Archive for the 'Transhumanism' Category
Goodbye, Joystick—Hello, Joy…Head
February 20th, 2008
Well, the good ol’ Singularity is creepin’ closer with every day. Today, Direct Neural Interfacing–the Holy Grail of every cyberpunk geek since the day Gibson’s Neuromancer hit the world like a Terminator sent back in time by SKY_NET to ensure it’s creation–drew another step closer with Emotiv Systems Inc.’s announcement that later this year their EPOC neuroheadset (seen at left) will be available for $299.
Now, don’t get too excited yet. But definitely get excited because this a major step toward direct brain/computer interfacing. According to the company, “the headset can detect emotions such as anger, excitement and tension, as well as facial expressions and cognitive actions like pushing and pulling objects.”
It’s purpose? No, not porn. Video games.
The EPOC, you see, is being touted as the next-generation game controller. The EPOC
will be sold with a game developed by Emotiv, but it can also be made to work with existing PC games, the company said. Users will also be able to access an online portal to play more games, chat or upload their own content such as music or photos.
That’s pretty fresh–but here’s where things really get neat:
Emotiv plans to work with IBM Corp. to explore applications beyond video gaming. The “brain computer interface” technology could transform not only gaming, but how humans and computers interact, said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM’s Digital Convergence business. [Emphasis added.]
I’ve been a transhumanist since I first started reading science-fiction and began to ponder bioengineering and the destiny of the Human Species, and I’ve been Singularitarian ever since I read Ray Kurzweil’s The Age of Spiritual Machines back in 2000. However, I’m not one of those Singularitarians who believe that the Rapture of the Nerds is something implicit in the nature of technological evolution, anymore than I believe that Tipler’s/deChardin’s Omega Point Entity is implicit in physics. Technological evolution may be advancing exponentially toward a Singularity-like point in the near future (that is, anytime between 20 and 100 years from today), but something must be actively driving that evolution. Something must be inspiring people to dream the dreams and design the next-gen technologies that keep the Curve rising ever more sharply.
Of course, that “something” is a composite of a wide variety of societal factors–but the most important factor is, has been, and, I believe, always shall be economics. The Allmighty Dollar. Why design a more powerful computer every 12 to 18 months? Why, to beat your competitor and make a buck from a public whose appetite for technological gadgetry to make life easier or more fun grows every year? The obvious feedback loop that dynamic between manufacturers/inventors and the public keeps the Curve accelerating.
And what is one of the prime technological outlets for consumers? Video games.
The world of video games has already given us rudimentary AI, virtual worlds, and now Direct Neural Interface.
Rather sobering to think that, ultimately, Pac-Man may be someday recognized as the godfather of the Singularity, isn’t it?
Technorati Tags: epoc,neuroheadset,video games,gaming,technology,neurology,dni,direct neural interface,singularity
The Matrix to Beat All Matrices!
January 15th, 2008
One of my favorite science blogs, Universe Today, has published a summary of an intriguing paper published by the Centre for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science at the University of Aukland. Brian Whitworth’s “The Physical World as a Virtual Reality” considers a very interesting premise:
that the universe is a virtual reality created by information processing….The virtual reality concept is familiar to us from online worlds, but our world as a virtual reality is usually a subject for science fiction rather than science. Yet logically the world could be an information simulation running on a multi-dimensional space-time screen. Indeed, if the essence of the universe is information, matter, charge, energy and movement could be aspects of information, and the many conservation laws could be a single law of information conservation. If the universe were a virtual reality, its creation at the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, as every virtual system must be booted up. It is suggested that whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve. Modern information science can suggest how core physical properties like space, time, light, matter and movement could derive from information processing. Such an approach could reconcile relativity and quantum theories, with the former being how information processing creates space-time, and the latter how it creates energy and matter.
In layman’s terms, “Is everything that we see or seem / But a dream with a dream?” In many ways, Whitworth’s paper is a reformulation of the Simulation Argument, which suggests that the “universe” in which we currently live is nothing but a simulation of a universe running in a vastly-powerful quantum computer (either in another universe or in “our” causality-stream’s future). A similar idea is also presented in Seth Lloyd’s amazing book, Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos, which employs information theory to explain that the universe itself is, in fact, a gigantic quantum computer whose entire “purpose” is to…well, compute itself!
Nonetheless, it would seem that more and more attention is being focused every year on the possibility that “reality” as we recognize it may not be the ultimate reality. But, fortunately, this isn’t some theist’s or mystic’s dualistic mumbo-jumbo: this is theoretical science at its finest. How likely is the Simulation Argument and other such theories of a “virtual” universe? At present, just as likely as any other scientific theory accounting for the origins and/or continued functioning of our universe on the quantum scale—in other words: no one really knows precisely what our universe is yet.
Fortunately, though, with the age of quantum computing soon to dawn upon our civilization, it will eventually be possible to test these hypotheses—to, in essence, hack our universe’s operating system and see what processes are running beneath those that we recognize as physical laws.
On way to test such a theory as Whitworth’s is to look for “glitches in the Matrix,” or observable errors in the universal simulation. In fact, I think we may have already observed one: the gigantic, six-billion-trillion-miles-wide “empty space” astronomers recently discovered in the cosmic background radiation. The gargantuan volume of space, six to ten billion lightyears away, is literally filled with…nothing. No stars. No galaxies. Not even freakin’ dark matter. It’s like a portion of the universe just…isn’t there.
Or, perhaps, like part of the program running the simulation of our universe has crashed. The big “empty space” could be the cosmic equivalent of the dreaded Blue Screen of Death.
Technorati Tags: physics,reality,virtual reality,universe,brian whitworth,simulation argument,nick bostrom,empty space
Pause for the Cause(s)
May 10th, 2007
I’m not a big believer in donating to “causes”–mainly because I’ve always believed my money is better spent furthering my interests rather than some charity whose organizers are probably dipping freely from the take anyway. But sometimes I come across organizations that just demand my support–the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance (even though their overwhelming interest in “privacy” is starting to look positively quaint).
The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is another. SingInst is a wonderful organization actively working to bring about the Singularity Era through research into artificial intelligence and, sometimes, related forms of cognitive enhancement; the best way to ensure the existence of Friendly AI, after all–to avoid the Robot Apocalypse, in other words–is to actively research it and ensure that the creation of Machine Intelligence enhances human civilization rather than invalidates it.
SingInst is currently conducting a $400,000 matching challenge to collect funds for further research and to underwrite their further expansion in 2007. Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal, currently on SIAI’s advisory board, is putting up $200K in matching funds! So far, the challenge has raked in $37,243 in cash–but that’s a long way to go to $400K…so if you have a few bucks to spare (I could only afford $25 at present, but may be able to spare more in the future), then why not pony up for a good cause? Trust me, in a decade or so, you’ll definitely get your money’s worth.
(As a side note, SIAI also has a complete online library of videos of speakers at last year’s Singularity Summit at Stanford University. Speakers include Douglas Hofstadter, Cory Doctorow, K. Eric Drexler, Ray Kurzweil [of course], and Nick Bostrom–so all you transers out there, get on over there and check it out!)
Also, the Encyclopedia of Life is looking to be flatout incredible. Witness the vast scope of its vision: to create a wiki-esque library of every single living thing that has ever walked the Earth, past or present. Take a look at some of the demonstration pages: the depth of information is amazing. They’re not looking for money, but they are looking for support…so sign up for their mailing list, if you have any interest in terrestrial lifeforms.It’s going to be an amazing site.
UN-Natural Selection
May 8th, 2007
Here’s a thought-provoking question for ya: Has human evolution stalled or, perhaps, even ended altogether? Or was Devo right–have we begun to de-evolve?!
According to an op-ed piece recently featured on Kuro5hin.org entitled, quite simply, “Human evolution has stalled“, author “gndn” has commented that “Human evolution has stalled because we have developed the means to sustain lives that would otherwise be lost, thereby granting reproductive abilities to those who arguably should not have them.” You’re damn right we have, gndn! I myself am a perfect example of that principle. I am a genetic disaster area: I have more heritable defects (with everything from major connective-tissue problems to minor cognitive impairments) that most people have relatives. Medical science has kept me…well, kinda/sorta healthy–healthy enough to reproduce, at any rate, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. I’m not about to curse some innocent human being with my faulty, painwracked, and damnear useless biological heritage.
On the plains of the Serengeti, a hundred years ago, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand…I would’ve been lion-food before I turned six. Hell, were I born Homo erectus, my mother probably would’ve just left me by a creek for something else to eat–and I wouldn’t blame her one bit. Natural selection equals survival of the fittest…and I’m not fit for anything but my current rarified, technologically-assisted environment.
gndn argues that due to contemporary humanity’s propensity for caring for any and all, regardless of their mental or physical condition, we have ceased to evolve. As he/she/it puts it:
I submit that the process of natural selection as outlined by Darwin should be respected, if for no other reason than that our knowledge of it is still in a very primitive stage. The ancient Spartans were on to something - life should be considered a privilege, one which must be earned. Anyone who argues that this is unfair or unnatural should be forced to watch animals eat each other on the nature channel for a few hours.
Hmmm. Interesting. I don’t think many people would particularly disagree with that statement. There’s not much sense in caring for and enabling those members of the family/group/tribe/society who are clearly disabled to the point that their existence proves to be a verifiable drag and potential danger to the others. But our author seems to forget something very, very obvious:
Humans are no longer animals. We no longer live upon the plains of Old Afrique or the sabretooth-haunted steppes of Ice Age Europe and America. In fact, though today there are still plenty of humans living in conditions not too different from those of our prehistory, people at the forefront of contemporary human development (that is, citizens of First World countries such as the United States, the European Union, and Japan), live so removed from nature–and the impact of natural selection–that it’s patently ridiculous to even consider natural selection as an influence on their existence.
gndn makes a very valid point that the human species as a whole should be more concerned with its long-term viability, in order to preserve our species in the face of changing conditions. But what he/she/it does not take into account is that we are doing just that.
We now have the capacity and means to control our own evolution. We no longer require natural selection to gradually, painfully force us to adapt to changing conditions: we can now forecast those changes and take the necessary technological steps to adapt ourselves. At present (2007 C.E.), we are just beginning to tap into the vast power of genetic engineering and human/machine interfacing–at least in certain regions of the planet. One can never think of the “Human Species” as one gigantic, self-referential, and self-guided body; evolution abhors monocultures, after all. Even now we’re beginning to see the first signs of speciation beginning to create new branches on the Homo family tree–according to our wishes, finally, instead of those of mere survival in hostile environments. The First World is developing greater and greater technologies every year to amplify human abilities and extend our control over our own environments.
The human species (soon, the human species, plural) has outgrown natural selection. Calling for a return to the “good ol’ days” of natural selection is idiotic, and actually shows a great contempt for evolution. We have given to ourselves the gift of understanding and control over our own destinies, our own evolution. To throw that power aside in favor of some ridiculous return to nature is not only silly, but is, in effect, a much more heinous crime against the human species’ long-term viability than keeping a handful of “unfit” creatures such as myself around in the near-term.
–> Current Listening To: Ultravox, “Dancing With Tears In My Eyes”.
Numanity!
June 1st, 2005
Where the hell are we all going? What’s to become of this goofball species known to themselves as “humans” in the near and far future? It’s certainly possible we’ll render ourselves extinct, or at least destroy civilization, through the usual combination of environmental damage, war, resource depletion, and so forth…but despite my oftimes dismal view of humanity as a whole, I don’t see the possibility of us extincting ourselves to be that great. Sure, the future will no doubt see a drastic change in human numbers and human biological forms, but I believe that intelligent life on earth has reached the point where total extinction is possible but highly unlikely: even if an oldskool nuclear war were to break out and eliminate most human civilizations overnight, there’d still be survivors scrabbling amid the ruins, and tons of left-behind technology to analyse, re-engineer, and use to start over at some time in the future. Intelligent life on earth will around for a while, yet, but “humanity” will not. Why? Because we’re already in the process of becoming something else. Evolution teaches us that there are no such things as ultimately stable species–every species can, at the drop of a gene, begin to morph into a wholly new species better suited to its situation. To think that our species will remain the same forever is moronic. To wonder what we’ll become in the future is fun.
MSNBC.com recently ran an intriguing feature entitled “Human Evolution at the Crossroads” detailing five possible avenues of development open to our species in the future. All of these speculative avenues were dreamed up by credible evolutionary biologists or, in some cases, health professionals…but all are not created equal. Briefly, these five possible avenues are:
- “Unihumans”: a monlithic species in which all racial differences have been eliminated thanks to bioengineering and interbreeding of people from all continents.
- “Suvivalistians”: rugged, hardcore, tough-as-nails humans (practically a rebirth of Neanderthals) produced via the species’ transition through a major catastrophe (asteroid strike, war, etc.).
- “NUMANS!”: genetically-designed, physically “perfect” superhumans immune to virtually all disease and biological difficulties.
- “Cyborgs”: the familiar cyberpunk melding of human and technology.
- “Astrans”: humans engineered for interplanetary and interstellar travel/colonization/exploitation.
So, Pegritz, you ask. You’re virtually obsessed with human evolution (particularly technological), and you’re a total sci-fi geek as well…plus, you’ve read just about every decent sci-fi novel ever written concerning human evolution–so which of those MSNBC scenarios do you think the most likely to come about?”
