever fundamental substrate you are using) to produce the type of dynamics we see in neural systems. I think the hot areas for AI/GI on the software end should be network and distributed systems research and on the hardware end would be devices such as FPGAs which can quickly alter their structure (current thinking in AI/GI usually ignores the speed at which biological networks rearrange themselves as well).
Lastly we need to figure out how to arrange all this stuff in patterns that are organized to take advantage of information flows. This is what I meant by *specified* complexity. We have to figure out how things are arranged to produce the type of dynamics we see in brains and why I think you still need to do neuroscience to get to AI/GI. Evolutionary computing may be helpful in this regard as well (allowing the system to evolve through the possible space of structures), but neuroscience reverse engineering methods are going to help greatly reduce the search space of good computational structures for intelligence and consciousness. (part of the reason I do the research I do). So much for the quick and dirty :)
Me:
Peter, a few things:
- Yes, I love [Ben] Goertzel's work. I'm fairly convinced that his group will continually be on the cutting edge of AI/GI work for years to come.
- Wow, your figures on the upper-bound capacity of the brain's processing power is staggering to say the least. If you're right, this could significantly push back projections for the development of human-equivalent AI/GI, and even the hypothesized Singularity. You also rightly point out how this further reveals the complexity problem with the human brain. I will continue to mull over this potential discovery.
- Since your encounter with Stuart Hameroff last year [at TransVision 2003], have you considered quantum computation and/or quantum effects in your consciousness studies? Do you still believe that consciousness is an emergent property?
- In your work with neural interfaces, have you given any consideration to technologically endowed telepathy? If so, how do you see it being done? On this subject, check out [the] recent correspondence I had with Chuck Jorgensen of NASA's Ames Research Center.
Passaro:
I think that this whole competition over who will get there first, AI or IA, is just ridiculous. If we can create interactive systems in which machine intelligence learns to create better computational structures by observing biological neuronal networks, and uses that info create denser linkages to biological networks to learn more, we could be seeing progress on both fronts much faster. A self-teaching system for intelligence integration. In my mind the search for general intelligence should be one field. I think Ben may be one of the few AI researchers I'm aware of who would be sympathetic to this view.
The complexity figures are making me think that we seriously need to think about moving towards evolved systems (I know many of the GI gang are thinking in this direction) if we want AI/GI anytime soon and for my own research that I am really going to need the assistance of adaptable machine intelligence to deal with type of large scale processing I am attempting to study in biological neural systems.
I have given a lot more thought to my conversation with Hameroff. To be frank, I was not at all impressed by his argument and especially shocked to find he knew very little about how people in neuroscience mathematically model neurons or networks of them. It confirmed the impression from the publications that this group really just did not know what they are talking about. They are on to something about fast microtubule switching being involved in neuronal transmission of information, but this doesn't have anything to do with the quantum or consciousness (except at the fundamental level of single neuron information processing).
What has really convinced me the quantum processing is not involved in consciousness is the complexity scaling issue. You see certain transitions in the formation of more complex structures in the universe quarks->particles->atomic matter->solar systems->life->consciousness. The reach of the quantum world just does not go very high up that scale as far as information transmission due to the fact that there is just not enough capacity for organization at the level of the quantum, everything gets probabilistically filtered before you get to atomic matter. You have to go up several levels of organizational complexity before reaching structures which can be dynamically organized to produce something on the order of human intelligence (and these structures are probabilistically filtering lots of information from lots of neurons, which are probabilistic filtering lots of information from ion and molecule flows... etc.)
On "telepathic" interfaces - YES! I have given this some thought on a number of occasions. I have often thought that the killer app for public acceptance of nonmedical neural implantation is the implantable cell phone. Technologically, I think it is doable NOW! This combination of subvocalized output along with input through something like a cochlear implant is exactly the device I was imagining. I have seriously played around with business plans for how to get this done, and if no one does it before I graduate this is one of the directions I may try to head. The only thing that bothers me is I know who the initial target market would be and major funding source would be - DARPA - which kind of turns my stomach a bit. They would love to have SEAL teams, and fighter pilots, and intelligence operatives running around with these things. I would hate to see this technology classified and restricted for their use only. Imagine how effective a small team of people who could communicate like this would be. The only major technological problem is transmission at a distance, which requires significant power that you want to get away from biological tissue, but these issues are already being dealt with by the cell phone industry and should have workable solutions soon.
BTW, the next step up in these devices would be to go after the part of the motor cortex responsible for output for the region of the throat and mouth or slightly higher up, the language output centers, in a similar fashion to what Nicolelis has done for arm movements, i.e. you wouldn't need any muscular movement at all, just thought, to produce language output. This could also be done with current microelectrode technology.
The mappings Chuck is talking about are exactly the same type of thing we are trying to correlate within our system, but because we are working in an in vitro system with no native structure we are trying to determine general rules for how systems set up in response to sensory input and what the state space of their output will be. Once these rules are determined it will become much easier to produce cortical implants. I am becoming more and more convinced that we dont need to be directly interfaced to lots of single neurons to get information out we just need an array of listening electrodes. Putting information in is going to be more difficult because no one is sure how to use extracellular field stimulation to get information into cortical neural networks except in the simplest of cases, luckily cochlear information is the simplest of cases :)
April 3, 2004
My Panel Cancelled
I've got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that my panel at the Center for Inquiry International's conference on science and ethics, How Scientific Inquiry Helps Frame Value Judgments, has been cancelled. The good news is that now I can go see David Bowie in concert. Sorry mom, but I want my ticket back :-)
Space Predictions
I recently met a fascinating individual here in Toronto by the name of Talmon Firestone. Talmon, who will be both helping and presenting at TV04, is a student of the International Space University. Jeez, how cool is that? I didn't even know such a thing existed. Anyway, he is totally in the know about anything to do with current efforts to go into space and he has some interesting predictions:
- Spaceship One will win the X-Prize. This thing is gorgeous, elegant, and it actually looks like a spaceship.
- The first space elevator will be up sometime around 2015-20, but it will be a significant military objective (whoever controls the space elevator, argues Firestone, controls space).
- The first orbital hotel will go up relatively shortly. Shrouded in secrecy, work is being done on the first space hotel, Nautilus. Interestingly, the Hilton Hotel people are also supposedly working on an orbital hotel.
- Spaceship One will win the X-Prize. This thing is gorgeous, elegant, and it actually looks like a spaceship.
- The first space elevator will be up sometime around 2015-20, but it will be a significant military objective (whoever controls the space elevator, argues Firestone, controls space).
- The first orbital hotel will go up relatively shortly. Shrouded in secrecy, work is being done on the first space hotel, Nautilus. Interestingly, the Hilton Hotel people are also supposedly working on an orbital hotel.
March 28, 2004
Interviewed by Now Magazine
I was interviewed by Now Magazine's Stephen Humphrey today. It was a long and exhausting 2.5 hr interview in which we covered a lot of ground, including transhumanism. Stephen was thinking of doing an article on bill C-6 (which is biolegislation that was recently passed here in Canada) and cloning. But after our lengthy discussion, he wasn't exactly forthcoming about what he thought the article was going to be about. Reporters make me nervous and I'm loath to trust them -- you can never be too sure how they're going to portray you
March 22, 2004
Berserker Probes
Although unlikely, I came up with a possible variation on the berserker probe scenario to help explain the Fermi Paradox. A berserker probe is like a Von Neumann probe, except that it destroys life instead of spawning it. It's conceivable that, if a civilization can create a life-spawning probe, an advanced civilization could -- for whatever reason -- also create its antithesis: an exponentially duplicating fleet of malevolent probes designed to wipe out all intelligent life in the galaxy. Of course, we haven't seen any signs of berserker probes, so we are left wondering why our planet hasn't been wiped out by them. There are a number of plausible answers to this problem, including the popular Rare Earth hypothesis.
However, a possible explanation for why Earth still has life on it in the presence of berserker probes is that berserker probes, in order to remain energy efficient, remain dormant in space awaiting activation by a sign of intelligent life. One can assume that berserker probes are designed to eliminate advanced intelligences only. What sign of intelligence could they be waiting for? How about radio signals. Yikes.
This is very unlikely, however, for a number of reasons. Primarily, it would seem that we are about a half-century away from Drexlerian nanotechnology, artificial superintelligence, and an existential phase shift (i.e. technological singularity). By cosmological standards, if a berserker probe is going to wipe us out, it better get here already. And assuming that it was lying dormant in our solar system, it has had ample time to destroy us. Moreover, it would have been simpler to design a fleet of berserker probes that permanently sterilize all planets in the galaxy so that life can never arise.
At the very least, this might make an interesting premise for a science fiction story.
However, a possible explanation for why Earth still has life on it in the presence of berserker probes is that berserker probes, in order to remain energy efficient, remain dormant in space awaiting activation by a sign of intelligent life. One can assume that berserker probes are designed to eliminate advanced intelligences only. What sign of intelligence could they be waiting for? How about radio signals. Yikes.
This is very unlikely, however, for a number of reasons. Primarily, it would seem that we are about a half-century away from Drexlerian nanotechnology, artificial superintelligence, and an existential phase shift (i.e. technological singularity). By cosmological standards, if a berserker probe is going to wipe us out, it better get here already. And assuming that it was lying dormant in our solar system, it has had ample time to destroy us. Moreover, it would have been simpler to design a fleet of berserker probes that permanently sterilize all planets in the galaxy so that life can never arise.
At the very least, this might make an interesting premise for a science fiction story.
Correspondence with NASA's Chuck Jorgensen
I sent an e-mail today to Chuck Jorgensen of NASA's Ames Research Center about an idea I have that relates to his recent breakthrough using nerve signals from silent (subvocal) speech to communicate with machines and people:
Chuck Jorgensen et al,
Congratulations to you and your team for your work on computerizing subvocal speech. This breakthrough is sure to have wide reaching implications in a number of fields and in the way we interact with our computers. In particular, I'm very excited for what this will mean to the disabled. Moreover, we are slowly but surely inching closer to the NUI (neural user interface), and by implication, a kind of technologically endowed form of person-to-person telepathy.
As I thought about your breakthrough it occurred to me that the same type of system could work for the aural receptors in the ear. The Organ of Corti's stereocilia send incoming converted acoustic signals to the brain. One can assume that, by feeding this transmitter a compatible signal (not unlike the data you're intercepting en route to the vocal chords), that "virtual acoustic" information can be fed directly into the brain. To the person, it would feel like they were hearing sound (it would probably sound like an acoustic hallucination), but in reality, it's just a neural signal that's tapped into the auditory nerve. (I believe that cochlear implants work along this principle)
So, it seems reasonable to me that if you take your subvocal speech signal, convert and transmit it somehow to the auditory nerve, you can have a soft form of mind-to-mind communication.
I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the matter (pun intended). I would be completely unsurprised if you have considered this already.
Dr. Jorgensen was kind enough to write me back:
Dear Mr. Dvorsky,
Thank you for your most interesting and insightful letter. I found your suggested approach a very penetrating insight. We have not considered your particular method but have been interested in finding whether we can directly correlate auditory speech signals and sub vocal signals recorded at the the same time by learning non linear mapping equations to relate one to the other. We have also explored some research for direct neural signal injection performed at other universities but it is outside our Labs current charter and expertise. We are most interested in a totally non invasive process, starting initially with understanding the highly convolved surface measured signals in contrast to the work which has focused on imbedded neural probes or surgical intrusions such as used for highly handicapped patients.
thanks for your interest in our work -
Dr. Chuck Jorgensen
NASA Ames Research Center
Chuck Jorgensen et al,
Congratulations to you and your team for your work on computerizing subvocal speech. This breakthrough is sure to have wide reaching implications in a number of fields and in the way we interact with our computers. In particular, I'm very excited for what this will mean to the disabled. Moreover, we are slowly but surely inching closer to the NUI (neural user interface), and by implication, a kind of technologically endowed form of person-to-person telepathy.
As I thought about your breakthrough it occurred to me that the same type of system could work for the aural receptors in the ear. The Organ of Corti's stereocilia send incoming converted acoustic signals to the brain. One can assume that, by feeding this transmitter a compatible signal (not unlike the data you're intercepting en route to the vocal chords), that "virtual acoustic" information can be fed directly into the brain. To the person, it would feel like they were hearing sound (it would probably sound like an acoustic hallucination), but in reality, it's just a neural signal that's tapped into the auditory nerve. (I believe that cochlear implants work along this principle)
So, it seems reasonable to me that if you take your subvocal speech signal, convert and transmit it somehow to the auditory nerve, you can have a soft form of mind-to-mind communication.
I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the matter (pun intended). I would be completely unsurprised if you have considered this already.
Dr. Jorgensen was kind enough to write me back:
Dear Mr. Dvorsky,
Thank you for your most interesting and insightful letter. I found your suggested approach a very penetrating insight. We have not considered your particular method but have been interested in finding whether we can directly correlate auditory speech signals and sub vocal signals recorded at the the same time by learning non linear mapping equations to relate one to the other. We have also explored some research for direct neural signal injection performed at other universities but it is outside our Labs current charter and expertise. We are most interested in a totally non invasive process, starting initially with understanding the highly convolved surface measured signals in contrast to the work which has focused on imbedded neural probes or surgical intrusions such as used for highly handicapped patients.
thanks for your interest in our work -
Dr. Chuck Jorgensen
NASA Ames Research Center
March 17, 2004
Panspermia Equation
A friend and I were recently discussing the panspermia hypothesis. I mentioned a recent theory to him suggesting that the Earth has most likely "infected" countless other planets with its biological substrate -- the result of massive celestial impacts that have sent Earth's bio-ejecta into the far reaches of space. We concluded that an Earth panspermia infection bubble must exist and that it is steadily growing outward. Assuming that the panspermia hypothesis is valid (and that is a BIG assumption), the next question is: How probable is it that this matter has landed on a planet and successfully transmitted life to it? My friend took this question and came up with a Drake Equation-style formula. I've since made some suggestions. Here's the most recent draft:
Some of the factors below are valued as "odds". That is, they have a value between 0 (impossible) and 1 (certain).
N(i) * f(l) * f(x) * f(e) * f(s) * f(p) * f(q) * f(v) * f(m)
N(i) Number of meteorite impacts or similar events occurring after life develops on earth. The frequency of these events are decreasing over time. This might also include volcanic eruptions, explosions, etc.
f(l) Fraction of those impacts that encounter living matter of the type suitable for panspermic transmission. It's conceivable that any kind of life, no matter how rudimentary, could set off this effect. This fraction might approach 1 as life matures on a planet (ie post "Cambrian Explosion phases"). It might exclude impacts in the polar regions, deserts, etc; early life probably only existed in oceans, and perhaps only in temperate belts.
f(x) Fraction of impacts that eject viable life matter. This is the chance of life surviving the impact and its transmission into space.
f(e) Fraction of that ejecta which escapes the solar system. [For the sake of this discussion we're excluding intra-solar system infection]
T(v) Average duration for the life-substrate on the ejecta to remain a viable panspermic agent. This is a statement of the chance of life (or the life code) surviving the trip.
V(e) Average velocity of ejecta once it has escaped the solar system. The product of T(v) and V(e) is the average distance that ejecta will reach and remain viable. Call this D(v).
N(s) The number of stars within (T(v) * V(e)) of earth.
f(s) The fraction of escaping ejecta that encounters one of these stars. That is, is captured by the gravity of another star and at least enters stellar orbit.
f(p) Fraction of captured ejecta that lands on a planet (or moon).
f(q) Fraction of planets that are susceptible to panspermic infection.
f(v) Fraction of landing ejecta where the life matter is still viable. This is the chance of life surviving the landing.
f(m) Fraction of landing viable life that multiplies into an ecosystem. This is the chance of life thriving in a brand new environment.
Some of the factors below are valued as "odds". That is, they have a value between 0 (impossible) and 1 (certain).
N(i) * f(l) * f(x) * f(e) * f(s) * f(p) * f(q) * f(v) * f(m)
N(i) Number of meteorite impacts or similar events occurring after life develops on earth. The frequency of these events are decreasing over time. This might also include volcanic eruptions, explosions, etc.
f(l) Fraction of those impacts that encounter living matter of the type suitable for panspermic transmission. It's conceivable that any kind of life, no matter how rudimentary, could set off this effect. This fraction might approach 1 as life matures on a planet (ie post "Cambrian Explosion phases"). It might exclude impacts in the polar regions, deserts, etc; early life probably only existed in oceans, and perhaps only in temperate belts.
f(x) Fraction of impacts that eject viable life matter. This is the chance of life surviving the impact and its transmission into space.
f(e) Fraction of that ejecta which escapes the solar system. [For the sake of this discussion we're excluding intra-solar system infection]
T(v) Average duration for the life-substrate on the ejecta to remain a viable panspermic agent. This is a statement of the chance of life (or the life code) surviving the trip.
V(e) Average velocity of ejecta once it has escaped the solar system. The product of T(v) and V(e) is the average distance that ejecta will reach and remain viable. Call this D(v).
N(s) The number of stars within (T(v) * V(e)) of earth.
f(s) The fraction of escaping ejecta that encounters one of these stars. That is, is captured by the gravity of another star and at least enters stellar orbit.
f(p) Fraction of captured ejecta that lands on a planet (or moon).
f(q) Fraction of planets that are susceptible to panspermic infection.
f(v) Fraction of landing ejecta where the life matter is still viable. This is the chance of life surviving the landing.
f(m) Fraction of landing viable life that multiplies into an ecosystem. This is the chance of life thriving in a brand new environment.
Odds 'n Ends
- I've confirmed Stelarc for TV04!
- My article, "Better Living Through Transhumanism" is going to be published in The Humanist magazine.
- My article, "Have Feminists Forsaken the Future" is going to be published in a University text book that highlights opposing viewpoints in genetics, ethics, and feminist issues.
- My article, "Better Living Through Transhumanism" is going to be published in The Humanist magazine.
- My article, "Have Feminists Forsaken the Future" is going to be published in a University text book that highlights opposing viewpoints in genetics, ethics, and feminist issues.
March 11, 2004
Stelarc and TV04
I contacted Stelarc yesterday about his possible involvement with TV04. I got a very encouraging response from him and hopefully I'll be able to make an official announcement shortly. I also contacted Jaron Lanier, but I'm still waiting to hear back from him. He expressed interest several months ago, but has since dropped off my radar.
Interviewed by Eye Magazine
I was interviewed today by Toronto freelance journalist Andre Mayer who specifically wanted to know about how I apply transhumanism to my daily life. While he made no promises, he hoped that he'll be able to translate our conversation into an article. For those who are interested in this subject matter, check out my column, "Better Living Through Transhumanism."
March 10, 2004
TV04 News
I've got some big TransVision 2004 news: I have reached an agreement with Steve Mann and he will be joining us at TV04 as a keynote speaker. TV04 is certainly starting to take shape -- it's going to be an absolutely mind-blowing weekend. I'm still nowhere near where I want to be in regards to speakers, but we've already got a formidable crew, including Mann, Howard Bloom, Tsubasa, Nick Bostrom, Aubrey de Grey and James Hughes. Wow. I'm also looking to get S. Jay Olshansky and Stelarc involved in the conference. I'll keep you posted.
We're looking to add a Thursday event to TV04. Our current thinking is that it'll be about transhumanism and religion. Or, it could be a crash-course in transhumanism, an event reminiscent of what we did last year at TV03 last year.
Local UofT bioethics student Isaac Filate has joined us on the organizing committee for TV04. If anyone here in Toronto is interested in volunteering, please contact me.
We're looking to add a Thursday event to TV04. Our current thinking is that it'll be about transhumanism and religion. Or, it could be a crash-course in transhumanism, an event reminiscent of what we did last year at TV03 last year.
Local UofT bioethics student Isaac Filate has joined us on the organizing committee for TV04. If anyone here in Toronto is interested in volunteering, please contact me.
March 3, 2004
Exchange with Damien Broderick on Vegetarianism, Personhood
Here's a recent exchange between myself and Damien Broderick about the politics of vegetarianism that eventually made its way to the wta-talk list (the article I'm referring to can be found here):
[George wrote in his original post:]
< Fascinating article, but I found parts of it disturbing, particularly the
suggestion that as long as non-[human] animals are treated and killed
humanely that it's okay to kill them. >
...
< It's a non-argument and one that smacks of speciesism. >
[Damien offlist to George:]
This recently invented word `speciesism' begs the core question itself,
doesn't it? As a sort of analogous back formation from `racism', it simply
doesn't work without lots of extra argument. Racism stinks because it's the
fallacious claim that groups of humans who differ superficially in skin
color (say) are different species, and hence can be treated differently,
even killed at will. But different species *are*, oddly enough, different
species; the argument has to be started again from another standpoint. What
your rhetoric seems to try for is the dubious claim that:
It's a speciesist argument and one that smacks of racism.
Of course it doesn't.
[George replied:]
Yes, of course, non-trivial differences exist between humans and the other
species. I am not suggesting that we should sweepingly ignore those
differences nor that we should offer blanket condemnations whenever any
non-human animal is harmed. That being said, I would say that trivial
differences do exist when it comes to the conscious experience of humans
and a number non-human animals, including some farm animals. For this
reason I have a hard time buying those arguments which unjustifiably and
arbitrarily diminish the value of the life that these creatures have.
And it pisses me off when no consideration or respect is given to the life
of a highly sentient, emotional, and experiential non-human animal -- so
yes, I'll use a word like speciesism because that's exactly what it is. The
article that I was referring to did exactly this; the author was fixated on
his observation that cows, for example, did not panic or show any stress on
the killing floor and that they died virtually instantaneously. In his mind
this made the whole thing okay. The fact that a conscious life had been
terminated didn't seem to bother the author at all because the death came
"humanely." Interesting that you make the racism analogy; as I was reading
the article I was imagining a commentator of 60 years ago rationalizing the
"humaneness" of gas chambers in the same way.
As for the word "speciesism," I must admit that when I throw a word like
that to the wta-talk list I make assumptions about this specific readership
and how they will interpret that word. Most of us here understand and honor
personhood ethics and I thought (hopefully not wrongly) that I didn't need
to qualify the term.
[Damien:]
Yikes. You reckon a cow is a *person*?
...
I did *not* make `the racism analogy'; I specifically *denied* and
*repudiated* any analogy between killing black humans and killing cows,
which I felt was an analogy implicit in the term you used. I'm aghast
(really) to see you now explicitly paralleling murdering Jewish and other
humans in gas chambers with slaughtering animals raised for food.
[George:]
A cow is no more or less a person than, say, a severely disabled human.
Personhood is not a binary designation or status, but is instead a sliding
scale of characteristics and capabilities. The quality of the cognitive,
emotional and sensory life that a cow leads is sufficient enough IMO to
fulfill a number of personhood criteria which should grant it civil
protections against such things as mistreatment and murder.
...
Because humans are capable of so much more than non-human animals (in so
many respects), we can assign a greater inherent "value" to human life
relative to other creatures. Thus, gas chambers are a greater travesty than
factory farms, but *both* are still wrong and the parallel between racism
and speciesism still stands. Moreover, the analogy -- in case you're
concerned -- doesn't lessen the value we ascribe to human life nor does it
artificially inflate the value of animal life; it merely highlights the
need to reject unfounded prejudices and the need to recognize, respect and
protect various types of sentient life.
=============================
[Damien:]
I might end up persuaded that cows are persons, but it seems extremely
unlikely at this point. (I will readily accept that suitably conscious AIs
or extraterrestrial lifeforms or genetically `uplifted' animals must be so
regarded.) The argument for decent treatment and use of non-human animals
can surely be made without taking such a bizarre step.
Damien Broderick
[George wrote in his original post:]
< Fascinating article, but I found parts of it disturbing, particularly the
suggestion that as long as non-[human] animals are treated and killed
humanely that it's okay to kill them. >
...
< It's a non-argument and one that smacks of speciesism. >
[Damien offlist to George:]
This recently invented word `speciesism' begs the core question itself,
doesn't it? As a sort of analogous back formation from `racism', it simply
doesn't work without lots of extra argument. Racism stinks because it's the
fallacious claim that groups of humans who differ superficially in skin
color (say) are different species, and hence can be treated differently,
even killed at will. But different species *are*, oddly enough, different
species; the argument has to be started again from another standpoint. What
your rhetoric seems to try for is the dubious claim that:
It's a speciesist argument and one that smacks of racism.
Of course it doesn't.
[George replied:]
Yes, of course, non-trivial differences exist between humans and the other
species. I am not suggesting that we should sweepingly ignore those
differences nor that we should offer blanket condemnations whenever any
non-human animal is harmed. That being said, I would say that trivial
differences do exist when it comes to the conscious experience of humans
and a number non-human animals, including some farm animals. For this
reason I have a hard time buying those arguments which unjustifiably and
arbitrarily diminish the value of the life that these creatures have.
And it pisses me off when no consideration or respect is given to the life
of a highly sentient, emotional, and experiential non-human animal -- so
yes, I'll use a word like speciesism because that's exactly what it is. The
article that I was referring to did exactly this; the author was fixated on
his observation that cows, for example, did not panic or show any stress on
the killing floor and that they died virtually instantaneously. In his mind
this made the whole thing okay. The fact that a conscious life had been
terminated didn't seem to bother the author at all because the death came
"humanely." Interesting that you make the racism analogy; as I was reading
the article I was imagining a commentator of 60 years ago rationalizing the
"humaneness" of gas chambers in the same way.
As for the word "speciesism," I must admit that when I throw a word like
that to the wta-talk list I make assumptions about this specific readership
and how they will interpret that word. Most of us here understand and honor
personhood ethics and I thought (hopefully not wrongly) that I didn't need
to qualify the term.
[Damien:]
Yikes. You reckon a cow is a *person*?
...
I did *not* make `the racism analogy'; I specifically *denied* and
*repudiated* any analogy between killing black humans and killing cows,
which I felt was an analogy implicit in the term you used. I'm aghast
(really) to see you now explicitly paralleling murdering Jewish and other
humans in gas chambers with slaughtering animals raised for food.
[George:]
A cow is no more or less a person than, say, a severely disabled human.
Personhood is not a binary designation or status, but is instead a sliding
scale of characteristics and capabilities. The quality of the cognitive,
emotional and sensory life that a cow leads is sufficient enough IMO to
fulfill a number of personhood criteria which should grant it civil
protections against such things as mistreatment and murder.
...
Because humans are capable of so much more than non-human animals (in so
many respects), we can assign a greater inherent "value" to human life
relative to other creatures. Thus, gas chambers are a greater travesty than
factory farms, but *both* are still wrong and the parallel between racism
and speciesism still stands. Moreover, the analogy -- in case you're
concerned -- doesn't lessen the value we ascribe to human life nor does it
artificially inflate the value of animal life; it merely highlights the
need to reject unfounded prejudices and the need to recognize, respect and
protect various types of sentient life.
=============================
[Damien:]
I might end up persuaded that cows are persons, but it seems extremely
unlikely at this point. (I will readily accept that suitably conscious AIs
or extraterrestrial lifeforms or genetically `uplifted' animals must be so
regarded.) The argument for decent treatment and use of non-human animals
can surely be made without taking such a bizarre step.
Damien Broderick
March 2, 2004
TV04 Notes
Some more TransVision notes:
- Digital artist Tsubasa has announced that he will be participating at TV04. Tsubasa is also involved with Cyberotica 2004.
- I met with Jacqueline Urbano today, a local student, artist and transhumanist, who will be helping us manage and organize the artists component of the conference. Check out the recently launched TV04 Gallery to see some of her work.
- Eric Aronesty has joined the TV04 organizing committee to help us manage sponsorships.
- Digital artist Tsubasa has announced that he will be participating at TV04. Tsubasa is also involved with Cyberotica 2004.
- I met with Jacqueline Urbano today, a local student, artist and transhumanist, who will be helping us manage and organize the artists component of the conference. Check out the recently launched TV04 Gallery to see some of her work.
- Eric Aronesty has joined the TV04 organizing committee to help us manage sponsorships.
Two Day Fast
I have all but completed my first 2-day fast (I'll have some fruit for breakfast tomorrow AM). I haven't eaten anything since Sunday evening except the Master Cleanser drink (water, lemon juice, honey, salt, and cayenne pepper). I've got the 1-day fast down-pat, but I have to admit, the 2-day was hard. I was surprised how distracted I was and how little energy I had (sad commentary, really, about the effect of coffee). I had all these plans to do yoga and writing tonight, but I ended up renting and watching a couple of cool movies (American Splendor and Okamura's Memories). But I know I'm going to feel great tomorrow and for the rest of the week. These little exercises do strengthen my mental fortitude and self-control, and it's helping me prepare for the Big One later this month: the 10-day juice fast.
March 1, 2004
Catching Up
Long time no blog. Sorry, been busy. Recent happenings in my life:
- I recently came to an agreement with Howard Bloom and his agent; Howard will be a keynote speaker at TransVision 2004.
- I am currently in discussions with Steve Mann and his agent about TV04. I think it's just a matter of crossing the T's and dotting the I's at this point, but it's still unofficial.
- I will be speaking at the Center for Inquiry International's conference on science and ethics, How Scientific Inquiry Helps Frame Value Judgments. The conference will be here in Toronto from May 13-16. I will be speaking on May 14 at 8:30 PM about transhumanism and the future of humanity.
- I've been corresponding with Kevin Warwick. More on this later.
- I recently came to an agreement with Howard Bloom and his agent; Howard will be a keynote speaker at TransVision 2004.
- I am currently in discussions with Steve Mann and his agent about TV04. I think it's just a matter of crossing the T's and dotting the I's at this point, but it's still unofficial.
- I will be speaking at the Center for Inquiry International's conference on science and ethics, How Scientific Inquiry Helps Frame Value Judgments. The conference will be here in Toronto from May 13-16. I will be speaking on May 14 at 8:30 PM about transhumanism and the future of humanity.
- I've been corresponding with Kevin Warwick. More on this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)