Software based humans

[Atellus]

I can't remember whether I harvested this link from these forums or elsewhere, but no matter. Here it is again.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

 

And the introductory paragraph

 

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

 

What this article really got me wondering about was the nature of a so-called software based human, and it's on this aspect that I would like to focus.

 

For myself, and based on no research at all, I find the idea that we will reach a sudden and dramatic turning point to be dubious at best, melodramatic at worst. I can think of no sudden and dramatic turning points in human history where the world's population was fundamentally different, pyschologically or physiologically, following an event of brief duration. Like all new developments, the technological advances that will enable the true merging of the human nervous system with artificial devices and the software that runs them will take a long time to disperse amongst the global population. The "Haves" will have it first, as they always do. The "Have Nots" sitting at the bottom of the hill will have to wait until last years technology slowly rolls down to their level, as they always do. A small, very small fraction of the global population will probably experience something akin to this singularity event, but for everyone else it will be a gradual creep, like usual.

 

So, if I were to hypothesise the course of events of human engineered evolution for the next two or three centuries, I would predict a relatively gradual change, even though in the context of historical technological development, it would still look like light speed, despite the rapid progress of the last sixty years.

 

I wonder how this gradual integration with devices and their programming will alter the human outlook? What will it do to us in terms of our inter-relationships? How will it change our thinking? Will these alterations also effect our conclusions? Would a software based human reach the same conclusions on a matter of morality as a human living today in western liberal democracy? Will the very nature of this humans thought processes alter it's concept of rationality to the point were 1 + 1 no longer equals 2 as we currently understand it?

 

I am much intrigued and would welcome the views of others on this point.

[Atellus]

I wonder if I've identified a further problem with the uptake and expansion of these techno-humans. Market forces. We may be heading for wholely knowledge based economies in some countries, but money still changes hands for accurate information. Everything from scientific data to sales research has a price. Sure, there's the internet, but the internet is not peer reviewed and fiction is self-perpetuating. I know a gentleman who engaged in a debate on the basic principles of buoyancy as applied to submarines with two individuals who held degrees in physics; one held an advanced degree. He referenced a dozen different websites as part of his argument - a dozen different and each very badly worded and often rather simplistic websites. His argument was that the inaccuracy of a piece of information was in inverse proportion to the number of replications of that information in existence. The logic of self-perpetuating fiction was lost on him.

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Given this extraordinary human tendency to resist correction, no matter the source (a tendency that must be rooted in some kind of Darwinist reproductive competitiveness) then the idea that humans merging their brains with technology and downloading knowledge almost instantly will necessarily be of benefit looks a little less appealing. Consider also what kind of material is most likely to be downloaded in quantity. It's a four letter word and starts with a p.

 

Just like we have done with the internet, so we would do with our brains themselves.

 

The only solution is to pay for verified and certified knowledge. Just as one subscribes to a scientific journal, often at a cost of hundreds per year, so one would have to pay to receive a decent educational download. This is no different from paying for a private school or paying college fees. Alternatively, you can take a risk and get a free open source one download on, say, medicine, off the net and accept that there may be gaps and inaccuracies of which you are unaware. Imagine being the patient of such a doctor. It doesn't bear thinking about.

 

Goodbye knowledge nirvana. Hello situation normal.

[the tree]

To use a vaugely parrallel example: the Internet came first to the "nerds" and the "in the know", not the "haves" (well, not the "have mores than a computors"). Just like free infomation like Wikipedia and free software like Linux. Sure, hardware costs a fair bit but the technological singularity be an intellectual and technological achivement in Universities and the attics of hobby-ists, not an economic and marketing achivement in R&D departments.

 

The human outlook should be used to being flipped over by now: for those who keep thier ear to the world of learning, the whole world is continually changing: one day there are 11 dimensions, the next we are in a 5 dimensional black hole, sometimes we're described as pieces of string,other times we are just weights on rubber sheets. 1+1 is equal to 2 a lot of them time yes, but what about when they aren't the same type of 1? The world is a lot more complicated than you would presume, there's a lot to find out and the technological singularity is going to make it a whole lot moreso.

 

Do you seriously predict a gradual progression in technology considering that you've just got wireless Internet and computers are well on thier way to performing operations based on the position of individual electrons?

[Atellus]

Not a gradual progression to technology, a gradual progression to acquisition of it's results.

 

I may have wireless internet and may shortly be able to pre-order my first quantum computer, but there are are good few million if not bordering on the couple of billion people in the world who still think it's cool that the lights don't go out when the Sun goes down! This was the basis of my reference to the Haves and Have-Nots. We already live in a world divided by technology and access to it. As the pace of technological advancement increases, that gap is only going to increase, and the number of those with access to the cutting edge will just as rapidly decrease.

 

It's also worth noting that many of those dedicated nerds, hobbyists and University researchers have made quite a good living out of their work, selflessly slaving away to deliver the latest, greatest benefit to an unaware public.

[mike90]

Even if you could conceivably come up with such technology in the near future, I doubt american social mores would allow it. People would be automatically leery of it, like many were when cloning was first announced. Theres still a built in social aversion there to tinkering around with human dna at a certain point, and certainly i think theres a strong enough vocal religious presence to successfully fight off such a thing happening for a long time to come. Not that Im saying they are the only ones who would be opposed. I must say such a thing sounds quite horrific to me, hell i would register to vote just to vote against such a thing, and Im either an atheist or an agnostic depending on which day you catch me on

[bascule]

The point is that market forces won't matter when a market is meaningless. Transhuman technology will accelerate the rate of change exponentially, and inventions will follow which will obliterate the need for a market, namely the Von Neumann Universal Constructor, and a ubiquitous, nanotechnological plaform based upon it. The basic human tasks of collecting energy and computing will be effectively solved.

 

At least, that's the utopian ideal.

 

I don't think soft humans are far off. All that's needed is a comprehensive model of cellular behavior, extended to multicellular systems, and you can grow a human from an artificial fertilized egg.

[Edtharan]

I don't think soft humans are far off. All that's needed is a comprehensive model of cellular behavior, extended to multicellular systems, and you can grow a human from an artificial fertilized egg.

A bit more to it than that, but close.

 

Yes this kind of technology is not far off. I actually look forward to such a world. Yes there are mant dangers and problems, but I think that if we do excersise proper constraint we will be ok. It will not solve all the problems and it will create its own, so I don't hink a Utopia is posible, but a nano factory would effectively eliminate the material market (but there will still be an energy market and a knowledge market).

 

For myself, and based on no research at all, I find the idea that we will reach a sudden and dramatic turning point to be dubious at best, melodramatic at worst. I can think of no sudden and dramatic turning points in human history where the world's population was fundamentally different, pyschologically or physiologically, following an event of brief duration.

Yes it is a bit melodramatic .

 

However I cna think of several times in the history of technology where the world has experienced a "sudden and dramatic turning point".

 

1) The invention of agriculture: This allowed humans to change from a hunter gather lifestyle to one of settelment. This was a major and dramatic change. Sure it didn't occure all over the world at the same time, but whereever it was taken up this dramatic change occured. It has prety much expanded to encompase every person on the planet (and compared to the history of humans it did so in a relatively short time).

 

2) Writing: This was an extrmely massive change in the world. It allowed knowledge to be passed down with little error over many generations. Also one could copy the document accurately and so improve the spread of the knowledge. Writing also changed the way people interacted with each other as now a permanent record of a transaction could be kept and rules did not rely on someone being able to remember them in their head. Again, the spread of writing was fast and occured in a comparitively short time frame.

 

3) Penicillin: The spread of this invention was rapid and change the nature of illness and injury. Now more people could survive from these and so change the population spread of the world. Antibiotics have had a major impact in nearly every human on the planet (not just humans but also in many animals too).

 

4) Immunisation: This has created a massive impact, similar to antibiotics. The use of antibiotics spread ver fast if compared to the history of medicine.

 

5) The industrial revolution: Virtually everything that exists in our lives today (including the computer you are using to read this) was made posible with the industrial revolution. Sure, as like all these "turning points" its spread was not instantainious, but it was very rapid and the results were dramatic.

 

These are all just off the top of my head and not realy in any particular order. But as you can see dramatic and rapic changes do occure, have occures and will occure.

[bascule]

A bit more to it than that, but close.

 

Well, and a model optimized to run in some useful fraction of realtime on an enormously powerful supercomputer.

 

Some sort of artificial nutrient-supplying surface for the egg to embed itself in and the placenta attach to.

 

And an artificial world for the child to grow up in, as well as interact with other soft (representations of) humans. I'd imagine at first this would entail modeling a portion of time (say, 5 seconds) for, who knows, years (hopefully not), months, days, then playing this back for one or more humans in VR simulaton, letting them react, then slowing their reactions, captured via VR input, to simulation time, and let the computer modeled human baby experience them.