The Singularity

[Artifice Orisit]

http://www.transhumanists.org/video/658759:Video:11994

Pseudoscience or important revelation?

 

[tom]

I dislike the phrase " the disruption that technology has created through globalisation"

Other than that the concept of a singularity is quite interesting. However i have an unpleasant suspicion that it would be driven by a military and as such not very pleasant for any of us

 

[Jordan~]

That's why an oligarchy of the enlightened is required - we need a government to steer us towards the singularity and prepare us for it, one that acknowledges that government is only a temporary measure until the problems arsing from the basic human flaws that it's designed to deal with are solved.

People know I'm a transhumanist, so I say important revelation. The singularity will be the most important occurence in mankind's history - if we miss it, we go extinct; if we get it right, we transcend.

 

[tom]

But how would you determine who was enlightened? Let alone what the right path is.

And what would you do with those opposed to your views?

 

[Jordan~]

The enlightened are those who are best-equipped to guide mankind towards its transhuman future. Those people would be experts, not politicians - a politician is basically a good liar with a lot of friends who gives off a good impression. Power would lie in the hands of the academics.

Dissent would be tolerated, and prevented in the young through education. In the end, it doesn't matter - those who don't transcend can live their lives as normally as they can. No one would be forced to, and those who didn't would produce progeny who would either transcend or have no children of their own. The oligarchy's job would be to get the process started, after which it will naturally continue itself.

The right path would be to acknowledge that mankind's sole purpose is to work towards this goal - thus, the bare essentials (food supply, production, etc.) would have to dealt with first, in order to fuel education and research. Research is vital from the start - vertical farming, nanotechnology, and other developments would greatly ease development. Thereafter, research should not be controlled by private enterprise - transhumanism will destroy companies, not boost their profits. The government should thus pour a significant amount of its resources into the four converging technologies.

 

[tom]

What about violent dissidents?

Those who believe trancendance is "Evil"? An irrational position to be sure but humanity has never let rationality get in the way of a good argument...

 

[Jordan~]

Saboteurs might be a problem. Neo-luddism would have to be suppressed, I suppose. Comfortable imprisonment would be a good way of dealing with them - like being forced to stay in a reasonably good hotel.

 

[tom]

And how would the oligarchy stop the saboteurs? With weapons?

 

[Jordan~]

One would hope it wouldn't come to that. If they were to ban guns altogether, using guns against them would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. Plus, you don't want to stir up any sympathy for them.

You're going to make me sound like a brutal Machiavellian Prussian Junker.

 

[tom]

Im not trying to make you sound bad...

Its just that certain things will probably always be with us. Conflict is one of those things.

Any technological singularity will have to deal with this lack of a unanimous view, and that is why politics does have a function.

 

[Jordan~]

The humans'll die out eventually - every bloodline will either have children who transcend, or children who don't have children. There'd be no need for conflict among the transhumans.

 

[tom]

But in the process of setting up the singularity there would probably be huge conflicts, possibly leading into an arms race of sorts, with competing factions all attempting to simultaneously transcend and prevent their enemies from doing so.

 

[Jordan~]

Why would you want to stop your enemies from transcending? Once you've transcended, they stop being your enemies. Enmity could be removed from one's psyche at will.

Plus, it'll be subtle, I think. With no government focused on achieving the Singularity, the technologies will be ignored as they develop - impractical research which pertains to neither economic nor military strength, in the eyes of the present world powers. Once it is available, though, nothing will be able to stop it from spreading - the first transhumans will simply share it freely.

 

[tom]

Would it really be that good to be able to eradicate parts of your psyche?
That raises whole new issues of morality and justice between one group of transcended and another...

 

[Jordan~]

That's the thing: Once we've transcended, there will be no "groups", only individuals and the whole. Groups and factions are a human flaw.

 

[tom]

but pre-transcendence there are groups. These groups may transcend differently to other groups. This would create "races" within the transcended.

 

[Jordan~]

The groups dissolve with humanity, though. The transhuman can remove at will the instincts that lead to the formation of conflicting factions - and why would anyone want conflict? It's not like they need resources that aren't abundant already. With the level of technology we're talking about, effortless plenty would be omnipresent - there will be no need for violence.

 

[tom]

Violence does not merely stem from territory and resources. For example the people of city "x" and the people from city "y". Pre-transcendence they were bitter enemies, not due to resources or land but due to culture, tradition or religion.

The people of those cities would still hate each other after transcendence and may not want to cease hostilities.

 

[Jordan~]

They could remove their own hatred, however.

 

[tom]

But would they wish too?

And if they didn't, conflict enters the utopia...

 

[Jordan~]

Given that they'd be vastly more intelligent than they were before, they probably would, yes.

 

[tom]

I hope so...

Honestly a singularity would be awesome to watch. Just not from the inside

 

[Artifice Orisit]

The singularity could result in any number of situations, almost all of which will cause some sort of conflict. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing since conflict is the catalyst of change, although what the change will result in cannot be known at this time.

Intelligence is considered one of the most powerful forces in the universe and an important aspect of intelligence is creativity. Current machines are highly intelligent in terms of logic and sheer processing power, however they lack this vital creativity. Once we create artificial intelligence that can think creatively a chain of events will have started that is known as the singularity. Simply the creative machines will use their intelligence to make themselves more intelligent in a ever increasing exponential cycle. This sudden explosion in technological growth will give whomever controls it unimaginable power.

If significantly advance technology is indistinguishable from magic,
imagine being able to cast a spell that makes oneself more powerful.
Again, and again, and again, with the spell getting stronger each time.
That is the singularity.

...but there is a problem,
As any game designer will tell you, if you give the player everything they want they'll stop playing your game. So what will these people do when the very nature of reality bows at their feet?

 

[Jordan~]

They'll live in simulations of a limited existence. Safe simulations.

 

[tom]

Whats the point of a safe simulation?

 

[Jordan~]

You can suffer with no death, you can add in safety mechanisms - "if it gets too bad, take me out"/"don't let it get this bad". Essentially it's infinite experience.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

But where's the fun in that? Where's the risk?
It would be like playing solitaire for eternity.

…oh the irony.

 

[Jordan~]

Risk is not a real thing - it's a perception in the mind of the beholder. If we could, on purpose, deceive the part of our consciousness that was immersed in the simulation into believing that the simulation was real (which we ought to be able to, with an artificial, computerised brain) then essentially we would be living multiple "real" lives, at the ends of which we would "die" and awaken, ready to go back in, or into another simulation of our choosing.

 

[tom]

Maybe that's already what's happening!

 

[Jordan~]

If it's possible for it to ever happen, it's far more likely that we're simulated than real.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

<insert matrix quote>

 

[Jordan~]

We might not even have physical bodies. One day, the person who created us might get bored with us, delete us - let's hope their society has an ethical policy towards created worlds with simulated sentiences. We might have been created yesterday - the past exists only in our minds; we may simply have been brought into existence with a set of memories of things that never happened.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Well in a purely objective sense the person you were yesterday doesn’t exist anymore.

There's also the whole cellular replacement thing...

 

[Jordan~]

But if, say, I was uploaded onto a computer, would that person be me? I can't answer that question. My intuition says "no" - how could I possibly exist as two entities at the same time? I think it must be something to do with the continuation of awareness in one medium - that is to say, awareness cannot be translated between media. Suppose you were running a consciousness in your head, and you wanted to run it on a computer. You couldn't just stop writing, go over to your computer, enter the appropriate data and start simulating - the awareness on the computer would be a copy of the one you were working out in your head, not the same "person". Media, however, can be translated within awarenesses, I think. What I mean by that is, if you could turn the medium of working it out in your head into the medium of working it out with a computer, the awareness would continue uninterrupted. Thus, I think uploading the brain to a computer would just kill the person and make a new one. Instead, the brain should be replaced, bit by bit, hijacking the same biological process by which it replaces itself already, perhaps, with another medium - an artificial one - which is more flexible. That ought to avoid the problem of producing copies of people rather than updating people.

 

[hopefulmonster]

remember that you have to abandon classical notions of machine/humans in a post singularity society. A true ai stuffed in a convincing replica of a human body would basically be human only better. Machines post singularity would not be 100% logical. An increase an computational capacity would result in both increased emotional depth AND logic. Just like what happened in the previous singularity(non-humanoids---->humanoids). Our ability to feel and empathize would only grow greater and we would gain emotions that are not currently in the human reportoire. This is why the singularity is not only a Ts dream come true but an Fs as well(imo).

Now I suppose a post singularity being could logically deduce that emotions are counter-productive for the current paradigm and program itself accordling but I find that highly doubtful

The singularity is basically a continuation of good old evolution only with silicon instead of messy biochemicals.

 

[Jordan~]

The rationality of a transhuman is a matter of the personal choice of that particular transhuman. I would choose the ability to suspend emotion entirely, to choose at will what to feel, and to place emotion entirely under the rule of logic. The further into it I delve, the more I discover that most of it is pain.

The Singularity isn't a continuation of evolution, it's the end of it. From that point onwards, we're in control. We've left nature, taken charge of our own progress. It's not evolution, but something different.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

*writes names down*
Tom, Jordan~, hopefulmonster

Well all cyborg armies have to start somewhere right?

Edit: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=2512&page=5
Assist me in the "Doorway D" thread, it will be the first of many victories.

 

[Jordan~]

We ought to have a transhumanist ethics thread.

 

[Melkor]

Oh ... this looks like a wonderful topic... I've been neglecting the forums intellect as of late.... For that, I am sorry... I will look into this tomorrow!

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Ethic 1
Support your fellow transhumanists

Okay serious now, that is a good idea.

@-Melkor
That's great, I don't think I've heard many of your intellectual opinions.

 

[Jordan~]

I'm a peaceful robot! Besides, I'm probably summering this century in ancient Greece or Rome.

Who shall make the ethics thread? Probably you, since I'm going to bed.
Rhythm and rhyme accidental.

 

[hopefulmonster]

The rationality of a transhuman is a matter of the personal choice of that particular transhuman. I would choose the ability to suspend emotion entirely, to choose at will what to feel, and to place emotion entirely under the rule of logic. The further into it I delve, the more I discover that most of it is pain.

The Singularity isn't a continuation of evolution, it's the end of it. From that point onwards, we're in control. We've left nature, taken charge of our own progress. It's not evolution, but something different.

I used to think I would choose 100% logic but now I don't think this could work unless A;the majority of transhumanists do so as well or B; you create your own little logical VR bubble and I am skeptical of option A working.

Look at the trend in resource allocation in intelligent life. The brain regions that got the biggest upgrades and seperated us from other high order life like cetaceans and our fellow primates are primarily devoted to emotional reasoning/communication.

I don't think classical intelligence plays nearly as big a role in our dominance as a species as we would like to think . Our true power does not lie in our ability to outwit our competition so much as our ability to organize and organization relies on emotional reasoning. Studies of monkeys are now showing they may be scarily close to us in terms of classical IQ but lack the emotional reasoning/organization to sustain their knowledge and put it to good use. They basically have to reinvent the wheel every time grand dad dies.

Humans are awfully STUPID things it took us what 10k years to realize you could sharpen both sides of a rock? Luckily we can exchange data and sustain it through generations...monkeys and dolphins can't.

I think the current problem with emotions is that we are using archaic emotional systems. We outpaced our biology and are now dealing with the consequences. I think our added compuational capacity would be best devoted to creating new emotions that are up to date with a post-singularity world. Rather then simply suspending emotion in favor of logic. Can you imagine how fascinating it would be to experience emotions that don't even exist right now?

 

[Melkor]

Haven't really had a chance to see this video yet...anyone up for explaining the concept?

 

[Jordan~]

I used to think I would choose 100% logic but now I don't think this could work unless A;the majority of transhumanists do so as well or B; you create your own little logical VR bubble and I am skeptical of option A working.

Look at the trend in resource allocation in intelligent life. The brain regions that got the biggest upgrades and seperated us from other high order life like cetaceans and our fellow primates are primarily devoted to emotional reasoning/communication.

I don't think classical intelligence plays nearly as big a role in our dominance as a species as we would like to think . Our true power does not lie in our ability to outwit our competition so much as our ability to organize and organization relies on emotional reasoning. Studies of monkeys are now showing they may be scarily close to us in terms of classical IQ but lack the emotional reasoning/organization to sustain their knowledge and put it to good use. They basically have to reinvent the wheel every time grand dad dies.

Humans are awfully STUPID things it took us what 10k years to realize you could sharpen both sides of a rock? Luckily we can exchange data and sustain it through generations...monkeys and dolphins can't.

I think the current problem with emotions is that we are using archaic emotional systems. We outpaced our biology and are now dealing with the consequences. I think our added compuational capacity would be best devoted to creating new emotions that are up to date with a post-singularity world. Rather then simply suspending emotion in favor of logic. Can you imagine how fascinating it would be to experience emotions that don't even exist right now?

I am thoroughly uninterested in our dominance as a species, and our species in general. My survival as an individual consciousness is what concerns me, and my capacity to experience. Once possible, I'll entirely withdraw from the rest of mankind. Transhumanism's goal ought to be perfect individual isolation, in a world where social needs can be removed or satisfied by illusions and no society, no compromise and none of the resulting conflict is required to sustain the life of the individual. Transhumanism is an end to the compromise of society, not a continuation thereof. It obsoletes the social element of our existence, and with it, the need to communicate externally. Perhaps as a diversionary thing, we might like to keep some sort of Internet of transcended minds.
With the removal of death comes the end of "new generations" to whom knowledge can be passed. If a new person is desired, create it with all the knowledge in the world present in it at "birth". Just make an AI identical to the converted biological intelligence of a transhuman and give it a body. Why make a human only to have it transcend?
It might be fascinating to experience emotions that don't presently exist, but it would be best to do so at will and within a safe virtual reality.
In short, transcension obsoletes emotion. It would be the final nail in the coffin. I would choose to keep it, however, perhaps out of sentiment - just, only when I wanted it. But then, want implies preference, preference implies emotion. Perhaps I would just split my mind entirely, then - remove the logical part from the emotional altogether, and let both work simultaneously without getting in eachother's way.

 

[loveofreason]

Haven't really had a chance to see this video yet...anyone up for explaining the concept?

I haven't joined in the thread because my connection is too slow to watch the video... but the topic fascinates me... I'm observing with interest.

 

[Jesin]

The Singularity isn't a continuation of evolution, it's the end of it. From that point onwards, we're in control. We've left nature, taken charge of our own progress. It's not evolution, but something different.

...What?

How do you draw the distinction between us and nature?

 

[Jordan~]

Presently, we're part of nature. Post-transcension, we cease to be - if we choose, we'll be able to isolate ourselves entirely from the natural world.

 

[Jesin]

...What?

How do you draw the distinction between the natural world and wherever we would escape to?

 

[hopefulmonster]

Presently, we're part of nature. Post-transcension, we cease to be - if we choose, we'll be able to isolate ourselves entirely from the natural world.

biological life is not fundementally different from machines. Both exploit physical law to efficiently acomplish a task. Living machines use organo-chemicals and classical machines use well everything else. Transhumanism represents our transcendence of biology but evolution will still persist.

 

[Jordan~]

The natural world is produced without intention, the world we escape to will be produced with an intention in mind. In much the same way, evolution is the adaptation of life without intention, while augmentation is the improvement of life with intention.