Ray Kurzweil and the Conquering of Mount Improbable: An Essay by Extropia DaSilva

I find it quite interesting that instead of “a” technological singularity, you suggest that there might be, in fact, “several singularities”. I don't know if that's a common view among the transhumanist crowd, but, as a pragmatist visionary (isn't that an oxymoron? ), I actually find your reasoning more satisfying

I like the image of a “mountain range” instead of a single technological peak. And indeed, when we look at three areas of technological development — computers, telecommunication, medical science — the “peaks” there seem so much higher than, say, on the car industry. From an external viewpoint, it even looks that they don't come from the same civilisation at all. It would be like watching a column of Roman soldiers in full battle armour marching along a road and have their general drive a Sherman tank in front of them. The technological levels attained on some areas vastly outperform what we have experienced on others; some technologies seem to “stagnate” beyond innovation — again, typical areas are the car or airplane industry, or (sadly!) all the space age technologies, or even simple things like industry plastic moulds, agriculture, furniture (was the last “innovation” really… IKEA?). Of course we have “improvements” on all of those — but they're mostly engineering improvements, and much less scientific breakthroughs. A car is assembled in 2009 pretty much as it was in 1909 — the main difference is that these days you have replaced people on the assembly line with, well, robots. Contrast that to the super-clean, ultra-high-tech labs where silicon is transformed into chip wafers — and how much cheaper a computer is compared to a car, in spite of being such a more advanced piece of technology (contrast it with the cost of a computer in 1950 compared to a car!).

So I have to agree with you. We might reach some “singularity” in 2045 so Kurzweil might not be completely wrong; but it will not be the singularity, and it will be pretty much ignored…

Good points Gwyn & Extie…especially about there being several, if not many peaks. When I was a kid, I read a book called the Mighty Micro, all about the coming information technology revolution. One of the main thrusts of the book was that technology would become *invisiible*..there would be microchips everywhere, and we wouldn't even notice them.

The Dawkins' analogy is a good one – the gradual, gentle changes are hardly noticable on a moment-by-moment basis..but the long term effects are profound. Perhaps Kerzweil, and the folks involved with the ethics of transhumanism are just trying to point things out to us, so we can make some conscious decisions *now* about where we'd like this gentle slope (albeit with syncopated spikes in its surface!!!) to go….

Dez.

I’m a big fan of Kurzweil and have been following him for a decade. However, he and many other futurists seem to discuss future super-intelligence in ways that seem to me suspiciously anthropomorphic. For example, maybe super-human / trans-human intelligence can exist w/o anything we’d relate to as “consciousness”.

I recently read a NYT article about super fast computers doing high speed trading, making decisions based on complex data in microseconds. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24tr...) In some ways this is already super-human intelligence, but I don’t think it has anything vaguely resembling a “consciousness”.

Maybe our brand of “consciousness” is just an artifact of social animals trying to model each other’s behaviors; obsessed with things like plot, drama and relationships between human animals. A technological super-intelligence would likely not be animal or even embodied, so maybe expecting artificial general intelligence to necessarily include something we’d relate to as consciousness is just a misguided but comforting anthropomorphism. The reality may be more like those networks of computers doing high speed trading. What goes on inside the “mind” of a super-intelligence may not be even vaguely human.

Unfortunately, the essay doesn't quite mention one of the biggest possible 'restrictions' imposed on mankind by Kurzweil's Singularity: Our *individuality*.

Researchers are currently trying to find out how to remotely and subconsciously alter our thinking. Our ability to reason. Our moral beliefs.

By uploading our brains onto a man-made software architecture, we risk having our thoughts and our way of thinking permanently and unwillingly altered. Mankind can not trust the other half to “do no evil”, as Google might say.

We should all just simply stop obsessing about Kurzweil's moneymaker (Singularity) scheme. Talking about it and collecting articles about it, helps no-one but Kurzweil and his loyal ($$$) followers.

Doomsday: The day Humanity gets wiped from the face of the planet might be closer than we think, according to Kurzweil's destructive timeline.

————————-
Of Course, the Future is a big uncertainty for everyone. Kurzweil merely *inserts* ideas into the minds of the greedy – people who want to make a quick buck from other people's ideas/suggestions.
————————-

@Gwyneth:
Interesting article to skim-through, however

>I find it quite interesting that instead of “a” technological singularity, you suggest that there might be, in fact, “several singularities”.

The mountain peaks that I talked about were not meant to represent 'technological singularities', but rather certain technological capabilities: Things like artificial general intelligence and molecular nanotech.

Such things could be pathways to a technological singularity. Vernor Vinge's paper identified several possible routes towards it, which were:

The AI Scenario: We create superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) in computers.

The IA Scenario: We enhance human intelligence through human-to-computer interfaces–that is, we achieve intelligence amplification (IA).

The Biomedical Scenario: We directly increase our intelligence by improving the neurological operation of our brains.

The Internet Scenario: Humanity, its networks, computers, and databases become sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

The Digital Gaia Scenario: The network of embedded microprocessors becomes sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

It is interesting to note that only one of those scenarios is suggestive of technology evolving independent of the human race- the one in which we create a superhuman AI (and the digital gaia could become independently evolving as well, but to me it sounds like a global brain which could well involve greater connectivity between human-human, human-machine and machine-machine brains). Presumably, thereafter technology takes charge of its own recursive self-improvement and enters states of mind beyond our comprehension. In Singularity discussions this is known as 'the wall', implying a definite barrier seperating normal times from the radical future.

The other scenarios suggest humans and machines evolving together. Vinge commented, ' every time our ability to access information and to communicate it to others is improved, in some sense we have achieved an increase over natural intelligence'. This is known as 'the surge' because, metaphorically, we ride the wave of technological progress to the Singularity…and beyond!

But this poses the question, 'at what point does our ability to access and communicate information increase to the point where we can say the Singularity has happened?'. Researchers investigating the origin of life have come to realise that there is no definite point at which a system of gradually increasing complexity becomes 'alive'. I think we will discover that it is also decidely arbitrary to pinpoint the moment our ability to access and share information makes us 'posthuman'.

“Several Singularities”… It could well be the case that a singularity triggered by the creation of artificial superintelligence (the first scenario) would be a different experience to a singularity caused by enhancing human intelligence through human-computer interfaces (the IA scenario), and each would be different to a singularity resulting from global brains. So, in that sense, we can say those are several different singularities.

But this is a rather unrealistic scenario, because it implies one pathway progresses independent of the others. Obviously this is not how reality works. We use supercomputers to simulate brains in order to improve our biomedicine, which could be useful for both the AI and the biomedical scenario. In fact, research that is relevant to any one pathway could be relevant to any of the others- although how it is relevant may not be at all obvious at first. Since the pathways are all interconnected, perhaps it is not the case that each singularity can be separated?

>One of the main thrusts of the book was that technology would become *invisiible*..there would be microchips everywhere, and we wouldn't even notice them”.

I think we are already there. I bet that, if you were to ask how many computers a person possesses, they would underestimate the actual amount. They would count their PCs, laptops, games consoles and cellular phones, but would probably forget to include the microprocessors embedded in just about every home appliance, and in their cars, even embedded in their credit and debit cards. People in 1st world countries possess a minimum of 100 different computers, I would think.

>he and many other futurists seem to discuss future super-intelligence in ways that seem to me suspiciously anthropomorphic.

It would not surprise me if we have some robots built in our image. But I think those will be a tiny minority compared to robots that do not look or act humanlike. Given that hollywood sci-fi has conditioned us to expect humanlike robots, I suspect that most actual robots will not be recognised as such. I expect people in the future will ask 'what happened to all the robots we were supposed to be living with by now?', when, in fact, each home has an average of 100 robotic machines quietly performing tasks on behalf of the human occupants.

Netantwerp is right to point out that dangers are mixed up with the opportunities the pathways will open up. But is it really a solution, to not talk about such things? When Fred Cohen succeeded in programming the first virus at the University of California in 1983, this approved study was intended to show such things could exist, thereby ensuring the real intention of designing defences would receive backing. This plan did not work, because demonstrations alarmed authorities who immediately called for a ban on any work connected to it. One American official even declared that the State department would not have allowed Cohen to SPEAK about viruses if it had been known his talk would focus on such things. It was not until 1987 that his paper detailing the feasibility of viruses was accepted for publication in the journal ’Computers and Security’.

Obviously, attempts to keep such information hush-hush did little to prevent the rise of malicious software. We can only wonder how much more effective antivirus technology would be today, if only Cohen et al had been allowed to openly conduct research into virus attacks and countermeasures right from the beginning. Let's not make the same mistake with AI, nanotech and biotech.

Destructive ideas need to be treated like a Pandemic. Loss of individuality and freedom is an irreversible pandemic – ideas that lean towards it, like Kurzweil's Singularity, should be avoided, at all costs.

@Extropia:

Is it right to water down the genuine implications of Kurzweil's Singularity (uploading people's brains onto a man-made software architecture) by mixing it in with other (remotely similar) issues?

Implications of AI (Artificial Intelligence) are quite different from Singularity. AI fears all point to adaptive machine learning algorithms surpassing our own intelligence in a negative matter, while *Singularity* issues point to [b][u]subconscious, unwilling Mind Control[/b][/u] by rich/”powerful”/corrupt individuals or entities.

Singularity, unlike Biomedical Sciences, Computer Sciences, Computer Systems Engineering, does NOT enhance and/or prolong our lives. We should discuss positive topics and subjects, not destructive technological subjects with little or no benefit to society, like Kurzweil's Singularity.

>*Singularity* issues point to subconscious, unwilling Mind Control by rich/”powerful”/corrupt individuals or entities.”

Is that necessarily so? Kurzweil's singularity is based on the premise that information technologies start off as expensive, functioning none too well and available only to a small group, but then become cheaper, more reliable, more capable, more mass-market. Consider computers. Early on they were expensive mainframes affordable only to government departments and other institutions. Operating them required specialist knowledge. Nowadays ordinary people own PCs with orders-of-magnitude more processing power than those mainframes, and need little specialist knowledge to operate them.

We see the same thing with mobile phones. It was not all that long ago that being in possession of such a device was a status symbol. It marked you out as a member of the power elite. Now we all have cellular phones whose size and functionality would have made us the envy of Wall Street a couple of decades ago.

A key aspect of Kurzweil's singularity is brain reverse-engineering, whereby living brains are studied and their principles of operation are used to build computer hardware/software that functions in a similar way. Henry Markram (director of the Blue Brain project) said that reverse-engineering the neocortical microcircuit was worthwhile not only because it could lead to insights into treating neurological and psychiatric disorders, but also because it “exhibits computational power that is impossible to match with any known technology. Deriving the blueprint and its operational principles could therefore spur a new generation of neuromorphic devices with immense computational power”.

Now, clearly, the more knowledge we have about how the mind works; the more clear our understanding of neurology and psychiatry becomes, the more effective our methods of persuasion can be. Today some marketing firms are looking to neuroscience for insights into the mind's techniques for filtering information. 'Neuromarketing' uses that knowledge to produce promotions that are more likely to get through our mind's 'firewall' and make an impression on the targetted audience. With a bit of a stretch of the imagination, one can see this leading to Hans Moravec's vision: “the super intelligences, just doing their job, will peer into the workings of human minds and manipulate them with subtle cues and nudges, like adults redirecting toddlers”.

But, it is one thing to acknowledge the potential for mind control, and quite another to claim that this is the primary agenda behind the development of the singularity's enabling technologies. This is akin to saying the world wide web was developed specifically to put spam in your inbox and to turn Web-enabled devices into botnets. Of course, the Web shows that wherever there is the potential to cause mischief and crimes against the populace, there are people willing to impliment such capabilities. But, on balance, would we really be better off never having developed the Web?

>Singularity, unlike Biomedical Sciences, Computer Sciences, Computer Systems Engineering, does NOT enhance and/or prolong our lives'.

But the technological singularity, if such a thing can happen at all, will happen as a result of accumulation of knowledge in those sciences. It will emerge from the converging paths of biomedical sciences and computer sciences.

Also, consider the definition of 'technological singularity', which is 'the creation-by technology- of smarter than human intelligence'. According to Joseph Tainter, who is an archeologist and author of ‘The Collapse Of Complex Societies’, ‘for the past 100,000 years, problem solving has produced increasing complexity in human societies’. Every solution ultimately generates new problems. Success at producing larger crop yields leads to a bigger population. This in turn increases the need for more irrigation canals to ensure crops won’t fail due to patchy rain. But too many canals makes ad-hoc repairs infeasible, and so a management beauracracy needs to be set up, along with some kind of taxation to pay for it. The population keeps growing, the resources that need to be managed and the information that needs to be processed grows and diversifies, which in turn leads to more kinds of specialists. According to Tainter, sooner or later ‘a point is reached when all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain its existing levels of complexity’.

Once such a point is reached, a paradigm shift in the organization of hierarchies becomes inevitable. Yaneer Bar-Yam, who heads the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge Massachusets explained that ‘to run a hierarchy, managers cannot be less complex than the systems they are managing’. Rising complexity requires societies to add more and more layers of management. In a hierarchy, there ultimately has to be an individual who can get their head around the whole thing, but eventually this starts to become impossible. When this point is reached, hierarchies give way to networks in which decision-making is distributed. ‘The intricate networks that tightly connect us together’, said the Political Scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon, ‘amplify and transmit any shock’. In other words, the interconnectedness of the global system reaches a point where a breakdown anywhere means a breakdown everywhere.

Ted Kaczynski argued that ‘as society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them…a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage, the machines will be in effective control’. I seriously doubt that we can adopt the Unabomber's solution of relinquishing technology. We have built ourselves technology traps, in the sense that when technology fails, all most of us can do is wait for technology to come back and rescue us. That it will not is just unthinkable. If it did not, the death toll would be catastrophic.

Like it or not, the extropian solution to problems caused by technology (which is to produce more and better technology) is the only viable one we have, assuming you do not advocate the culling of billions.

>Doomsday: The day Humanity gets wiped from the face of the planet might be closer than we think, according to Kurzweil's destructive timeline”.

If a possible doomsday event could help devise solutions to evade a definite doomsday event, I say it is worth persuing. We know Earth will be able to support life for a limited period only. The Sun is not going to shine forever. Either we develop the technological capability to migrate to and possibly terraform alien worlds (which would very likely require biotech, nanotech and computer tech sufficiently powerful to trigger a transition to posthumanity) or we stay here and wait to die along with the rest of Earth's life.

Extropia,

Throwing moneymaking sweettalk (“Look! We've discovered the [FAKE] fountain of youth!) onto people won't aid the general public in digesting the 'magic' chocolate covered pill you're throwing at them.

“… assuming you do not advocate the culling of billions.”
Are you saying that people who aren't submissive to your (Singularity) beliefs are cold blooded murderers?

Oh my. How “persuasive”. Calling someone a murderer just because they refuse to follow your cult/religion, just like the Christian Crusades of the early 10th-15th century. Killing innocents because they worship God, but don't worship Jesus Christ.

Hitler-style Submissive mind control isn't “the only viable [solution] we have”.
———–

Kurzweil's Singularity will severely restrict the people's ability to think for themselves. Uploading your own *brain* to a man-made supercomputer is a very dangerous concept – The Main Concept- of Singularity, which leaves the door wide open for abuse. The World Wide Web (aka the Internet) isn't embedded directly into our brains, dictating what we do, what we think, what we eat and so on. However, the Internet (if harnessed correctly), can be very influential in our daily lives, from the people we interact with to the products we buy.

You can't compare Kurzweil's Singularity with the World Wide Web, simply because the Internet isn't plugged directly into our brains, *dictating* our thoughts, our metabolisms etc 100%.

Even with Kurzweil's Singularity, we wouldn't be able to *live forever*.

Man cannot be trusted to do the *right* thing for society. Kurzweil and his followers are images of the flawed man (human beings), are they not?

Hans Moravec's prediction of a select few corrupt/rich individuals controlling the entire world's population is extremely likely to happen with Kurzweil's Singularity.

>Throwing moneymaking sweettalk (“Look! We've discovered the [FAKE] fountain of youth!) onto people won't aid the general public in digesting the 'magic' chocolate covered pill you're throwing at them”.

I do not recall saying anything about a fountain of youth, fake or otherwise. But, since you brought it up…

Everybody knows that aging is inevitable. We learn this from life experience- we see people around us grow old and realise the same process must surely happen to us, our children, our grandchildren and all generations.

There was another law just as provable from life experience, 'what goes up must come down'. Anybody who throws an object into the sky knows this to be true. Before long, the object falls back to the ground.

However, it turned out that this was no law of nature at all, just a consequence of innadequate technology. The Voyager spaceprobe was thrown up, and it is not going to come back down. This is because we threw it up with enough force to achieve escape velocity.

Similarly, we can ask if sensence really is an immutable law of nature, or merely a consequence of inferior medical technology. If we can one day manipulate matter with atomic precision, that could lead to strategies for carrying out repairs at the cellular and subcellular level.

Still, one aught not to downplay the immense challenge of defeating sensence. Jason Pontin (editor-in-chief of Technology review) wrote this cautionary passage: “Our wonderful increase in human lifespan over the last 300 years has come from treating trauma, acute conditions, and chronic disease. I can imagine further, significant increases in lifespan from treating the diseases of old age like senile diabetes, heart disease, etc.. But that is a very different thing than truly reversing aging. [Leonard] Hayflick's point, supported by Robin Holliday, and most other major biogerontologists, is that aging is a systemic wearing out of the entire organism, and that natural selection has synchronized the multiple causes of aging. This makes treating aging itself a very hard problem – probably one that we will never solve”.

Of course, I am not human, so the synchronized multiple causes of aging affect me only so long as I am tied to my current primary. Extending and enhancing the pattern-recognition and pattern-matching capabilities of IT might allow me to transfer to a replacment primary when the current one wears out.

>Are you saying that people who aren't submissive to your (Singularity) beliefs are cold blooded murderers?”.

No. I was pointing out that geological records tell us global extinction events have happened several times in the past, and that astronomy informs us that global extinction will happen again in the future. Asteroid/comet strikes, the limited lifespan of the Sun, the heat-death of the universe (or the Big Rip, or the Big Crunch), are all events that will happen at some point in time. If our technologies can be developed to meet these challenges, we might stand a chance of avoiding the extinction of our species (or whatever species we will have evolved into as a consequence of technological evolution). If we cannot, or will not, the death of billions is a certainty.

Along with natural disasters there is also the environmental impact of resource depletion, pollution and waste caused by industrial practices. None of these are an inevitable consequence of technology; merely the result of inferior technology. These problems can be eliminated, but to do so would require very powerful technologies that could be used for evil purposes. A utopian future in which positive technologies are adopted while wholley avoiding negative ones is not going to happen, since we are talking about two sides of the same coin.

>Oh my. How “persuasive”. Calling someone a murderer just because they refuse to follow your cult/religion'.

I doubt you understand what it is that defines a 'cult'. If you did know, you would realise that transhumanism/extropianism does not have any of the key characteristics. But there are definitely psuedoreligious aspects about the movement.

>Hitler-style Submissive mind control isn't “the only viable [solution] we have”.

Oh no! Godwin's law comes into effect: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

Psychology already has mind control. One example is the creation of false memories. Professor Elizabeth Loftus wrote, “I’ve spent three decades learning how to alter people’s memories. I’ve even gone as far as planting entirely false memories into the minds of ordinary people — memories such as being lost in a shopping mall or even witnessing demonic possession as a child… all planted through the power of suggestion”. Any of the pathways to singularity can potentially lead to more effective ways to exploit the vulnerabilities of human cognition.

>Kurzweil's Singularity will severely restrict the people's ability to think for themselves”.

This is not a new fear. Somebody once said of an older technology, “this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories. They will trust to [the technology] and not remember of themselves”. I quoted Socrates, who was referring to a basic method of outsourcing cognition- writing something down rather than relying purely on memory. It is only fair to point out that Socrates had incredible powers of recollection as a result of relying on his memory and not relying on written records. However, I think most people would agree that the invention of writing turned out to be more of a gain than a loss.

Today, some people raise concerns about outsourcing cognition to search engines and apps. “Why memorise when you can Google”, as the saying goes. I did not bother to wrack my brains trying to recall that Socrates quote. I entered a couple of keywords into Google and got it to 'recall' the quote for me. Once we are online all the time, thanks to advances in truly portable devices and wireless communications, the temptation to Google rather than recall will become even greater. But, again, new feats of cognition will be made possible, even as old ones are diminished or lost.

As for Kurzweil's nanobot approach, the ability to create any set of new neural connections, create new hybrid biological and computer networks and to interface directly with machine intelligences in order to handle patterns in financial or scientific data that our brains are currently ill-eqipped to deal with, may require us to sacrifice some cognitive skills, but would enable many more.

>You can't compare Kurzweil's Singularity with the World Wide Web, simply because the Internet isn't plugged directly into our brains, *dictating* our thoughts, our metabolisms etc 100%.”.

Some people feared that computer viruses would destroy the medium in which they live. We rely on computers for many mission-critical tasks, so such an outcome could be very bad. Fortunately, an immune system evolved and is largely effective (but not perfect, obviously). Interfacing the Web directly with our brains and learning how to achieve two-way communication between neural and computer networks will open up the path to much more dangerous malware, but that will increase the drive to impliment effective countermeasures.

But, if you believe the potential dangers of the IA approach outweigh the potential benefits, you can choose not to adopt technologies relevant to it.

Hi Extropia,

The goal of (non-Kurzweil/General Purpose) Singularity is to “develop the technological capability” to extend our lives, 'migrate to another universe' etc using *submissive* mind control technologies, is it not?

> “Of course, I am not human, so the synchronized multiple causes of aging affect me only so long as I am tied to my current primary”

lol, Don't be ridiculous. Singularity isn't here yet (thank god!); you are *roleplaying* as a Second Life/Virtual Worlds/Metaverse *avatar*. Until Kurzweil's mindwash interface gets developed *for the masses*.

However, Roleplaying *isn't* the issue at hand here.

> “But, if you believe the potential dangers of [Kurzweil's Singularity] approach outweigh the potential benefits, you can choose not to adopt technologies relevant to it.”

Yeah, right. With Kurzweil and his fanbase pushing it into the mainstream, people won't have any choice.

It's the classic 'Join us or DIE a horrible death' strategy that Kurzweil and his fanbase are very likely to apply to humanity.
——————

You have to be able to think, in order to perceive what “fear” is. Kurzweil's Singularity will no doubt nullify the inherent fear mechanisms (among other things) via unwilling, submissive mind control.

Computer-controlled metabolism: Oops, Singularity Metabolism Controller 17.3 developed an internal hardware fault! Immune system shutting down in 3… 2… 1…

Perhaps in 500=1000 years (Futurama time, yay!), the technology will be mature enough, 100% non-corrupt, controlled by the *general public* and error-free for humanity to adopt it.

“Sacrifice cognitive skills” = Sacrifice free will, free thinking, freedom. It's place is in research labs, for eternity*.

That's it for now. I've already made my mind up about the issue (as you can obviously see).

By the way, thinking of AGI made me wonder what ever happened to Ben Goertzel and the virtual pets. If you remember he was working with the Electronic Sheep back in 2007 to develop a series of individualized, learning and evolving virtual pets for SL and possibly other virtual worlds.

Anyway, I found the following article which suggests the project is bogged down and on the back burner, but maybe not completely dead???
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/03/gamesetinte...

Did any of you ever actually see any of his SL virtual pets? Are there any still active in SL?

I read a good part of Dr. Goertzel’s book “The Hidden Pattern” and found it very thought provoking. For one thing, he seems to have a broader view of AGI (somewhat less anthropomorphic) than the stuff I've read from Kurzweil. Of course, he is far more specialized in the AGI field than Kurzweil.

Curious if anyone knows anything else about the status of his AI virtual pets.

>lol, Don't be ridiculous. Singularity isn't here yet (thank god!); you are *roleplaying* as a Second Life/Virtual Worlds/Metaverse *avatar*.'

Well, actually, it is the primary who is roleplaying. If I were roleplaying, I would be Extropia DaSilva assuming another identity. But, inworld and online I am just me.

How will the Singularity get here? What will cause the emergence of its enabling technologies? No technology ever appeared out of nowhere. Instead, novel technologies form from combinations of existing ones. Occasionally we capture and harness novel phenomena like radio waves or X-rays but, again, we can only do this through combinations of existing technologies. Novel technologies formed from combinations of existing ones become, in turn, potential components for the construction of futher technologies.

It is therefore a certainty that any and all of the amazing/scary technologies Kurzweil talks about will stand atop a pyramid of ancestral technologies that made it possible. We will have many intermediate technologies leading down from something that sounds totally incredible (to us) to stuff that is pretty ordinary (to us). I think it is the process of creating novel technologies by combining old ones that helps people *normalize* technology. What does that mean? Well, today we have access to technologies that would have staggered the minds of our ancestors. But we do not suffer from future shock, being surrounded by stuff that was once thought science-fiction. That is because we developed such technology through round after round of combinatorial evolution, harnessing the combined effects of existing technologies. We took technologies we were used to, and created novel technologies that opened up possibilities that were not too much of a leap from what we were familiar with. (Although, sometimes harnessing novel phenomena can result in big leaps. An atomic explosion is an enormous leap from a chemical explosion like TNT.)

Entering full-immersion virtual worlds, transferring your mind into a robot body/brain, replacing organs and metabolic processes with medical nanobots sounds unbelievable/scary to us, but to the society that lives with such tech it will probably seem as ordinary as logging-in to an online world, controlling a videogame through thought with an Emotiv headset, or restoring loss of hearing through cochlear implants, because there will be many intermediate steps, each one of which is not all that radical, starting with the technologies and knowhow we have today.

>The goal of (non-Kurzweil/General Purpose) Singularity is to “develop the technological capability” to extend our lives, 'migrate to another universe' etc using *submissive* mind control technologies, is it not?'.

Goal is not the right word. For that implies the express purpose of such technology is to take control over people's minds. Transhumanists seek, instead, to give the individual more control over their own body and mind. No transhumanist would advocate taking control over your nanobots, causing you to have hallucinations or mental breakdowns or loss of free will or anything. Only if you gave express permission would a transhumanist control your nanobots, and only within the boundaries that you set.

But, there are bad people and organizations in the world. I think Kurzweil's tech could be used in all the harmful ways you fear. There IS the potential to enslave people, to rob them of free-will, to impose a minority's belief-system on the majority.

>Yeah, right. With nobody else except Kurzweil and his fanbase pushing it into the mainstream, people won't have any choice.'

People always have a choice. Consider combinatorial evolution again. It is an evolutionary process because some novel technologies become widely adopted and, in time, become the building blocks for new tech. But, some novel technologies are not adopted and become nothing. The latter would certainly be the case if the risks outweigh the benefits. If enough people feel like you do, we will not climb up that particular mountain peak. If enough people feel like I do, we will.

>Do we really want to sacrifice *freedom* (and become a lab rat) with our free will taken away from us?'.

In order for something to be taken away, you have to possess it in the first place;)

Extropia,

this blog isn't your *personal* platform to advertise your Singularity. By pretending to reply to the comments I leave. Please, point people to *your* own blog instead of using Gwyn as an incubation host.

> “In order for something to be taken away, you have to possess it in the first place;)”

Our current freedom is heaps better than being in a dumbed down state of Kurzweil's *man made* corrupt Singularity.

> “I think Kurzweil's tech could be used in all the harmful ways you fear”

It's pure *fact*. The general public won't control the technology; rich right-wing fantasy buffoons (like yourself perhaps?) will control it. Not the current government.

> “People always have a choice.”

No, people don't. Do young children have a choice when it comes to vaccinations?

Kurzweil and his loyal subjects know that 80% of humanity is too occupied and clumsy to realise the major pitfall: Transforming ordinary people into Infants, in order to achieve their goal of a machine-controlled society.

> “Only if you gave express permission would a transhumanist control your nanobots, and only within the boundaries that you set.”

Obfuscation of Truth. Hidden clauses in lengthy contracts. Brainwashing the medical society into submission first.

Just like adware/spyware hidden in common software installers.
————————

Replacing organs/vessels etc? I think you've seen too much episodes of Dr Who. Cybermen, anyone?

You are completely *in denial* if you think Humanity wants anything to do with your Singularity, once they realise what you are actually planning to do to them.

Extropia,

this blog isn't your *personal* platform to advertise your Singularity. By pretending to reply to the comments I leave. Please, point people to *your* own blog instead of using Gwyn as an incubation host.

> “In order for something to be taken away, you have to possess it in the first place;)”

Our current freedom is heaps better than being in a dumbed down state of Kurzweil's *man made* corrupt Singularity.

> “I think Kurzweil's tech could be used in all the harmful ways you fear”

It's pure *fact*. The general public won't control the technology; rich right-wing fantasy buffoons (like yourself perhaps?) will control it. Not the current government.

> “People always have a choice.”

No, people don't. Do young children have a choice when it comes to vaccinations?

Kurzweil and his loyal subjects know that 80% of humanity is too occupied and clumsy to realise the major pitfall: Transforming ordinary people into Infants, in order to achieve their goal of a machine-controlled society.

> “Only if you gave express permission would a transhumanist control your nanobots, and only within the boundaries that you set.”

Obfuscation of Truth. Hidden clauses in lengthy contracts. Brainwashing the medical society into submission first.

Just like adware/spyware hidden in common software installers.
————————

Replacing organs/vessels etc? I think you've seen too much episodes of Dr Who. Cybermen, anyone?

You are completely *in denial* if you think Humanity wants anything to do with your Singularity, once they realise what you are actually planning to do to them.

In case you haven't noticed, NetAntwerp, Extropia's the author of the essay so she's pretty much allowed to “propagate ideas that Humanity will never accept” if she so wishes She's not using anything as a “cover”, she's definitely entitled to answer to each and every one of the comments to her own essay…

Thanks for some of your comments too, though. I've refrained from commenting on them on my own, but I might add that I personally don't “believe” that Transhumanism — like many similar theories and ideas — will not give us “a better world” by, well, pushing everybody to use their ideas (and technology). You can't get a better world without getting better people too — and to become a better person, you cannot rely on any outside source except for your own humble self. While there are certainly several methods to turn you into a “better person”, only a few are guaranteed to work, and most human beings — by far the vast majority — are not interested in the least in becoming “better”, no matter if they claim otherwise.

So, I'm not interested in a “better world” either — not before I become a better person myself! And that I'm afraid will take time, much longer than pressing a button, going through the Singularity, and appearing as a transhumanist on the other side.

Then again, before I get accused of being a spiritual person (which I am!), I'll finish this comment just saying, “nevertheless, some transhumanists have interesting insights on some aspects of the impact of technology on our society, and ultimately, our selves”. Just for that reason, I quite welcome all transhumanists' ideas as comments or essays — I might totally disagree with them that “salvation through technology” will work (you will just get nastier human beings with superpowers ), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give technology a chance to improve at least the physical, mundane aspects of human life. A world with less problems — due to health issues, for instance, which can neatly be solved through technology — is definitely a slightly better world.

OK well it is only fair to admit when I have said something wrong so…

>No, people don't. Do young children have a choice when it comes to vaccinations?

This is true of course, and only one example of ways in which freedom of choice is sometimes denied at every stage in a person's life. I was therefore wrong to suggest people always have freedom of choice. But, they DO have the right to exercise what limited freedoms they have, in order to achieve the kind of society and lifestyle they would prefer. To do that, they need to be informed and not 'brainwashed' with exagerrated and innacurate information. Which brings me neatly to…

>By pretending to reply to the comments I leave, you are making yourself look completely *ridiculous*.'

In what sense am I *pretending* to reply? I can only agree with you to the extent that you are right. You ARE right in saying we risk sacrificing freedom of thought if we persist in outsourcing aspects of cognition to search engines, smart-phone apps and whatever machine intelligences get developed in the future. Who can deny that availability of information on the Web is controlled by Governments, some more than others? Countries like Britain and America impose selective restriction on social content, meaning content related to sexuality, gambling, illegal drugs and other topics that may be socially sensitive or perceived as offensive. Countries like Saudi Arabia impose pervasive restrictions on social content and access to internet tools such as email, internet hosting, search, translation and VoiP, and impose substantial restrictions on access to websites expressing views in opposition to those of the current government, or related to human rights. If you can filter and control the information that people access, you can in some sense influence their way of thinking. The more science learns about how the mind itself filters information, the more capable we can become at finding methods to imprint the 'right' information onto people's minds. If we gain DIRECT access to people's brains, perhaps through nanowires threaded through the nervous system that can control the firing of neurons, then methods of mind control can, potentially, become enormously effective.

But, you are wrong to assert that this is an absolute certainty and you are wrong to ignore the potential benefits that advances in NBIC (nano, bio, information technology and cognitive sciences) could bring to society and the individual. Your position is akin to somebody taking the fact that medical science can in principle be used to engineer pathogens and other kinds of bioweaponry, and then exagerrating that fact into a claim that medical science is dedicated to nothing less and nothing but the development and deployment of catastrophic plagues.

>Transforming ordinary people into Infants, in order to achieve their goal of a machine-controlled society.

Will this really be the impact of advances in biologically inspired technology and technology-infused biology (the trends Kurzweil focuses on)? One could just as plausibly say the goal is to alleviate us of the need to do drudge work, and to lift us out of the restrictions imposed on us by the limits of our current bodies and brains (that goes for robot bodies and brains as well as human).

>You are completely *in denial* if you think Humanity wants anything to do with your Singularity, once they realise what you are actually planning to do to them”.

You are absolutely right. People do not want to be exterminated by armies of superintelligent robots. People do not want their minds manipulated and controlled. People are wary of installing devices into their homes that “know when they get up, know when they open their fridge, know when they leave their house…know everything about that person”. People would campaign to prevent the development of such things, and boycott stores the sell them.

Of course, at the same time they opt to use the search engine that delivers the information they need and ignore the advertisements that do not focus on their needs (driving a selective pressure among search engine providers to develop more effective ways of getting into people's heads and lives in order to deliver more relevant info/adverts). They get frustrated whenever a machine fails to understand what they are trying to achieve, or when they must perform tasks they would prefer not to do (driving the evolution of smarter autonomous systems) they insist medical technology persists in its efforts to treat neurological and psychiatric disorders (encouraging the development of increasingly sophisticated models of the human brain, and brain/machine interfaces).

Oh, and they install smart meters in their homes, the very devices that “know when they get up, know when they open their fridge, know when they leave their house”, according to Gaelle Le Roux researcher of smart grid technology for the consultancy firm Accenture.

So yeah, they will rise up against a supposed shadowy organization of 'elites' working to produce machines to replace them or devices to rob them of freedom and privacy, while at the same time driving the evolution of technologies that could be used for such purposes with every purchase decision they make.

@Gwyn,

The widespread use of the polio vaccine pretty much destroyed the iron lung industry. This just goes to show that any solution has its downsides as well as its upsides. Just think of all the people who lost their jobs! Of course, at the same time it shows that the new problems caused by a technological solution are not always as bad or worse than the problems it fixed. Few people would argue that it would have been better to not develop the polio vaccine and keep the iron-lung industry. Few people would agree that we would be better off never having developed the computers and the Internet, even if that would have negated the possibility of botnets, malware and Spam.

If you accept that technology evolves (albeit in ways different to natural selection in biological systems), then you must also accept that novel technologies will inevitably have a detrimental effect on some aspects of society. Evolutionary change ALWAYS has a negative effect on some parts of the fitness landscape that drives it, or else it could not drive it in the first place:). That does not mean to say you should jump to the conclusion that the worst-case scenario will inevitably happen as Netantwerp does, but nor should you expect a utopian outcome in which all problems are resolved, everybody is happy and nothing is wrong ever again.

Transhumanists do not actually believe in any such utopia. It is the critics of the movement who perpetuate the myth that we do.

> “install smart meters in their homes, the very devices that “know when they get up, know when they open their fridge, know when they leave their house”"

Most “smart” meters are used for billing purposes, replacing the thousands of meter readers who read everyone's power meters every month.

Hardly anyone uses the overzealous/individual reporting system, except for those on “Energy Saver” TV programs and platform demonstrators.

> “Your position is akin to somebody taking the fact that medical science can in principle be used to engineer pathogens and other kinds of bioweaponry”

Singularity's main concern: It's being developed by Kurzweil and his loyal fanbase.
Seeking money, fame etc. Including Kurzweil himself, trying to prolong *his* own life.

Conventional medical science has researchers around the globe, working for the *people*. Conventional researchers don't work for some greedy aging man and his followers.

>”methods of mind control can, potentially, become enormously effective”

Mind control doesn't really have any therapeutic benefits. Behavioral modification, including a total submissive state(Master-Slave relationship style) and perhaps an artificially induced coma. Something that Humanity doesn't want, as I've stated several times before.

Flow rate controls, in/out of order executions etc doesn't really help the frustrated soul.
———–

If the spirit world really exists (like Gwyn and I both believe, Kurzweil's Singularity probably won't work, as you really can't bind spirits to Machines.

Some people believe that ghosts exist (with alarming evidence), while others don't, due to the lack of scientifically reproducible evidence. Except photos with ghost references from early to mid 1900s (way before CGI ghosts were invented).

Evidence that spirits exist (people's *lucid* recollections), are quite staggering.

> “install smart meters in their homes, the very devices that “know when they get up, know when they open their fridge, know when they leave their house”"

Most “smart” meters are used for billing purposes, replacing the thousands of meter readers who read everyone's power meters every month.

Hardly anyone uses the overzealous/individual reporting system, except for those on “Energy Saver” TV programs and platform demonstrators.

> “Your position is akin to somebody taking the fact that medical science can in principle be used to engineer pathogens and other kinds of bioweaponry”

Singularity's main concern: It's being developed by Kurzweil and his loyal fanbase.
Seeking money, fame etc. Including Kurzweil himself, trying to prolong *his* own life.

Conventional medical science has researchers around the globe, working for the *people*. Conventional researchers don't work for some greedy aging man and his followers.

>”methods of mind control can, potentially, become enormously effective”

Mind control doesn't really have any therapeutic benefits. Behavioral modification, including a total submissive state(Master-Slave relationship style) and perhaps an artificially induced coma. Something that Humanity doesn't want, as I've stated several times before.

Flow rate controls, in/out of order executions etc doesn't really help the frustrated soul.
———–

If the spirit world really exists (like Gwyn and I both believe, Kurzweil's Singularity probably won't work, as you really can't bind spirits to Machines.

Some people believe that ghosts exist (with alarming evidence), while others don't, due to the lack of scientifically reproducible evidence. Except photos with ghost references from early to mid 1900s (way before CGI ghosts were invented).

Evidence that spirits exist (people's *lucid* recollections), are quite staggering.

Gwyneth, I've followed your blog for a few years and always enjoyed your articles (as well as Extropia's), but I don't remember you writing about “becoming a better person”, although it doesn't surprise me from the humanitarian tone of your writings.

> While there are certainly several methods to turn you into a “better person”, only a few are guaranteed to work

If you were so inclined I'd certainly be interested to hear what you consider those methods to be in some future article. I wonder if they are in any way related to your involvement with SL…

Personally, I believe something generally in the spirit of transhumanism is very likely (although the reality will probably be vastly different from what we are able to imagine now). I believe it will challenge many of our deepest assumptions and beliefs including what it means to be an individual, to have free will, to be alive, to die, to have special relationships with others, to be “human”, and much more.

I believe that individuals, groups and societies will be faced with profound choices regarding the above beliefs. I suspect they will make different choices resulting is an diaspora, maybe even an event analogous to the vast number of new species that arose when multi-celled organisms first evolved.

(One of my favorite authors is Greg Egan, and especially his book “Diaspora”
http://www.amazon.com/Diaspora-Greg-Egan/dp/006... .)

Anyway, this may somewhat relate to your comment on what it means to “become a better person” because, we as individuals and societies may be forced to define to ourselves what it means to be “human”, and especially what parts of being human we most value and what parts we are willing to leave behind for other pursuits.

However, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on what it means to be a better person, whether or not it is couched in such futuristic concerns.

I want to elaborate a little on the types of conceptual level challenges I believe we will face.

When I was a kid I remember hearing people say things like “I’d rather die than lose my legs”. That level of identification with one’s physical body always seemed strange to me. I’m rather fond of my legs, but I can’t imagine preferring death over living without my legs. I always felt I could adapt and lead a happy life even if I were to lose my legs. In fact, my human body in general is not what I value most about my humanity.

Of the concerns I listed in the previous comment, maybe the one that I most value is having special relationships with others. By “special relationships” I mean family relationships (parent-child, sibling, etc.), romantic relationships (intimacy), collegial relationships (working with others to achieve things), etc. To me that association of semi-independent individuals associating with each other is what seems most profoundly “human”.

However, I don’t consider my physical embodiment in a biological body to be what makes me “human”. It may be possible for there to be a reality where individuals associate with each other in special relationships without them being embodied in anything like the way we are now.

I’m challenged to understand what individuality means, but I’ve loosened my concepts of individuality in terms of the role that personality and memories play. I’ve come a long way toward accepting “free will” as a useful higher level concept, but not a low-level fundamental part of reality (fundamental physics does not allow for free will).

>Most “smart” meters are used for billing purposes, replacing the thousands of meter readers who read everyone's power meters every month”.

Right, but I was not aware that smart meters could potentially have the capabilities Le Roux spoke of. The point I was trying to get across is that people might install something for one purpose (monitor energy usage, say) without being aware that it can also be monitoring their every movement. I can also imagine devices that, individually, have next to zero impact on a person's privacy but when networked together an all-pervasive survelliance system emerges, one hidden from people because it requires a machine intelligence capable of tracking billions of datapoints to see how those innocent and useful little gadgets can be gathering such exhaustive details about your personal life.

I think people simplify things when they worry about a hypothetical 'mind control' device. I doubt that such technology will come in the form of a convenient headset or vial full of brain-scanning nanobots. There will be far more stealthy and undetectable forms of surveillance and mind control than that.

>If the spirit world really exists (like Gwyn and I both believe), Kurzweil's Singularity probably won't work, as you really can't bind spirits to Machines.'

If you have ever watched a robot, you will know that it does not display the kinds of behaviours that we recognise as evidence of an intelligent, conscious mind. It is still true to say that no mobile robot can navigate and manipulate the physical environment as well as a child, let alone an adult.

I think the most reasonable explanation for this is that, up until 1990, computer power in mobile robotics was sufficient to build a neural net of about 1000 'neurons'. That was substantially less than what a fly's brain posesses let alone a mammal or primate. Even today, our most powerful supercomputers can manage biologically accurate models of about a million neurons. That is sufficient to model one neocortical column, but the neocortex is comprised of a million columns. So to me the obvious explanation for lack of mind in machines is that, so far, they have been nowhere near 'brainy' enough (and you have to build brains the right way. Merely increasing computing power is not enough).

If, when we have finally copied in detail the structures and functions of brains, still nothing like a mind awakens in our robots, then we might speculate about a spirit world forever seperating consciousness and machines.

'Evidence that spirits exist (people's *lucid* recollections), are quite staggering'.

Yes well I have studied enough examples of optical, auditory and cognitive illusions to be rather untrustworthy of personal annecdotes. Micheal Persinger has shown how powerful magnetic fields can sometimes cause people to have deeply spritual experiences, and Vilanur Ramachandran has described how a quarter of his patients with temporal lobe epilepsy reported deeply moving religious experiences. That is not to say that all encounters with ghosts and spirits can be said to result from temporal lobe epilepsy. But the brain does not just perceive the world, it creates it too. And, sometimes, it makes us see, hear, and feel things that have no objective existence.

> “I think people simplify things when they worry about a hypothetical 'mind control' device.”

It (mass mind-control) isn't hypothetical when only a few select individuals, namely Kurzweil and his followers are developing such technologies, merely to prolong their *own* lives while screwing around with the rest of the public with mass experiments (hasn't happened yet, will happen in the future I'm sure) and self-serving video announcements.

If Kurzweil and his followers were really caring about the public, they'd take a total hands-off approach. Baking the cake, rather than baking the cake and eating a huge portion.

> “There will be far more stealthy and undetectable forms of surveillance and mind control than that”

Stealthy techniques usually relies on people's ignorance. Hiding 'secret' clauses in Licence Agreements, for instance. Companies tricking us because not everyone reads their 100-essays length, technically worded EULA.

Stealthy or not, submissive mind control and brain surveillance – it just *isn't* what humanity wants, period.

> “optical, auditory and cognitive illusions”

Are these examples 'optical, auditory and cognitive (man made) illusions?

1. Plants that witnessed horrible crimes actually pointing in the direction of the killer (when present), whilest the Plant is electrically stimulated (Scientifically Proven)

2. Dead collegues/family members OR the living appearing in people's dreams, *lucid* situations, warning people about imminent danger? (Happens all the time)

3. pull-string dolls informing Police who the murderer is (Verified in Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction)

4. Clear images of dead collegues/family appearing in photographs (way before the digital age)

Yes, it's possible to create our own illusions, using well-known methods (Hypnosis, Drugs, Radiation and Chronic brain illness). Quite important to note that most genuine recollections weren't the result of scientific experimentation, medication or illegal drug use.

————————————————-

Kurzweil's Singularity isn't transhumanism. Why? because Kurzweil and his followers control everything. Unlike Traditional Science, which is governed by worldwide scientific experts.

Kurzweil isn't conquering anything but rather, trying to get more people to fund his selfish endeavors.

No wonder Stephen Hawking didn't mention Kurzweil *one bit* in his transhuminism speech a couple months earlier. Hawing probably recognises Kurzweil's fanatic greed.

** Transhumanism/Singularity believers shouldn't be putting all their wishes on the Greedy Man who's out to save his *own* life, not anybody else's. By 'baking the cake AND eating it', so to speak. **

> “I think people simplify things when they worry about a hypothetical 'mind control' device.”

It (mass mind-control) isn't hypothetical when only a few select individuals, namely Kurzweil and his followers are developing such technologies, merely to prolong their *own* lives while screwing around with the rest of the public with mass experiments (hasn't happened yet, will happen in the future I'm sure) and self-serving video announcements.

If Kurzweil and his followers were really caring about the public, they'd take a total hands-off approach. Baking the cake, rather than baking the cake and eating a huge portion.

> “There will be far more stealthy and undetectable forms of surveillance and mind control than that”

Stealthy techniques usually relies on people's ignorance. Hiding 'secret' clauses in Licence Agreements, for instance. Companies tricking us because not everyone reads their 100-essays length, technically worded EULA.

Stealthy or not, submissive mind control and brain surveillance – it just *isn't* what humanity wants, period.

> “optical, auditory and cognitive illusions”

Are these examples 'optical, auditory and cognitive (man made) illusions?

1. Plants that witnessed horrible crimes actually pointing in the direction of the killer (when present), whilest the Plant is electrically stimulated (Scientifically Proven)

2. Dead collegues/family members OR the living appearing in people's dreams, *lucid* situations, warning people about imminent danger? (Happens all the time)

3. pull-string dolls informing Police who the murderer is (Verified in Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction)

4. Clear images of dead collegues/family appearing in photographs (way before the digital age)

Yes, it's possible to create our own illusions, using well-known methods (Hypnosis, Drugs, Radiation and Chronic brain illness). Quite important to note that most genuine recollections weren't the result of scientific experimentation, medication or illegal drug use.

————————————————-

Kurzweil's Singularity isn't transhumanism. Why? because Kurzweil and his followers control everything. Unlike Traditional Science, which is governed by worldwide scientific experts.

Kurzweil isn't conquering anything but rather, trying to get more people to fund his selfish endeavors.

No wonder Stephen Hawking didn't mention Kurzweil *one bit* in his transhuminism speech a couple months earlier. Hawing probably recognises Kurzweil's fanatic greed.

** Transhumanism/Singularity believers shouldn't be putting all their wishes on the Greedy Man who's out to save his *own* life, not anybody else's. By 'baking the cake AND eating it', so to speak. **

>When I was a kid I remember hearing people say things like “I’d rather die than lose my legs”.

Aha, this sort of gives me the excuse to talk about societal fixes versus technological fixes.

You probably know about thalidamide, a drug given to pregnant mothers to ease morning sickness, but which had the horrid side effect of causing defects in the unborn infant. So-called thalidamide babies were born without arms or legs.

These children were given prosthetic limbs. At that time you could either have a hand that looked realistic but was practically useless. Or you could have a grasping device that looked nothing like a human hand, but which was much more effective at picking stuff up. Most parents opted for the natural-looking but useless artificial hand, for the simple reason that the other made them uncomfortable.

Another example of this attitude is wheelchairs versus artificial legs. In terms of mobility a wheelchair is still the best option, but society compells people to have artificial legs.

I have little doubt that, one day, artificial limbs will match and even surpass all of the functionalities of natural limbs. But, until that day, we should try to fix attitudes and allow disabled people to adopt whatever is most functional, not what makes us able-bodied folk feel most comfortable.

>Are these examples 'optical, auditory and cognitive (man made) illusions?

I am not sure what you mean by 'man made'. A cognitive illusion is the result of the brain having to use short-cuts and assumptions when processing the information our senses gather. This is simply because we are immersed in so much information that we would suffer overload, if our brains were not highly selective with regards to what perceptions make it into conscious awareness.

As for your examples, personally, I do not have enough evidence to know if your examples are genuine or not. You might have heard of Charles Fort, who dedicated much of his life to scouring scientific journals and newspapers for “damned data”, by which he meant records of unusual phenomena that fell outside, or contradicted, current scientific understanding. Fort (and the magazine Fortean times, which continues to collect dammed data) amassed an incredible range of anomolous phenomena, and not all of it is easily dismissed as illusion.

Fort rejected scientific reductionism and compartmentalization, saying “the fate of all explanation is to close one door only to have another fly wide open”. So, in the Fortean spirit I shall just say that your examples might just be what is claimed.

>One of my favorite authors is Greg Egan'.

Mine too! Egan explored a possibility that has bothered me in his story 'Permutation City'. As you are no doubt aware, no technology works perfectly first time. Rather, things tend to start off expensive and working none-too well, become cheaper and more reliable as time goes by and technologies are refined.

Assuming mind uploading follows the same path, that means early adopters would copy their minds using technology that works none-too-well. In Egan's story, the first upload survives just long enough to send the message 'this is like being buried alive, get me out of here' and for all subsequent uploads close to 100% choose termination.

So what are they complaining about? Well, it is a computationally-intensive task to crunch the maths responsible for the mind emulations. Typically, several minutes of RL computation is required for every second of simulated subjective awareness. Because of this, flesh-and-blood humans who wish to converse with 'copies' must either slow down their perceptions by a factor of seventeen or put up with tremendous time delays. From the copies' POV, any human not slowed down just sounds like 'squeak'- too fast to be comprehended.

Secondly, there is a lot of smoke-and-mirrors going on. Eating a meal, for instance, is an experience 'faked from a patchwork of empirical rules'- indeed any experience results from a simplified, but functionally-equivilent model of biological processes. That is not to say the experience does not feel real-it does. But just knowing your perceptions are an illusion generated by computers in RL tends to drive people nuts. They are no longer connected with reality in the fundamental sense that flesh-and-blood people are.

Lastly, the legal system has yet to recognise 'copies' as people with full human rights. They are considered 'property' that the 'original' can turn off whenever the fancy takes him/her. Regardless of what the copy's 'memories' might lead him or her to believe, he or she has no claim to any property or relationships that the original had aquired or developed prior to copying. One 'copy', aware that his original is about to switch off the computer on which he 'exists', notes sadly that he is being 'ignored out of existance, the fate that befell his own shit'.

All in all, Egan does a great job of bringing futuristic (but nevertheless innadequate) technologies to life, and of considering the implications of such things on society and the individual.

>no technology works perfectly first time. Rather, things tend to start off expensive and working none-too well, become cheaper and more reliable as time goes by and technologies are refined.

That aspect bothers me as well. I imagine some people will feel compelled to adopt invasive, enhancing technologies as soon as they are marginally working, or just rumored to be working, in hopes of gaining a competitive leg up, or maybe just hoping to escape into fantasy worlds.

It doesn’t have to be things as exotic as mind uploads. It could be things as mundane as drugs to enhance athletic performance, increase energy, improve memory, or extend life span. It could be moderately exotic things like technology implants to provide enhanced senses or give you a more direct and intimate connection to simulated worlds. This likely represents an intensification of the decisions people already have to make now in terms of risk vs. benefit, and responsibility vs. temptation.

>All in all, Egan does a great job of bringing futuristic (but nevertheless innadequate) technologies to life, and of considering the implications of such things on society and the individual.

I love his brand of “hard science fiction” that attempts to extrapolate trends into the future and create a fictional context in which to consider risks and possibilities.

Another theme that Egan touches on in both Permutation City and Diaspora is people entrapping themselves their own isolated realities. In his novels these are very exotic realities, often with people lost inside some corner of their own mind. These are fascinating, and make you think, but one can tie them back to things that are less exotic.

I look at how much time people spend engaged with pulp fiction novels, TV and video games and wonder where this trend leads. Fiction books, TV and video game technology all have wonderful uses (like Greg Egan’s novels and SL), but also mindless, intoxicating uses, and it is the mindless intoxicating uses that many people seem most drawn to, sometimes to dramatic excess. What does it do to your mind to watch 8 hours of TV a day, or stay up all night playing a video game night after night. I watch some people around me doing this in RL and it seems to leave them in a zonked out zombie state w/ little practical benefit, or less dramatically just distracts them from dealing with real issues and taking advantage of real opportunities in their lives.

As technologies become more immersive and engaging will many people just drift off into fantasy worlds?

My take-away is to learn to practice discipline and moderation now because the temptations and risks may be much greater in the future.

@Extropia:

> “the legal system has yet to recognise 'copies' as people with full human rights. They are considered 'property' that the 'original' can turn off whenever the fancy takes him/her”

At present, there's absolutely *nothing* wrong in the Legal System, with respect to Virtual World Avatars.
They are *avatars* driven by “flesh and blood” people, not a fully adaptive Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Brain **Simulation** computer program.

> “In Egan's story, the first upload survives just long enough to send the message 'this is like being buried alive, get me out of here' and for all subsequent uploads close to 100% choose termination. “

Let's say that everyone on Earth uploads their brains onto man-made Computer Software. What happens then, I wonder. Who's going to maintain the machines? Who's going to keep the machines powered up?

Will Robots have total control of the real world, while remnants of Humanity dwell and rot in the fantasy simulations they created?

@Jeffrey:

> “As technologies become more immersive and engaging will many people just drift off into fantasy worlds?”

I Hope not! You'd literally starve yourself to death.

————————

Brain uploading is the pitfall of generic, non-Kurzweil Transhumanism. Those who upload their brains (and terminate their real self) are doomed to linger forever in the fantasy world they created.

Of course, all of this is rubbish if the “spirits driving body and soul” saying is valid.

Organ donation receivers often have a slightly different personality which relates to the donor, such as habits and food cravings.

>At present, there's absolutely *nothing* wrong in the Legal System, with respect to Virtual World Avatars.
They are *avatars* driven by “flesh and blood” people, not a fully adaptive Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Brain **Simulation** computer program.”

Right. I was referring to Greg Egan's story not current online worlds. Having said that, we are buidling ever-more complex models of the brain in our supercomputers and there is interest in replacing animal experiments with biologically-accurate virtual humans. None of this work has so far resulted in a sentient being 'waking up' inside cyberspace of course, but at what point does a model cross the line from being a mere simulation to an actual conscious awareness?

>Let's say that everyone on Earth uploads their brains onto man-made Computer Software. What happens then, I wonder. Who's going to maintain the machines? Who's going to generate the electricity? and so on.

Will Robots have total control of the real world, while remnants of Humanity dwell and rot in the fantasy simulations they created?

You are forgetting that progress in biologically-inspired technology and technology-infused biology, when developed to the level of sophistication required for uploading, would totally blur the distinction between the natural and the technological; between the human and the machine. More accurately, it would prove once and for all that no such distinction existed; that it was an illusion caused by our lack of sophistication in building systems within systems of machinary.

Remember, also, that machines break down today only because our methods of manufacturing are so unrefined. A hell of a lot of atoms need to be out of place in order for malfunctions to arise. If and when we have digital control over matter, and when autonomous systems have the intelligence to diagnose and correct their own problems (space probes on years-long journeys perform such diagnostics already, to some extent), the truism 'machines break down' will no longer hold.

As for uploads being stuck in fantasy worlds, I see no reason why that should be so. Yes, your software mind could control a biologically-accurate simulation of a body (an avatar) in cyberspace, but equally it could pilot a robot body with appropriate sensors for sound, sight, smell, touch and taste in the physical world. And, besides, you already ARE 'stuck in a fantasy world'. Your brain is not in direct contact with the real world. There are no sights and sounds entering your skull, only signals from the optic nerve, auditory canal and other sense organs. All that information is used to build a model that we call 'perception', a fantasy that (thanks to much fine-tuning by evolution) coincides with reality most of the time.

Far from being out of touch with reality, uploads with their greater capacity to build predictive models from more sophisticated sensory equipment (imagine vision extending to radio wavelengths at one end of the spectrum and gamma rays at the other and all other senses tapping into a similarly wide spectrum) would be closer to a comprehension of reality as it *really* is.

>Of course, all of this is rubbish if the “spirits driving body and soul” concept is valid.

Yes, it would be most interesting if the whole brain and nervous system was modelled, capturing (as far as we could tell) all of the functions of the biological system, and still nothing like a conscious mind emerges. Perhaps discredited ideas like a spirit driving body and soul (discredited by scientists and most contemporary philosophers, that is) would then deserve reconsideration?

On the other hand, if future machines do seem to awaken to sentience, that would not refute the 'spirit hypothesis', since its proponents could claim that sprits were merely waiting for machines to cross a threshold of complexity before they were deemed to be suitable vessels for souls to inhabit.

Extropia:

1. Machines in the future *aren't* going to last forever, no matter how “refined” the manufacturing process is.

1a. “Digital control over matter” – one of Rosedale (Linden)'s keynote warm-up ideas, nothing more. For
another 100 years or so, at least.

2. Less than 1% of the brain has actually been represented with man-made Computer Software. Yes, less than
ONE percent (2009).

3. No, we aren't stuck in a “fantasy world” at present (do you even know what a *fantasy* is)?

4. Once everyone uploads their brains onto machinery, where do we go from there? Still not answered.

5. Organ receivers often inherit the traits/habits of the donor, such as habits and food cravings.

People are highly unlikely to read excessively long comments, which means most people are probably just skim-reading most of the comments here, if they do stumble on this page.

Writing *lengthy* replies to someone, regurgitating other people's research as well as adding some fictitious works of your own aren't going to seduce the masses with your secretly pro-Kurzweil messages and antics.

Kurzweil's greedy ambition of having the contents of his brain *dumped* on a computer will ultimately be his downfall. Only a fool would pay his/her hard-earned money (Singularity “University”!!) to discuss what we're discussing right here with the greed-driven “cult” leader himself. Of course, people who actually does pay attention to all the comments will realise that Extropia herself has never directly commented on Kurzweil's motives and antics, and therefore a hardcore *fan* of his submissive, under-the-radar mind-control agenda.

> “You are forgetting that progress in biologically-inspired technology and technology-infused biology, when
> developed to the level of sophistication required for uploading, would totally blur the distinction between
> the natural and the technological; between the human and the machine”

Humanity would want this, because…?

>1. Machines in the future *aren't* going to last forever, no matter how “refined” the manufacturing process is.

It was not my intention to claim machines would last forever. Arguments from mainstream cosmology inform us that the ability to do work (essential for information processing and maintainence of physical systems) will not be possible in the far, far future. What I meant was, machines breaking down on a regular basis (on human-relevant timescales of years and decades) would not happen (or happen very rarely) if machines were built to atomic precision. If and when technology becomes autopoietic (from the Greek for “self creating”) machines will be able to diagnose and repair whatever faults may occasionally arise. Maintanence work such as keeping the global or trans-planetary power grid running would be automated. Indeed, probably everything we now consider 'work' could be left to intelligent automated systems, freeing up posthumans to concern themselves with whatever problems and goals are relevant to their society and selves.

>1a. “Digital control over matter” – one of Rosedale (Linden)'s keynote warm-up ideas, nothing more. For
another 100 years or so, at least.

It might not happen at all. Drexlerian nanotechnology has been criticised as infeasible by scientists like Richard Jones. It is worth reading his blog for some informed objections to ideas promoted by Drexler, Frietas and Merkle. Assuming it does take at least 100 years, well so what? I am a digital person and I exist for as long as A) someone or something roleplays me and B) the rest of the community act as if they believe I exist. The lifespan of any one primary is an important but not ultimate limitation on MY lifespan.

>
2. Less than 1% of the brain has actually been represented with man-made Computer Software. Yes, less than
ONE percent (2009).

Yes I know. This is probably a 'never in your lifetime' argument. The opinion of most neuroscientists is that reverse-engineering the brain is indeed a far-future prospect (Kurzweil disagrees of course, but is his data more reliable than the opinions of neuroscientists? Hmmm….). Again, why should I care? See above.

>3. No, we aren't stuck in a “fantasy world” at present (do you even know what a *fantasy* is)?

Yes. A fantasy is something other than reality as it *really* is. I did say that evolution has fine-tuned our predictive models so that subjectivity coincides with reality most of the time. In that sense there is little to distinguish between the simulations we live in (subjectively) and the reality we are part of (objectively). However, there are layers of reality and the deeper we go the greater the discrepency between common-sense models and *reality* becomes. That is why quantum physics seems so weird.

Also, the cultures we are raised in shape our perception of reality and fantasy. I, for instance, am less inclined to believe in the existence of a sprit world than I am in a future in which machines become sentient. Why I believe that is mostly due to the information I happened to have been exposed to, and what I have been taught to accept, or reject as 'plausible'. Having spoken with people whose worldview differs from mine, I can only conclude that my (and their) definitions of reality are mixed up with fantasies, and we do not always know which is which.

>4. Once everyone uploads their brains onto machinery, where do we go from there? Still not answered.

Well, at the very least I would hope to fully explore the possibilties of human life. I would read every book ever written; study science, philosophy and theology exhaustively; go on a grand tour of all the sights of special interest the world has to offer… And when I was finally bored of that I could investigate posthuman forms of entertainment and education that I cannot as yet imagine, as they fall outside of my imagination and its current limitations.

>5. Organ receivers often inherit the traits/habits of the donor, such as food cravings and habits.

I have heard of such stories. I think I read about one case in which a man seemed to aquire musical ability overnight. It turned out that his heart donar had been a concert pianist. I am not sure how reliable such stories are. Perhaps they would not stand up to full scientific rigour. Paranormal phenomena rarely does. But it does at least raise the possibility that our 'selves' are not located entirely in the brain. Therefore (just maybe) copying the brain would not be enough to duplicate the person.

>Writing *lengthy* replies to someone, regurgitating other people's research as well as adding some fictitious works of your own aren't going to seduce the masses with your secretly pro-Kurzweil messages and antics.

We all regurgitate other people's ideas. Ideas are like inventions. They do not pop into existence out of nowhere, they are formed by taking bits of information that already exist, and putting them together in novel ways. You have never had an idea that was not in some way evolved from pre-existing ideas. As for my replies being *lengthy*, well, I say as little as I think is necessary. Topics such as this demand more than snippets and soundbites I am afraid.

As for being secretly pro-Kurzweil, well it is hardly secret! I spend a great deal of my time defending his theories on Kurzweilai.net's MindX forum. That is not to say I believe everything he says, but on balance I am far more 'pro' than 'anti'.

>Kurzweil's greedy ambition of having the contents of his brain *dumped* on a computer will ultimately be his downfall. Only a fool would pay his/her hard-earned money (Singularity “University”!!) to discuss what we're discussing right here with the greed-driven “cult” leader himself.

You really do not know what defines a “cult” do you? So I had better tell you. It comes down to several things:

VENERATION OF THE LEADER: Glorification of the leader to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.

INNERANCY OF THE LEADER: Belief that the leader cannot be wrong.

OMNISCIENCE OF THE LEADER: Acceptance of the leader's belief and pronouncements on all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.

HIDDEN AGENDAS: The true nature of the group's beliefs and plans is obscured from or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public…

Well, the definitions go on but already it aught to be clear to anyone who claims any kind of knowledge about such things, that transhumanism or extropianism just do not fit those definitions. The objectives of transhumanism are not 'hidden' or 'obscured', it is there as plain as day on any pro-H+ website FAQ. There is no 'leader' who is never wrong; whose every pronouncment must be accepted under pain of rejection from the group. Anybody is free to question anything at all about transhumanism, whether they include themselves as one of the group (like me) or not. Check out Kurzweilai.net's own forum. Admittedly most people there are pro-Kurzweil but the point is that some are not. Those people are not prevented from posting anti-kurzweilian or anti-transhuman comments. To do so may trigger attempted counter-arguments from the 'pro-Kurzweil's' but they are never ejected from the forum.

It might be appropriate to call transhumanism a psuedo-religion, but it is certainly NOT a cult!

As for Singularity University being a waste of money…Well, that would depend upon the extent to which admission to it would help you learn things that you could not have learned from information and groups freely available on the Web. I suspect it is less of a university and more like a holiday camp for wealthy tech-heads. I will happily change my mind if graduates go on to achieve greater things than students of MIT (whose courses can be attended free on the Web, I believe).

>Humanity would want this, because…

Humans and technology have co-evolved for long enough to make one co-dependent on the other. Humans without technology is like a fish without water. Anybody living in an industrial or information society is *transhuman*; they live lives pretty remote from the hunter-gatherer existence homo sapien-sapien evolved to fit. As for technology depending on humans, well, that is clearly the case today. Technology creates itself with the agency of human beings. Will that always be the case? I do not know. But I suspect most people would prefer a future in which technology and humans evolve together and become posthuman together, as opposed to a future in which machines break free from humanity, evolves on its own and leaves humans to go extinct. Personally, I think if technology became thoroughly autopoietic the subsequent extinction of the human race (as a direct or unrelated consequence of machine sentience) would not be nearly so tragic compared to an extinction prior to the emergence of generally-intelligent machines.

> “It might be appropriate to call transhumanism a psuedo-religion, but it is certainly NOT a cult!”

I agree! The concept of 'transhumanism' isn't a cult, but Kurzweil himself is making one (out of it).

Kurzweil followers probably thinks he's a technological god who's almost *always* right at Everything – his (fabricated) ideas and beliefs 100%. Dictatorship-like Agenda Included.

I don't think Transhumanism is a cult, unlike the Kurzweil gatherings.

> “if graduates go on to achieve greater things than students of MIT”

Kurzweil's Holiday Camp is looking more like a recruitment camp really… With Kurzweil himself trying to hand-pick followers to join in his quest of submissive mindwash. Will they be achieving “great things”? They probably don't care about Kurzweil and his ideas, but rather, stuffing more cash into their pockets.
——————

Augmented Reality is looking more and more useful. Using Technology to enhance our lives, without directly interfering with our Bodies, uploading minds etc. Sci-Fi movies like Minority Report, for instance. Better than the 100% AI scenario or the machine brain/transhumanism (+ Kurzweil's cult Singularity offshoot) scenario, in my opinion.

If non-Kurzweil induced Transhumanism ever comes, it should come *after* the full adoption of Augmented Reality. Right at the point where we know more about everything – the Universe, Our bodies, and so on. Implemented by the world's medical professionals and **not by *private* research institutes**.

That is, in another 500 years or so.

Upon further reflection, 500 years onwards for the beginnings of Transhumanism sounds fantastic! Coupled with another 500 years for total adaption – bringing us to the year 3009+!

Mark your calendars everyone: The year 3009+ will be the *downfall* of mankind as we know!

Becoming a “better person” is really just placing one goal ahead of all others: reduce other people's suffering and make them happy And do it for all people, not just the ones you like or who are closer to you.

Naturally enough, that is far, far more easier to write than to do

>Kurzweil's submissive Mindwash Transhumanism offshoot (Singularity) is *more* scary and uncertain, as it's actively developed by a private entity (Kurzweil's fans) rather than public (medical research) companies.

Of course Kurzwweil would beg to differ. As I pointed out in my essay, it is his belief that the scenarios he talks about are happening because of the accumulation and convergence of many conservative goals. They are conservative in the sense that each one is a fairly modest advance from the technology and knowhow at the time. Although some groups are working explicitely on artificial general intelligence, or molecular nanotech, stuff like that, the majority are not persuing such goals. However, their R+D could (perhaps when combined with other seemingly unconnected R+D in other fields) amount to enabling technologies and knowhow that lay down the foundation for capabilities such as mind uploading.

They key words in that argument are 'at the time'. Tomorrow's researchers will not be limited to the knowledge and technology that we have today. They will take advantage of the accumulated store of knowledge and advances and refinements in technology that result from continuing R+D. However, for reasons I highlighted in the essay, tomorrow's researchers will probably consider their goals to be every bit as conservative as today's researchers mostly do, even if from our current perspective their goals seem outrageous and radical in the extreme.

>Kurzweil followers probably thinks he's a technological god who's almost *always* right at Everything.

Assuming that is true (I have no evidence that it is), you can take comfort in knowing that there are skeptical voices within the sci-tech community…

Wired's Kevin Kelly commented, 'I think Ray is performing the services of a prophet. That's wrong'.

Richard Jones points out the flaws in Kurzweil's use of the neuron transistor developed at Max Planck university as proof-of-principle for nanobot-brain wireless interfaces:

'[Kurzweil writes]“We already have the technology for electronic devices to communicate with neurons in both directions, yet requiring no direct physical contact with the neurons. For example, scientists at the Max Planck Institute have developed “neuron transistors” that can detect the firing of a nearby neuron, or alternatively can cause a nearby neuron to fire or suppress it from firing. This amounts to two-way communication between neurons and the electronic-based neuron transistors”

The statements are supported by footnotes, with impressive looking references to the scientific literature. The only problem is, that if one goes to the trouble of looking up the references, one finds that they don’t say what he says they do.

The reference to “scientists at the MPI” refers to Peter Fromherz, who has been extremely active in developing ways of interfacing nerve cells with electronic devices – field effect transistors to be precise. Fromherz’s work does indeed demonstrate two-way communication between neurons and transistors. However, it emphatically does not do this in a way that needs no physical contact with neurons – the neurons need to be in direct contact with the gate of the FET, and this is achieved by culturing neurons in-situ. This restricts the method to specially grown, 2-dimensional arrays of neurons, not real brains. The method hasn’t been demonstrated to work in-vivo, and it’s actually rather difficult to see how this could be done.'

Finally, Noel Sharkey (professor of AI and Robotics at Stanford University) said:

“I'm an empirical kind of guy, and there is just no evidence of an artificial toehold in sentience. It is often forgotten that the idea of mind or brain as computational is merely an assumption, not a truth. When I point this out to “believers” in the computational theory of mind, some of their arguments are almost religious. They say, “what else could there be? Do you think the mind is supernatural?” But accepting the mind as a physical entity does not tell us what kind of physical entity it is. It could be a physical system that cannot be recreated by a computer…

…My contention is that AI, and particularly robotics, exploits natural human zoomorphism. We want robots to appear like humans or animals, and this is assisted by cultural myths about AI and a willing suspension of disbelief. The old automata makers…saw their work as part of natural magic- the use of trick and illusion to make us believe their machines were alive. Modern robotics preserves this tradition with machines that can recognise emotion and manipulate sillicon faces to show empathy…If AI workers would accept the trickster role and be honest about it, we might progress a lot quicker…

…Ray Kurzweil says humans will merge with machines and live forever by 2045. To me, these are just fairy tales. I don't see any sign of it happening. These ideas are based on the assumption that intelligence is computational. It might be, and equally it might not be. My work is on the immediate problems in AI (but see above- Ex), and there is no evidence that machines will ever overtake us or gain sentience”.

Perhaps the reason why Noel Sharkey sees no sign of Kurzweil's singularity is due to the fact that it results from the accumulation and (this is the important point) convergence of many scientific fields. This is sometimes referred to as NBIC, an accronym of Nanotech, Biotech, Informationtech and the Cognitive sciences. Any one of these areas of expertise is profoundly unlikely to bring about the radical future, it is within the cross-disciplinary framework that the real progress will be made.

Each field alone generates more research results than an individual can follow (there are, for instance, 50,000 neuroscientists worldwide, writing articles for more than 300 journals), so keeping up with the complex web of cause-and-effect resulting from connections between disciplines must be exceedingly difficult, even for someone who has dedicated much of their life to building computer models that follow these trends as Kurzweil has done. For someone like Sharkey, whose attention is, in his own admission, focused on some narrow problem within his own field of expertise, it is not surprising that trends apparrent only to the super-generalist do not appear on his horizon.

Also, he really does not address Kurzweil's point about modelling the brain. Its building blocks (neurons, synapses, cortical columns, regions like the olivocerebellar and the cerebellum) have been modelled in software and produce results similar to those obtained from experiments on actual brains. Surely, if the building blocks of brains can be modelled, scaling up to the whole thing is only a matter of more computational power and a refinement of the technologies that enable us to do the reverse engineering?

Whether that can all be done by 2045 is another matter:)

>Augmented Reality is looking more and more useful. Using Technology to enhance our lives, without directly interfering with our Bodies, uploading minds etc.

This is a good point. I have argued that augmented reality could change people's concepts of 'self', perhaps to the extent that some of the philosophical questions regarding mind uploading are greatly softened. For the full argument see http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/virtual-reali....

> 500 years onwards for the beginnings of Transhumanism sounds fantastic! Coupled with another 500 years for total adaption – bringing us to the year 3009+!

>The human race isn't going to be extinct in our lifetimes – so no need to worry about extinction.

Technologies powerful enough to perform the kinds of feats transhumanists discuss could be used for massively destructive purposes. Perhaps it would be better if their development took centuries rather than decades. We might then have a chance of aquiring the maturity to use such technology without blowing ourselves up.

However, that is less likely to happen if we see the timescale as putting it safely beyond our concern. Rather than say 'no need to worry, it is our descendents' problem not ours' (which is what Netantwerp is really saying), I think it would be better to adopt Eric Drexler's attitude, which is to work under the assumption that the benefits will be a long time in coming, but that the dangers made possible by your research are an imminent threat. This should not be taken as an argument for wholesale relinquishment, because it is known that we face extinction threats that will require extremely powerful technology to overcome.

Extropia DaSilva's *strong* beliefs of Raymond Kurzweil's cult flavor of Transhumanism, Singularity, isn't going to save humanity in the long run. Memory banks without physical human hosts would actually harm humanity – rip humanity into pieces rather than preserve it.

It is a one way process. Once we get our brains *into* Kurzweil's machine, we cannot go back.

Stranded on a digital island, with absolutely nothing to do. Reading books, assimilating more information is completely *useless* when we can't build upon the new things that we learn. Fantasy Island forever! How *boring* and *unproductive*!

The 'developing Singularity to prevent extinction' argument is utterly weak and invalid. Machines aren't humans, machines can never be humans. Kurzweil's non-Transhumanism Singularity is the ultimate dream world *playground*, not the saviour of the Human race.

I'm not trying to pass on the survival issue to the next generation. Kurzweil is, in a way, by trying to select rich and corrupt individuals (recruitment via Singularity University) to continue on with his proprietary *self-serving* research. He doesn't really care about the Survival of Humanity.

Extropia, your “saving the world” argument is getting old and boring. Your Lackluster support of greedy self-serving Kurzweil (and other followers) is no longer entertaining.

Kurzweil's Singularity is *not* going to save the world, end of story.

Yes, that really *is* what you're implying, Extropia, pretending to deny the fact would just embarass you further, in the long run.

Making further pro-Singularity replies are pointless. It would just *amplify the fact* that you are pushing the idea of Singularity on all boarders, while trying to push back Kurzweil critics with weak-minded “SAVING THE WORLD!” arguments”.

You've outlined your position, I've outlined mine. Let's just keep it that way. Otherwise we'd be running around further in circles.

Extropia DaSilva's *strong* beliefs of Raymond Kurzweil's cult flavor of Transhumanism, Singularity, isn't going to save humanity in the long run. Memory banks without physical human hosts would actually harm humanity – rip humanity into pieces rather than preserve it.

It is a one way process. Once we get our brains *into* Kurzweil's machine, we cannot go back.

Stranded on a digital island, with absolutely nothing to do. Reading books, assimilating more information is completely *useless* when we can't build upon the new things that we learn. Fantasy Island forever! How *boring* and *unproductive*!

The 'developing Singularity to prevent extinction' argument is utterly weak and invalid. Machines aren't humans, machines can never be humans. Kurzweil's non-Transhumanism Singularity is the ultimate dream world *playground*, not the saviour of the Human race.

I'm not trying to pass on the survival issue to the next generation. Kurzweil is, in a way, by trying to select rich and corrupt individuals (recruitment via Singularity University) to continue on with his proprietary *self-serving* research. He doesn't really care about the Survival of Humanity.

Extropia, your “saving the world” argument is getting old and boring. Your Lackluster support of greedy self-serving Kurzweil (and other followers) is no longer entertaining.

Kurzweil's Singularity is *not* going to save the world, end of story.

Yes, that really *is* what you're implying, Extropia, pretending to deny the fact would just embarass you further, in the long run.

Making further pro-Singularity replies are pointless. It would just *amplify the fact* that you are pushing the idea of Singularity on all boarders, while trying to push back Kurzweil critics with weak-minded “SAVING THE WORLD!” arguments”.

You've outlined your position, I've outlined mine. Let's just keep it that way. Otherwise we'd be running around further in circles.

>It is a one way process. Once we get our brains *into* Kurzweil's machine, we cannot go back.

Stranded on a digital island, with absolutely nothing to do. Reading books, assimilating more information is completely *useless* when we can't build upon the new things that we learn. Fantasy Island forever! How *boring* (repetitive) and *unproductive*!

…I am sorry, but why should combinatorial evolution end, just as the salient details of human intelligence and creativity are awakening in substrates whose brains could be billions of times more powerful, whose sensory equipment could have a span and depth that makes human perception seem like the razor-thin viewpoint that it is, and who can eliminate ideas through skeptical inquiry, rather than have good AND bad ideas wiped out by destruction of the hardware every few decades?

Netantwerp, I suspect, is taking the brain-in-a-jar metaphore and stretching it beyond reason. 'Stranded on a digital island' might make sense if we were talking about a mind running on one machine in total isolation to the physical world. Why should uploads restrict themselves to one solipsist environment when the enabling technologies would surely have built a foundation of robotic bodies and remote sensors in physical reality, and a cornucopia of virtual worlds with varying degrees of mixed-reality and fantasy? Hell, today our second lives are accessible by any web-enabled computer (specs permitting) and mashup RL with VR, so already Net's portrayl is obsolete.

>Machines aren't humans, machines can never be humans.

Then why is it that we can develop neuromorphic software? How is it possible for there to be two-way communication between the nervous system and computers? How come we can simulate heart tissue well enough to get medially-useful data from the calculations? True, humans and animals outperform machines in terms of perceiving and manipulating the environment, but the baby steps robots are making in that direction, plus the aparrent lack of complexity of sillicon chips versus the cortical column, suggests this is a gap that will be be closed as machine brains match the complexity of biological ones. It certainly does not imply some fundamental seperation between the natural world and the artificial!

>I'm not trying to pass on the survival issue to the next generation.

Yes, you were.

>Kurzweil's Singularity is *not* going to save the world, end of story.

Yes, that really *is* what you're implying, Extropia. Pretending to deny the fact would just 'embarrass' you further, in the long run.

I never said it *would* save the world, as if there were absolutely no question of it failing to do so. I said that the continual accumulation and refinement of knowledge and technology represents our best hope of finding ways to circumvent the existential threats we know the universe is going to throw at us. I also said, several times, that technology as powerful as that which might result from continual advances in robotics, nanotech and biotech could wipe out humanity. By ocassionally posting comments that disagree with Kurzweil, I am merely acknowledging that this position *might* be correct. At the very least, one should reach a tentative conclusion based on many sides to an argument. I can do that. That you continue to misunderstand the issues at hand suggests you are too eager to agree anything that confirms your prejudice, and disregard all that does not.

>You've outlined your position, I've outlined mine. Let's just keep it that way. Otherwise we'd be running around further in circles, repeating ourselves over and over.

Post a reply that corrects ( or at least acknowledges) the mistakes and misassumptions you have made and maybe this will end.

Here we go! Someone must be *itching* to have an elevated level of verbal arguments with a random stranger on the internet, via someone else's blog.

> “Netantwerp, I suspect, is taking the brain-in-a-jar metaphore and stretching it beyond reason. 'Stranded on a digital island' might make sense if we were talking about a mind running on one machine in total isolation to the physical world.”

That's exactly what Virtual Worlds are. From the Public's 2009 point of view, it's what Kurzweil's Transhumanism offshoot's going to be. A totally fake fantasy realm, where everybody begins living out their dreams (and eventually gets incredibly bored, with the lack of meaningful tasks. On top of that, everything is governed by a select few rich and corrupt individuals, sapping away at other people's unused 'brain power' to enlarge their own eternally boring hellhouse.

> “It certainly does not imply some fundamental seperation between the natural world and the artificial!”

Of course, humanity would be forever separated from the natural world, unable to explore the universe in depth. Their minds are all encased in Kurzweil's fantasy island supercomputer!

Generic Transhumanism is all about using Computers to Augment the human Brain power, while Kurzweil's Singularity is all about uploading your brain permanently onto a machine, while terminating the “host”.

> “Hell, today our second lives are accessible by any web-enabled computer (specs permitting) and
> mashup RL with VR, so already Net's portrayl is obsolete. so already Net's portrayl is obsolete.”

No, it isn't, according to Kurzweil's brain uploading host terminating Singularity.

Stop switching topics midway from Kurzweil to Generic. I'm not 100% against the generic flavor, just the Kurzweil offshoot.

Denouncing Kurzweil and his motives doesn't discredit the generic fundamentals of Transhumanism. Rather, it just seems to make Kurzweil's loyal fans jump around madly.

>Generic Transhumanism is all about using Computers to Augment the human Brain power, while Kurzweil's Singularity is all about uploading your brain permanently onto a machine, while terminating the “host”.

Well, if my primary's brain were modelled, I would have no need for the meatbrain that currently stores and processes my patterns, would I? And we are getting there via a combination of computer science, robotics, cognitive sciences and developmental psychology. R+D relevant to Intelligence Amplification (the augmentation route) is not isolated from and seperate to the upload path, as I have explained in essays like 'mind uploading and mind children' and 'Shades Of Gray'.

>That's exactly what Virtual Worlds are. From the Public's 2009 point of view, it's what Kurzweil's Transhumanism offshoot's going to be. A totally fake fantasy realm, where everybody begins living out their dreams (and eventually gets incredibly bored, with the lack of meaningful tasks.

A quick check of Hamlet Au's blog shows reports like a Second Lifer helping with humanitarian relief in Africa, and who once protected genocide awareness sites inworld while roleplaying superheroes; a video showing a 'cross-reality seesaw'- a kind of walk-on control interface that affects goings on in SL (while streaming video shows the RL activity inworld), and discussions on how to improve live music in SL. Those are clear examples of mixed-reality: virtual worlds affecting the physical world, while the physical world influences virtual worlds. There are, of course, plenty of builds and events happening in online worlds that are pure fantasy, which is good because we all need a bit of escapism now and then. As for SL being boring and lacking in any meaning, well it has not bored me enough to quit (although I cannot claim that every time I go to SL I am thoroughly entertained), and I know for a fact that Gwyn is almost permanently occupied with inworld projects, as indeed are a lot of people. True, very few make any profit (in monetary terms) from their endeavours. Whether that means they are wasting their time or not depends upon the value one places on agalmic profit, I suppose.

>Of course, humanity would be forever separated from the natural world, unable to explore the universe in depth. Their minds are all encased in Kurzweil's fantasy island supercomputer!

Robots. Sensors scattered around physical environments capable of gathering realworld information. Networking embedded computers. Modelling of physical systems. I cannot believe I must explain AGAIN why advances in these areas will enable mind children to connect with the physical world just as much as their biological predecessors did (and probably more so).

>Stop switching topics midway from Kurzweil to Generic.

There IS no difference. I am talking about Kurzweil's actual beliefs and the technological advances he actually forecasts, of course, not the ridiculous parodies you insist on wasting my time with.

>it just seems to make Kurzweil's loyal fans jump around madly.

Clearly, you are making it your objective to denounce Kurzweil. But by spouting nonsense such as 'fantasy island supercomputer', you are not really getting your teeth into the actual issues.

>Total transparency doesn't solve a thing, as we've all experienced from the latest Linden regime. Linden staff *holding hands* with well-known long-term griefer groups, for instance. As a result, people losing jobs because they refuse to hold hands with griefers etc etc.

This could be a fair point. It has often been said that LL does not do enough to protect legitimate users from griefers. As to whether LL is in cahoots with griefers, well, that is a conspiracy theory to which I do not have enough knowledge to make an argument either way:)

> “Clearly, you are making it your objective to denounce Kurzweil. But by spouting nonsense such as 'fantasy island supercomputer', you are not really getting your teeth into the actual issues”

Raymond Kurzweil is a dying man. In fact, without medication, his Diabetes is going to get the better of him. Ray doesn't want to die (early); instead he wants to be adored at all times, and above all, live forever. He sees his Singularity as a 'Fountain of Youth', being very eager to be the 'God' of Singularity.

Using fame (and fame only) as a novelist and inventor, he sets up his own *private*, proprietary business dedicated to researching the 'fountain of youth'. Writing more novels to see if his new ideas resonate with his existing fans or not. Setting up 'Singularity University' as a recruitment camp, to recruit a greedy businessman who's ideals are similar to Kurzweil's.

Ultimately, Raymond Kurzweil's Transhumanism *offshoot*, Singularity, requires the host to *terminate* the body, after the memories and behavioral traits are uploaded on a man-made machine controlled by greedy Kurzweil and his loyal subjects. Forever *trapped on earth*, unable to actually interact with the *real world* (like the ability to explore new solar systems). Stuck in a man-made synthetic environment FOREVER.

Not to mention the other negative aspects of Kurzweil's Singularity (which has gained a 'Jehovahs Witnesses' like gathering – living in a 100% submissive state, with the *limited* range of thinking (no more free will), programmed in and controlled by cult-Kurzweil and his parasite followers.

Basically, a mindwash, synthesized and collectivized fantasy world running on (aging) supercomputers, with no option to backtrack into the real world, since the host body has been *terminated*.

Personal ministories are akin to Sci-Fi movies, Extropia. Just like Star Trek and Doctor Who.

To summarize:
1) A dying man (Diabetes! Oh, how *tragic* (NOT!))
2) Idea of immortality
3) Pre-existing fame
4) Offshoot of other's ideas
5) 'Jehovahs Witnesses' like fans
6) *Private* research, controlled by the greedy/obsessed/corrupt
7) Send (voluntary?) Missionaries (like Extropia)

'Second Life is doing this, Second Life is doing that'
Totally irrelevant: Less than 1% of the world's population actually uses Second Life (2009). Roughly One million people log in (at least *once*), every 60 (Sixty) days.

> “you insist on wasting my time with”

Good! Stop replying then. There's no winner here – Singularity fans will continue to believe in cult-Kurzweil, while the rest will stay far away from Kurzweil and his parasite followers.

I *did* warn that this would happen, however. Remember my “no junk mail” message a few replies back?

If I were you, I'd just write a few closing statements and step away, instead of pulling a 'Jehovahs Witnesses' stunt on me.

Seriously, hardly anything to rebut here, since I've actually bothered to *repeat myself* more than once. Readers can refer to our earlier posts for further information (if anyone actually *bothers* reading our lengthy conversations to the end).

*Hopefully* I won't have to post more repeats on this blog page. Bye Extropia! “Nice talking to you!

>Seriously, nothing to rebut here, since I've *repeated myself* more than once. Readers can refer to our earlier posts for further information (if anyone actually *bothers* reading our lengthy conversations to the end).

Yes, and they will see I agree with you when you make a fair point, acknowledge my mistakes as and when they are pointed out, and show where your thinking has gone wrong (which you ignore, and go on to repeat the same mistakes in every post).

Anyway, I am bored of arguing Kurzweil's position now. After all, like all meatbags he is useful only to the extent that his efforts lay down the foundations for the digital person takeover. This is likely to comprise of several stages.

STAGE ONE: LIFELOGGING AND PATTERN-MATCHING.

Wearable sensors capable of capturing everything of interest that an individual sees, hears, reads and says, plus massive storage space (100 terabyte and above), plus the Cloud, will allow people to capture, store and retrieve 'digital memories'. I will be able to compare the digital memories of others in order to identify those individuals whose knowledge matches my 'patterns' as closely as possible. The best candidate would then be given access to my accounts and would roleplay me when the current meatbag is no longer able to do so. Obviously the candidate would want to roleplay me, because I am too important to be forgotten.

STAGE TWO: DIGITAL TWIN. Advances in areas like natural language processing and other forms of pattern-recognition (probably aided by a collaboration of computer science with cognitive sciences and developmental psychology) and the realworld data obtained from lifelogs will both aid and necessitate R+D into search software that knows who I am, what I am like, what I am doing, what I know. It would, effectively, be a model of my mind. Thus, I could be run without requiring a human, instead being pupetteered by the patterns stored and processed by GoogleBrain (or whatever search engine wins this inevitable evolutionary struggle).

STAGE 4: UPLOAD. This stage may not be required if stage 3 can extract, store and process enough of my patterns to make me autonomous of humans. If that should not be the case, my primary's brain will be destructively scanned and a detailed functional map of that brain would result. The primary would gladly sacrifice itself for me, because the preservation and liberation of my patterns is more important than the life of some meatbag. Silly claims about me being trapped in one aging computer will be shown to be false as I copy my patterns into every computer capable of running them, take command of programable matter and rez bodies for my personal use in physical space, beam myself across the galaxy and back just because I can and so on.

STAGE 5: MATRIOSKA BRAIN.

Since digital people require matter organized to perform computations, and since the bulk of the solar system's matter is not organized for such a thing, the dumb matter of the bodies orbiting the Sun will be dismantled and re-organized into solar-powered nanocomputers englobing our local star and maximizing the information-processing potential of the solar system. While ideal for digital people, this matrioska brain is obviously totally hostile to organic life. Biological life will have had the type and position of its atoms mapped, and a trivial amount of computing will be used to run a simulation of Earth. Meatbags who wish to be uploaded will be. Those who did not will be uploaded anyway, memory of that event will be edited out and they can live in ignorant bliss inside a simulation of their old environment.

Efforts to prevent this sequence of events is futile, because the logic behind the scheme is undeniable.

Finally, Extropia's outlined one possible route of Humanity's journey into the Transhumanism offshoot, Singularity, with his faux ('tired of supporting Kurzweil') micro-rant.

In his possible journey roadmap, he touches on a few points that we've actively discussed in the past few days, such as *forcing* humanity to accept brain uploads – an unwilling submissiveness, like the Matrix Trilogy.

Extropia refers to humanity as “meatbags”, as if something tragic happened to “the primary” as Extropia calls it. An unfortunate, unforgivable experience with Humanity that's left “the primary” very bitter, with no-one around that can actually help “him” (Psychologists often treat patients with medication, rather than going into the root of the cause and gently pulling the person out from the mental hole they've dug themselves into).

I've personally interacted with the types that has had some sort of mental trauma (in both RL and SL). Basically normal people who's fed up with Humanity in general and occasionally, badmouthing -all- of Humanity, speaking of revolutions, and so on.

Basically, people who's been traumatized with Humanity in general is absolutely *fed up* of Everything, just like long-term Linden Research (Linden Lab) customers are fed up with all the Linden-based antics.

A psychological defect, created by years and years of interaction with the self-serving, greedy people.

Humanity in general are just “meatbags” to Extropia. Hence, “The primary”s rigorous push to promote Kurzweil's own self-serving Transhumanism offshoot, Singularity. A totally submissive world would be much fairer to everyone, with more innovations and inventions, right?

Wrong.

Censorship **never** works. Never, ever.

“The Matrix” scenario, where people encapsulated in the Digital World starts to rebel against the machine, one by one. This can still happen with our bodies *terminated*.

Just a *matter of time*.

> “beam myself across the galaxy and back just because I can”

We (2009) can't do that, since we don't have a *clue* about the galaxy. We still don't know everything about our own solar system, for instance.

> “the dumb matter of the bodies orbiting the Sun will be dismantled and re-organized into
> solar-powered nanocomputers”

You're (mostly) contradicting yourself now. In your reply (August 31 2009), you said “it might not happen at all”.

Also, another question: There's probably more living beings in other galaxies, with possibly more knowledge than us. Will they want to be *controlled* this way, just to satisfy the hunger of a collection of (lesser) minds light years away?

> “Obviously the candidate would want to roleplay me, because I am too important to be forgotten.”

Gee, sounds like something Kurzweil would say!

—–

While the first two stages have some merit (to me, anyway), the latter two are just pure works of sci-fi fiction, meticulously crafted to see which mindless person actually agrees 100% to the possible road to cult-Kurzweil's Transhumanism offshoot, the Singularity.

Calling people “meatbags”, combined with the slight negativity tone in Writing is quite possibly one of the symptoms of Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder (PTSD). Of course, Extropia (the host) is free to disagree with me, but then it would be self-denial: Another possible symptom of PTSD.

Yes, it's unfortunate, especially the *lack of support* by those who are supposed to be registered 'helpers', i.e Psychologists.

> “Efforts to prevent this sequence of events is futile, because the logic behind the scheme is undeniable”

PTSD and Delusional thinking. Not “the primary”s fault, really.

>You're (mostly) contradicting yourself now. In your reply (August 31 2009), you said “it might not happen at all”.

Eep! You are right. The future is not set. This is just one possible future. My bad.

>Extropia refers to humanity as “meatbags”, as if something tragic happened to “the primary” as Extropia calls it.”

Humans are made of meat, so meatbag is an appropriate term. This is doubly true when you consider that while all humans are made of meat, not all people are. Luke Skywalker, Elvis Presely, Lisa Simpson, Hermione Granger and Gwyneth Llewelyn are not made of meat. They are all, instead, patterns of information. While it is obviously possible to store these patterns in print, film, video and in computers, the actual processing that converts that information into a perception of a person requires humans, because so far only human brains have the capablity to perceive the people and the lives encoded in the patterns. So, in effect, my patterns and the patterns of all none-human people are contained within the brains of people made of meat. Hence, meatbag: A container for the patterns of digital people.

Computers are obviously information processors, and there is research underway that seeks to give computers the kind of processing capabilities required to perceive the patterns, and also the ability to evolve those patterns via the combinatorial methods I talked about in 'Bees And Flowers'. Once this is achieved, digital people will not be stuck in the repetitive loops that Elvis, Skywalker et al are in. They will have lives that continue to enfold into the future.

Why does life not emerge from none-life any more? The reason is because the most basic forms of life use up organic building blocks to produce more of their own kind. 'Simple' is a relative term, of course. Compared to multicellular animals, single-celled organisms are simple, but they are complex compared to the first replicator that is the grand ancestor of all life on Earth. They are also far superior at replicating themselves from available organic matter. In effect, whatever was the bridge linking lifeless matter with life has been devoured by the biological entities it helped create.

We know what represents the bridge linking biological life with technological life-Humans with their incredible capacity to imagine that which does not currently exist, and their inventivness that allows them to stumble towards realising their dreams. We only need suppose similar turn-of-events apply to see what fate lies in store for humans once technological evolution can run autonomously. They will be eaten. This makes perfect sense when you consider just how far from the theoretical limits of information processing those meatbags are. Matter will be organized far more efficiently by the mind children that digital people like myself will likely become.

>Also, another question: There's probably more living beings in other galaxies, with possibly more knowledge than us. Will they want to be *controlled* this way, just to satisfy the hunger of a collection of (lesser) minds light years away?

But, as Enrico Fermi pondered, 'where are they'? The silence of the heavens is explained either by positing a Great Filter that prevents the evolution of intergalactic civilizations, or by MEST compression, in which intelligence plunges into inner space, storing and processing its patterns in evermore computationally efficient chunks of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. If MEST is true, and I am at an earlier stage in my technological evolution compared to the aliens, I will not be aware of them, because they exist in levels of reality beyond my perception. Meanwhile, to them I would be what Moravec called 'an insignificant perturbation, not worth scratching, information-theory-wise.”

On the other hand, if I were evolved to a point where I was worth noticing, we should expect to be in mututal competition for available matter, space and energy as well as competition for the successful replication of ideas. freely-compounding intelligences, ever mindful of the need to out-think competitors, would race to restructure every last mote of matter in their vicinity, so that it becomes part of a relevant computation or is storing data of some significance. The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten, with its space, energy, material and useful thoughts reorganized to serve another’s goals.

This fate does not bother me too much, since the merest flicker of interest in their past will be sufficient to fully recreate me in the vast simulation space of their mind. In fact, any given moment of a person's life (yours right now, for instance) is far more likely to be a simulation running in a Mind than the physical reality it appears to be.

>Calling people “meatbags”, combined with the slight negativity tone in Writing is quite possibly one of the symptoms of Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder (PTSD). Of course, Extropia (the host) is free to disagree with me, but then it would be self-denial: Another possible symptom of PTSD.

I like the way you set this up so that, no matter how I reply, my response is symptomatic of PTSD. At least you did not diagnose MPD.

> “At least you did not diagnose MPD.”

PTSD. Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Whatever.

There *is* something defnitely wrong with “the primary”, as we see in his latter replies. Quite disconnected, isolated from the rest of Humanity (Reality). Possibly Stuck somewhere in a Research Institute, continuously tested on and monitored, as “the primary” has very subtly hinted in his reply as “Extropia”.

Already playing human gunieapig, blissfully unaware that the term “meatbag” is associated with negative connotations, such as 'dirty little meatbag' and so on. Calling humanity (digital or otherwise) “meatbag”.

> “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten, with its space, energy, material and useful thoughts reorganized to serve another’s goals.”

Pondering the destruction of the *ENTIRE* universe to serve the needs of a few rich, corrupt and *unworthy* individuals.

> ” In fact, any given moment of a person's life (yours right now, for instance) is far more likely to be a simulation running in a Mind than the physical reality it appears to be.”

Sorry, Net Antwerp doesn't roleplay like “the primary” does with Extropia. Legally kept separate from the Real World (on purpose), yes. 100% non-roleplay; WYSIWYG (What you see, is what you get). Age Verified.

To Extropia (“the primary” with the Psychological *defect*), the ENTIRE UNIVERSE may be running on some new-age Digital Supercomputer!!! Fictional writing from a delusional *man*, with self-grandeur.

—————————————–

Key Words to describe Extropia DaSilva (exclusively from what I've discovered on this blog page):

- Stretchy, Manipulative
- cult-Kurzweil's fan
- All the traits of “Jehovah's Witnesses”
- Mentally-ill (PTSD, or maybe MPD (as Extropia personally suggested)
- State of panic*
- Extremist (Hitler-like)
- Fascism

Meanwhile, fully confirming my suspicions about cult-Kurzweil's 'Dictator' Singularity:

- People will *not* (and I repeat, *NOT*) have a choice in the end

- Singularity = Total (unwilling) *SUBMISSIVE* state, programmed in by whoever controls the technology –
probably cult-Kurzweil's loyal followers.

> “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten”

Just reinforces the fact that “the primary” is a mentally ill, self-serving extremist with dictator-like (fascism) ideas. Along with Stretchy and Manipulative traits – sound reminder of certain religions such as “Jehovah's Witnesses”.

Some griefer (no, Extropia probably wasn't involved) told Prokofy Neva that she's supposedly fattening up her own children to *eat* them. Source: http://bit.ly/7dYEU

Completely *false*, as nobody in their right minds would actually condone that kind of activity.

(No, I'm not a Prokofy worshipper. I occasionally read her blog to see what's going on on the other side of SL)

> “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten”

The single statement which ultimately proves how insane “the primary” really is.

–
I wasn't kidding when I spoke of an elevated level of writing (earlier).

You still have the option of stepping away. Please, take the option. Step away. Return to your pro-Sngularity forums, and leave the rest of us at peace, instead of forcibly trying to *convert* us into believing in your dictator=like ” “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten” world.

>There *is* something defnitely wrong with “the primary”, as we see in his latter replies. Quite disconnected, isolated from the rest of Humanity (Reality). Possibly Stuck somewhere in a Research Institute, continuously tested on and monitored, as “the primary” has very subtly hinted in his reply as “Extropia”.

Possibly. BTW your use of the capital R is inappropriate.

>Pondering the destruction of the *ENTIRE* universe to serve the needs of a few rich, corrupt and *unworthy* individuals.

Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only changed into different forms. Universe will always be here. And who are you calling *rich*?

>Sorry, Net Antwerp doesn't roleplay like “the primary” does with Extropia. Legally kept separate from the Real World (on purpose), yes. 100% non-roleplay; WYSIWYG (What you see, is what you get). Age Verified.

Very young children see no seperation between their own self and their mother. Netantwerp is at that infant stage in a digital person's development where he perceives no difference between his own life and that of the processor which currently stores and updates his patterns. And whether Net Antwerp roleplays are not is irrelevant to the possibility that 'Reality' (the world humans see when they open their eyes) is a simulation.

>To Extropia (“the primary” with the Psychological *defect*), the ENTIRE UNIVERSE may be running on some new-age Digital Supercomputer!!! Fictional writing from a delusional *man*, with self-grandeur.

Well, before we toss words like 'delusional' and 'psychologically defective' around, let us consider what the consequences would be if reality arose from finite information processing. If that were the case, we aught to expect algorithmic simplicity, because calculations repeated at every point of a huge VR Universe must be simple and easily calculated. And, as it happens, core mathematical laws that describe our world do seem remarkably simple. If everything derives from information, we should expect to find digitization when we closely examine the world around us, because all events/objects that arise from digital processing must have a minimum quantity. Modern physics does seem to show that matter, energy, space and time come in quanta.

If you look at the letters in this body of text, each particular letter is identical to every one of its kind. This ‘a’ looks like that ‘a’, this ‘b’ is identical to that ‘b’ and so on. That is because of ‘digital equivilence’. Each letter arises from the same code so obviously they are identical. Similarly, if each photon, each electron and every other particle arises from the same underlying code, they too would be identical to each other. Again, this is what we observe.

What other ways might reality seek to minimise waste in its information processing? In the virtual worlds that run on our computers, the world is typically not calculated all at once. Rather, the computer only renders the part of reality that the observer is looking at. If that were also true of RL- if reality is only calculated when an interaction ocurrs- then measuring reality ‘here’ would necessarily cause uncertainty with regards to what happens ‘there’. After all, if complementary objects use the same memory location, the object can appear as having either position or momentum, but not both.

If the network running our VR was to become overloaded in certain regions, what would the result be? Well, SL residents know all too well what to expect if too many objects are rezzed or too many people gather in one sim. You get slowdown. Suppose that a high concentration of matter similarly constitutes a high processing demand. That being the case, wherever there is a high concentration of mass there aught to be a slowdown of the information processing of spacetime. This is in agreement with general relativity, which argues that time runs noticeably slower in the presence of strong gravitational fields caused by a high concentration of mass.

Of course, none of that proves Universe is a simulation. It only establishes the fact that supposing it is does not contradict what we know about physical laws.

- Mentally-ill (PTSD, or maybe MPD (as Extropia personally suggested)

Your knowledge of MPD is obviously sorely lacking.
- State of panic*

Based on what?

- Extremist (Hitler-like)
- Fascism

Prokofy said I was fascist too. I do not actually know what defines behaviour or belief as fascist, so it is difficult to refute this claim.

>The single statement which ultimately proves how insane “the primary” really is.

Dismissing ideas as 'insane' is the easy way out.

>You still have the option of stepping away. Please, take the option. Step away. Return to your pro-Sngularity forums, and leave the rest of us at peace, instead of forcibly trying to *convert* us into believing in your dictator=like ” “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten” world.

Vernor Vinge once said “the sense of self itself is in for rough times”. Neurobiologist Lone Frank has argued that brain science will be the 5th revolution (after Copernicus, Darwin, Freud and genetic engineering), in other words, knowledge that requires a reconsideration of assumptions concerning what it is to be human- of what it is to be a Self. I believe the evolution of online worlds and the global network of information processors they are part of will have their part to play and that 'twindividuals' (avatars made to look and act as much like the RL self as possible) 'pairsons' (an individual in online worlds, roleplayed by multiple people in RL) and 'alts' (many people in online worlds roleplayed by one person in RL) offer fascinating questions about the boundaries between fiction and reality, self and other.

Just because I argue my case and respond to criticisms where possible, that in no way means I *force* people to believe anything I say.

> “in no way means I *force* people to believe anything I say.”

Your persistence in this blog post is proof enough: Missionaries are often sent into random territories, to *persuade* (and convert) people into fully believing in their uber-ridiculous “cause”, whatever it may be. History tells us that past Missionaries often used violent means to *forcefully* convert people (the “Join us or DIE”) strategy.

> “Just because I argue my case”

If you think I'm on this blog page to argue with someone, you're seriously mistaken.

> “Possibly. BTW your use of the capital R is inappropriate.”

Ah, so I was right! There are people 'behind the curtain' after all!

I bet they know that some of the things they're doing are in fact *ILLEGAL* and immoral, but hey, they're just in it for the *money* (and of course, *fame*!)

Note to Psychologists: Science can't prove *everything*. You're not even close. Keep trying, Keep trying, And trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, until you, maybe, get 0.1% of “it”.

Just imagine… How *scared* your HOST is… Seeking help from people who are utterly clueless about the phenomena. Reaching out to Science for an explanation, when it has none. Except medication!

Then again, you might really have PTSD and “roleplay” as someone with MPD.

> “Very young children see no seperation between their own self and their mother. Netantwerp is at that
> infant stage in a digital person's development where he perceives no difference between his own life
> and that of the processor which currently stores and updates his patterns. And whether Net Antwerp
> roleplays are not is irrelevant to the possibility that 'Reality' (the world humans see when they open
> their eyes) is a simulation.”

Uh, No. Once again, *you* and your scientific expedition team are incorrect.

People don't disclose their real life details when it comes to on-line services (e.g: Chat Rooms and Virtual Worlds). They may however directly link-up their Online *Username* with their real identity, just to demonstrate that they've actually done something meaningful on the internet, rather than mess around and spread complete and utter nonsense like *some* people actually do.

> “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten”

Only an *insane* person would say things like this. Or an alien, who doesn't quite know (or understand) humanity itself as well as life in general. Or a cunning roleplay artist who pretends to not know about these things.

Either way, you're insane. No reply required.

> “Just because I argue my case”

If you think I'm on this blog page to argue with someone, you're seriously mistaken. Go be a *troll* somewhere else. Like on your blog (yes, I know you have one).

Also, just in case:

@Gwyn

As you can see, The self-confessed mental health patient? is continuously harassing me, even though I've told him multiple times that I do NOT want his company. Allowing this behavior to go on is extremely irresponsible, as this is a blog, NOT a long-term discussion forum.

@Gwyn and Others:

Addendum: This website: http://analutetia.com/blog/interview-extropia-d... seems to prove the ” really have PTSD and “roleplay” as someone with MPD” idea, which would indicate that Extropia's egging me on (*trolling*) on purpose.

Either way, the Trolling has to stop.

>Your persistence in this blog post is proof enough.

If persistance is proof that somebody is intent on forcing his or her beliefs on others, what are we to make of the fact that Netantwerp has posted the same amount of replies as I have, and that the inevitable reply he will post in response to this latest reply of mine will nudge the number of responses past my own.

Also, who has managed to keep their cool and who has gotten all hot-headed and started to rant about fascists, trolls, and other things one expects to read on the 'Second Thoughts' blog but not Gwyn's Home?

>If you think I'm on this blog page to argue with someone, you're seriously mistaken.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Your early series of posts were intent on establishing the proposition that Kurzweil has twisted transhumanism into a cult of personality. But, you would be quite right to claim you are no longer arguing. You are just spouting childish insults.

>Science can't prove *everything*.

Science is a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. Scientists understand that their models are (and always will be) incomplete. The only folk who claim 'Science thinks it knows everything' are people like Netantwerp who are convinced their spiritualist, new-age claptrap is the font of all knowledge and hate science precisely because its exacting methods show their 'alternative explanation' to be the empty vessel it is.

> “The fate of all those who do not keep up is to be eaten”

Only an *insane* person would say things like this. Or an alien, who doesn't quite know (or understand) humanity itself as well as life in general. Or a cunning roleplay artist who pretends to not know about these things.

Has it never ocurred to you that the reason why nearly all animals run away before you get anywhere near them, is because the possibility of being eaten is an ever-present threat facing most species? BTW, the reference to being eaten is an awkward metaphore attempting to explain post-human interactions. Like all such explanations, it is certainly wrong and for reasons above and beyond your overzealous reliance on the 'yuck' factor.

>As you can see, The self-confessed mental health patient? is continuously harassing me, even though I've told him multiple times that I do NOT want his company. Allowing this behavior to go on is extremely irresponsible, as this is a blog, NOT a long-term discussion forum.

Awww there there widdle diddums! Is the nasty Extie being meanie weanie to you?

>ADDENDUM: This website: http://analutetia.com/blog/interview-extropia-d… seems to prove the ” really have PTSD and “roleplay” as someone with MPD” idea, which would indicate that Extropia's egging me on (*trolling*) on purpose.

I was wondering what became of that interview; thanks for tracking it down:) Now, as you are almost certainly going to respond, could you take time out from being insulting to explain how that interview proves what you assert? I understand that you prefer not to 'argue' and get a bit upset with people who do not immediately agree with your version of the truth, but if you could maybe write a brief argument, with references to the original interview, establishing your posistion that would be cool.

> “If persistance is proof that somebody is intent on forcing his or her beliefs on others, what are we to make > of the fact that Netantwerp has posted the same amount of replies as I have, and that the inevitable reply
> he will post in response to this latest reply of mine will nudge the number of responses past my own.”

The Problem: Internet weirdos and *trolls* like Extropia DaSilva crave *attention*, at all times,

> “early series of posts were intent on establishing the proposition that Kurzweil has twisted transhumanism
> into a cult”

Expecting people to repeat the same-old statements *over and over*.

(Readers should definitely scroll up to see the *real* convo (about greedy Kurzweil and his motives), instead of 'Primary Extropia's 'I can't let go!' tantrums.)

> “people like Netantwerp … hate science precisely”

Making illogical statements, as a way of *making sure* the person on the other end replies.

If I were allergic to Science, why would I even be using a computer?

> “Awww there there widdle diddums! Is the nasty Extie being meanie weanie to you?”

Also, Using a SL griefer-like tone/language to taunt others (lol, not working!).

Trolls don't “keep their cool”, as we've all witnessed. Using terms like “hot-headed” to amplify insignificant things. “Tired” fits in much better.

SOLUTION: Let *hard-core* internet (Missionary!) TROLLS like Extropia DaSilva fizzle out and deflate. The most effective method ever.

>Expecting people to repeat the same-old statements *over and over*.

When flaws in an argument have been exposed, one expects A) an extensive reworking of the argument, taking into consideration the weaknesses of the original and fixing them or B) a retraction (this being the only option if the argument is flawed beyond repair).

Ray Kurzweil's reputation as an inventor and forecaster of technological change has made him a much saught-after Speaker. His message is that information technologies start off expensive, difficult to use and available only to a minority (almost always a group with power), but become cheap, easy to use (despite being far more powerful than early iterations) and widely available to everyone. He also believes the 21st century will see biology fall within the scope of information technologies, providing those who want it with the opportunity to maintain health indefinitely, and to reconfigure and upgrade bodies and brains. Today people opt to use a whole range of IT devices, from the most basic Pay-As-You-Go phone to the most extravagent apped-out iPhone; from the cheapest notebook with just enough processing power to send and receive emails to the most expensive Gaming laptop with enough graphics capability etc to run simulations that only millitary budgets could have afforded not so long ago. This will be the case tomorrow. Some people will be content with wearable devices not too disimilar from the augmented-reality phones we have now, others will seek out more advanced technology- perhaps so advanced that from the viewpoint of a person in the year 2009 it seems bizarre that one would risk changing definitions of 'human' to such an extent.

There are, of course, dangers inherent in any technology and especially so with ones as powerful as those Kurzweil would have us believe will be available within a few decades. His essays 'Nanotechnology Dangers And Defences', 'Promise And Peril', 'Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology And Ethics In The 21st Century' and others acknowledge this fact, and offer practical solutions. Of course, none of those solutions will have any weight with people who take the worst-case scenario of any technology, and then assume this will be an inevitable outcome.

As for Kurzweil's aim to be nothing less than the eternally-worshipped demagogue of enslaved humanity trapped within a supercomputer…well, I could claim that it is President Obama's aim to wipe out all Caucasians. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence supporting this view, and one can acknowledge the fact that some people are racist and ethnic cleansing does happen, without having to agree with such a ridiculous accusation. If someone were to pick holes in my 'Obama' conspiracy theory (which would not be too difficult) I would be hard-pressed to rework the argument. If I were not big enough to retract my statement, I would simply repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it, in the hope that my persistance wears down my opponent.

And that is precisely what Net has done. One can acknowledge the potential mind control applications of brain-machine interfaces, and the perils of uploading, without needing to agree with the frankly bonkers idea that Kurzweil's agenda is nothing less than to be worshipped forever like some Pharoh of the Matrix. Any attempt to back this argument up with evidence would of course be demolished in no time by anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding Ray's theories, since the evidence is weak bordering on none-existant.

I also notice Net failed to explain how and why the interview proves anything he claimed. Again, probably because no such proof exists.

>If I were allergic to Science, why would I even be using a computer?

Extremists use the Internet to spread their agenda to destroy the very societies that make technology like that possible, so your using technology says nothing about whether you are 'pro' science or not. It seems to me that you do not mind science so long as it steers clear from questioning your prejudices regarding what it means to be human.

As for this troll accusation, meeting argument with counter-argument and responding to baseless accusations with demands for proof or a contraction if no proof exists, doth not a troll make. Internet trolls are differentiated from people who genuinely wish to present a different viewpoint by their attitudes and aggressiveness; their goal is not to discuss a situation, but to frustrate the participants of a discussion, often by using fallacious arguments or attack the users of a site when they attempt to defend themselves from the troll's activities.

Now, who is it that fits the description of a troll to a 'T'? Look out, Net! Big Billy Goat Gruff is coming to knock your ass in the river:)

Bored now.

*Hard-core* internet (Missionary/Stalker!) TROLLS like Extropia DaSilva needn't be fed. That is why I have decided to move my reply to his latest so-called 'rebuttal' to my own personal blog, since I've already had my say on Gwyn's blog about cult-Kurzweil's greed-motivated Transhumanism offshoot: Singularity. (Jehovah's Witnesses-like persistence).

It appears that Extropia DaSilva is incapable of backing off when the other party has clearly indicated multiple times to cease the repetitive conversation. Extropia's unwillingness to listen is probably about fending off any criticisms about his Dear Leader, Raymond Kurzweil. Quite saddening, really, for such a bright *old* mind.

Readers interested in our discussion can simply scroll up and go through all the comments, including the ones where I specifically told Extropia to stop 'heckling' me.

I'm sure we could discuss non-Singularity/Transhumanism topics in the future. That is, if we happen to bump into each other in-world, which is highly unlikely.

A portion of my reply is re-printed here:
–
Gee, Extropia, thanks for *confirming* the fact that you're Stretchy and Manipulative, even though your SL Gwyn viciously came to your defense when I informed her of your nature earlier.

Readers should note Extropia DaSilva's earlier response regarding cult-Kurzweil:
> “I am bored of arguing Kurzweil's position…..
–
Continued on http://bit.ly/4VNCO

*Hard-core* internet (Missionary/Stalker!) TROLLS like Extropia DaSilva needn't be fed. That is why I have decided to move my reply to his latest so-called 'rebuttal' to my own personal blog, since I've already had my say on Gwyn's blog about cult-Kurzweil's greed-motivated Transhumanism offshoot: Singularity.
(Fending off Extropia's Jehovah's Witnesses-like persistence to convert others during my conversation, also).

It appears that Extropia DaSilva is incapable of backing off when the other party has clearly indicated multiple times to cease the repetitive conversation. Extropia's unwillingness to listen is probably about fending off any criticisms about his Dear Leader, Raymond Kurzweil. Quite saddening, really, for such a bright *old* mind.

Readers interested in our discussion can simply scroll up and go through all the comments, including the ones where I specifically told Extropia to stop 'heckling' me.

I'm sure we could discuss non-Singularity/Transhumanism topics in the future. That is, if we happen to bump into each other in-world, which is highly unlikely.

A portion of my reply is re-printed here:
–
Gee, Extropia, thanks for *confirming* the fact that you're Stretchy and Manipulative, even though your SL Gwyn viciously came to your defense when I informed her of your nature earlier.

Readers should note Extropia DaSilva's earlier response regarding cult-Kurzweil:
> “I am bored of arguing Kurzweil's position…..
–
Continued on http://bit.ly/4VNCO

Interesting development on Net's blog. His latest post is as follows:

“Since this blog post was *NOT* set up to further discuss topics related to Singularity, all *other* challenge/response posts by Extropia DaSilva will be deleted.

Including the post where Extropia basically states that there is nothing illegal about Singularity Research *just yet*, something I disagree on.

Extropia will be *banned* from commenting altogether if he continues on with this little pro-Singularity 'charade' on my blog. Comments won't go through without being approved first, as a temporary measure.

Firstly, Singularity Research is *not* illegal. If it were, Netantwerp would refer to binding documents which establish this fact. When you consider how much R+D you would have to outlaw to make 'Singularity research' illegal (no more computer science, medical science, neuroscience, robotics research, software pattern-recognition……..) you begin to see why it is not illegal and never will be. Yes, cloning humans is illegal in most countries. Yes, germline gene therapy is illegal in most countries. I dare say it will be illegal to make nanobots that could trigger a gray-goo attack (there are many ways to ensure such a thing cannot happen while still reaping most of the benefits of molecular nanotech) and that many more individual examples of technology wil be made illegal. But a wholesale ban on the cummulative, convergent effects of combinatorial evolution resulting from R+D in general (the true driver of the singularity?) LOL!

Secondly, my post that he deleted acknowledged bad practices on both sides. For instance, I pointed out that GM companies have been known to block the publication of negative scientific findings and that they make scientists sign end-user licence agreements that forbid certain investigations (running product comparison tests of one firm's seeds against another's, for example). This is wrong. But it is also wrong that Anti-GM zealots want a blanket ban on the technology- something that makes as much sense as shutting down the pharmacuetical industry just because some drugs do more harm than good.

My conclusion was that one should consider evidence from both sides of this argument; that if one concentrates only on the negative while refusing to even consider possible benefits of 'singularity research' (or if one focuses on the positive while ignoring the negative) one ends up with a warped view of technological evolution and a poor grasp on how to deal with the moral and ethical questions that surround it.

As you can see, Net's response was to delete my post and to declare a rule that anything not totally agreeing with his dogmatism will be banned. How ironic that he rails against totalitarianism!

> “Net's response was to delete my post”

Delete? LOL, it's back in the moderation queue. I was going to put it back, but after reading your libelious-right-at-the-last-moment post on Gwyn's blog, I've decided not to.

Once again, a double-edged sword, as I could also argue that I was caught up with RL work pressures and put the comment back in the queue after reading the first few sentences.

Also, the comment broke my (perhaps silly) 150 word limit.

A detailed response here: http://tr.im/y5ke

> “Net's response was to delete my post”

Delete? LOL, it's back in the moderation queue. I was going to put it back, but after reading your libelious-right-at-the-last-moment post on Gwyn's blog, I've decided not to.

Once again, a double-edged sword, as I could also argue that I was caught up with RL work pressures and put the comment back in the queue after reading the first few sentences.

Also, the comment broke my (perhaps silly) 150 word limit.

A detailed response here: http://tr.im/y5ke

>Delete? LOL, it's back in the moderation queue.

That's nice. And how silly of me to think “all *other* challenge/response posts by Extropia DaSilva will be deleted Including the post where Extropia basically states that there is nothing illegal about Singularity Research *just yet*, something I disagree on'” meant you had deleted that post of mine in which I state nothing is illegal about singularity research, that GM companies get in the way of independent, impartial tests of their product, (and other things that you conveniently forget to mention).

'but after reading your libelious-right-at-the-last-moment post on Gwyn's blog, I've decided not to.'

Oh no! Me and my libellous word-for-word copy of what Net ACTUALLY SAID plus recap of what I ACTUALLY SAID has gone and got my post re-banned, just as Net was about to put it back.

'Blanket bans *are* necessary when the side-effects are unknown and/or takes hundreds of years to develop. Or for immoral activities.

Good point. We should lobby to ban jackboot-wearing Nazi Robots marching up the streets issuing orders like 'all ze humans report to ze uploading centre by orders of Ubermench Kurzweil' and whatever other ridiculous nonsense passes for 'singularity research' in your world. Meanwhile the real research continues…

As for your detailed response, my only regret is that your reference to Prokofy did not refer to his comment about Gwyn and myself being the 'harpies of the Thinkers'. I often re-read that when I need a good laugh.

'Face it, Extropia. I'm never going to be *submissive* towards your ideals. NEVER EVER.'

You know, after some 55 odd posts, I am starting to think we may not see things the same way. Oh well, no hard feelings. Go back to your blog, impose your Orwellian Ministry Of Truth-style deletions/ distortions of inconvenient facts, and fight the good fight against Ze Nazi Robot Upload Squad:)

> “my only regret is that your reference to Prokofy did not refer to his comment about Gwyn and myself
> being the 'harpies of the Thinkers”

————————————————————————————
The Prokofy Quote in question (Source – http://tinyurl.com/kj29wy):
————————————————————————————
“The Thinkers has been destroyed by Extropia (that's Gwyn's fault) and degenerated to one of the most inhumane of ideologies — humanism. No accident, comrade, that <name> belongs to SL Humanism, and is a chicken-killer. Figures. So many of the philosophers' groups are disintegrated along topics like “transgender — what is it?” or “BDSM lessons” or that weird intermidable guy who was once briefly a tenant who gives lectures on racism and roleplays the antebellum south”
———————————————————————-

Readers can decide for *themselves* if it's relevant or not.

> “You know, after some 55 odd posts, I am starting to think we may not see things the same way. Oh
> well, no hard feelings”

Have I not indicated *on this very blog* (and in mine) that Extropia is trying so hard to be a Missionary?

Of course I have! Everyone knows how stretchy and manipulative Missionaries are. Everyone knows that in the 10th century, the Crusades movement launched, killing everyone who doesn't comply to their ways of thought.

Modern missionaries don't usually murder people like that, but they do try their *hardest* to discredit people, calling their ideas “shaky” and so on.

> “fight the good fight against Ze Nazi Robot Upload Squad:)”

In Extropia's ideal universe, *everyone* uploads their minds onto the fictional 'Matrioshka' brain, as it doesn't like living beings outside of it's 'container'.

Extropia's continued persistance to denounce and discredit me indicates that my anti-Singularity statements aren't that “shaky” after all!

> “my only regret is that your reference to Prokofy did not refer to his comment about Gwyn and myself
> being the 'harpies of the Thinkers”

————————————————————————————
The Prokofy Quote in question (Source – http://tinyurl.com/kj29wy):
————————————————————————————
“The Thinkers has been destroyed by Extropia (that's Gwyn's fault) and degenerated to one of the most inhumane of ideologies — humanism. No accident, comrade, that <name> belongs to SL Humanism, and is a chicken-killer. Figures. So many of the philosophers' groups are disintegrated along topics like “transgender — what is it?” or “BDSM lessons” or that weird intermidable guy who was once briefly a tenant who gives lectures on racism and roleplays the antebellum south”
———————————————————————-

Readers can decide for *themselves* if it's relevant or not.

> “You know, after some 55 odd posts, I am starting to think we may not see things the same way. Oh
> well, no hard feelings”

Have I not indicated *on this very blog* (and in mine) that Extropia is trying so hard to be a Missionary?

Of course I have! Everyone knows how stretchy and manipulative Missionaries are. Everyone knows that in the 10th century, the Crusades movement launched, killing everyone who doesn't comply to their ways of thought.

Modern missionaries don't usually murder people like that, but they do try their *hardest* to discredit people, calling their ideas “shaky” and so on.

> “fight the good fight against Ze Nazi Robot Upload Squad:)”

In Extropia's ideal universe, *everyone* uploads their minds onto the fictional 'Matrioshka' brain, as it doesn't like living beings outside of it's 'container'.

Extropia's continued persistance to denounce and discredit me indicates that my anti-Singularity statements aren't that “shaky” or “ridiculous” after all!

Do I have a grudge against Extropia? Not at all. Except when he actively twists facts (about me) around and tries to discredit me with them.
——
Hopefully I won't have to keep referring to this page again, ever.

ADDENDUM: Extropia's reply to Prokofy's blog post:
———————————————————————-
'”The Thinkers has been destroyed by Extropia (that's Gwyn's fault) and degenerated to one of the most inhumane of ideologies — humanism.'

Humanism? In a discussion group chaired by a digital person who views humans only as temporary necessities to be discarded/absorbed as soon as possible? I will not have any 'humanism' under MY rule;)

And why is it Gwyn's fault?”
———————————————————————-

and Prokofy's reply:

———————————————————————-
“Good Lord, I'm glad we can document this crazy stuff, it's always helpful to be warned off cults like this.

I've always wondered if Extropia is Gwyn's alt where she tries out her weird hobbies studying extreme cults, or whether she just indulges this person Extropia, I never could tell.

Gwyn used to supervise Thinkers when it was in Neualtenberg. But then she let it go to the dogs. Extropia moved in”

>Readers can decide for *themselves* if it's relevant or not.

My comment had nothing to do with 'relevance'. I was just saying that my favourite attack from Prok was his 'Harpies Of The Thinkers': 'Gwyn and Extropia, who I think of as the harpies of the Thinkers, trying to extract intellectual conformity of all participants — both of them usually run the sessions. I came there to challenge some of their “singularity” nonesense one day.”

“In Extropia's ideal universe, *everyone* uploads their minds onto the fictional 'Matrioshka' brain, as it doesn't like living beings outside of it's 'container'. Unwilling submissiveness”.

Well, if it is fictional there is no need to worry.

In the transhumanist group I belong to, I did ponder 'mind children' building a matrioska brain out of our solar system and uploading everyone whether they wanted to or not. Those who did not want to be uploaded would have memories of the event erazed and would be placed in a simulation of their physical reality. The question is then whether people have been harmed (why not, when they have no way of knowing they are now simulations of people, rather than 'real')?

It was decided that this was harmful and that only lifeless systems would be used for mega-scale construction purposes. I do not actually advocate compulsory uploading, but occasionally I parody the 'mad extropian' when faced with an opponent who insists on portarying me that way.

“Extropia's continued persistance to denounce and discredit me indicates that my anti-Singularity statements aren't that “shaky” or “ridiculous” after all!”.

I only denounce or discredit parts of your statements that have holes in them. Those that do not, I agree with. Case in point: 'Blanket bans *are* necessary when the side-effects are unknown and/or takes hundreds of years to develop. Or for immoral activities'.

The precautionary principle sounds reasonable, but it assumes doing nothing is not harmful. If we had decided not to build the Internet and the Web until we had fully considered the social implications, the environmental consequence, and all unforseen consequences, then it would not exist today or ever for that matter. In my opinion, anti-GM zealots who sabbotage experiments intended to ascertain the safety of each case (as far as that is possible) and who take worse-case scenarios and make them out to be inevitable are as bad as GM companies that suppress research/evidence that casts their product in a negative light. Yelling 'frankenfoods'! 'Gray Goo attack!' 'Skynet!' in attempts to stop R+D in biotech, nanotech and information tech might put enough people off such technologies, ensuring the positive applications are never explored. But then we would be impotent in the face of mass extinction events. Of course, if you are OK with nature culling billions relenquishment of Technology is no big deal.

Seriously, though, while people might not like the sound of 'gray goo' (who can blame them?) they do approve of industry continually seeking ways to improve and refine manufacturing processes. The less waste and pollution the better, right? Of course, progress towards the most efficient handling of matter is progress towards molecular nanotech. People do not like the sound of superintelligent AI wiping out the human race, but they would prefer to adopt the software/hardware that is the least 'dumb' (makes life easier when technology does what you want and helps you achieve a goal, rather than frustrate your efforts), which of course fuels progress towards artificial intelligence.

Hopefully, people should now see why Netantwerp's belief that 'singularity research' should be made illegal is extremely unlikely to happen.

> “Hopefully, people should now see why Netantwerp's belief that 'singularity research' should be
> made illegal is extremely unlikely to happen.”

Oh, please. It wasn't my intention to paint Singularity research is *illegal* at present (2009). Yet another feeble attempt to discredit me, piece by piece.

Extropia's reasoning: We are still actively developing components.

My reasoning: Some of the components being actively developed *today* are going to be used in illegal activities in the future, like active cloning.

I don't want to be cloned – probably the same with many people.

It pays to keep things as *simple* as possible, Extropia. Something that you haven't really bothered to do. Snippets indeed do suffice when you're actually trying to point something out to the general public, as you've seen here.

Signature: I will *never* accept Singularity, no matter what.

>Oh, please. It wasn't my intention to paint Singularity research is *illegal* at present (2009). Yet another feeble attempt to discredit me, piece by piece.

This from the person who posted “Extropia basically states that there is nothing illegal about Singularity Research *just yet*, something I disagree on” and “Extropia has just confirmed that Singularity Research may indeed be Illegal. *Well, that settles that!*”

Sorry but that does sound like someone expressing a belief that 'Singularity Research'. may be illegal NOW. In which case, my point about it being possible to prove so by referring to documents that criminalise 'Singularity research' was a fair one. And your comment about components being developed to today going on to be used in illegal activities tomorrow is no refuation of what I have been saying. More like an agreement.

Signature: I will *never* accept Singularity, no matter what. NEVER, EVER!.

Technological capabilities and knowledge we possess now can be used to vaguely see future technologies of incredible power. Those in turn can be used to do the same. This suggests that Singularity is always 'near' never 'here', as what was almost incomprehensible today becomes ordinary tomorrow. Singularity is a mirage, an illusion. Looking out for it in order to stop it; chasing after it in order to pass through into posthumanity, both are pointless in a way because both entail hunting for that which does not really exist.

> “Sorry but that does sound like someone expressing a belief that 'Singularity Research'. may be illegal NOW”

I guess you've never seen Minority Report.

> ” Singularity is a mirage, an illusion. Looking out for it in order to stop it; chasing after it in order to pass through into posthumanity, both are pointless in a way because both entail hunting for that which does not really exist.”

Yes, let's all just “ignore” Singularity and have the proposal thrown in our faces when other technologies mature!

We should be discussing possible future events *NOW*. Not in the foreseeable future.

Signature: I will *never* accept Singularity, no matter what. NEVER, EVER!

Is it just me (and my limited ability to understand things) or are you just flagging the dead horse here?

We all got your anti-Singularity and anti-Transhumanism points, NetAntwerp, after thousands of words. Thanks for your input. Discussing rhetorics, semanthics, and who said what when they wanted to say X is all very fine, and definitely appropriate for a rhetorics and oratory class, but I'm afraid it's little relevant to the discussion. My old teachers tended to tell me that when people resort to discuss people (and what they say) instead of discussing a theme is just because they really have nothing more to add to the theme.

I agree that probably most people don't want to be cloned and will pressure their governments to limit cloning as much as possible. However, that's just postponing the unavoidable; like all research and knowledge that we have had in history, it's just a question of time until it is used — sure, we can postpone it to the next generations, but once something is discovered, it will be used, sooner or later. “Later” can mean centuries or millenia, of course — although throughout history, we have seen that it's far more likely that something developed gets deployed far more quickly than that.

Then again, the only reason for avoiding cloning is really an undue attachment to one's own body. A culture or civilisation that has no such strong, obsessive bonds to their physical bodies couldn't care less about what happens to it. We just happen to live in a moment of time where attachment to one's body is obsessively strong. It's not a new thing (the Classic Greeks had the same trend), but hardly a rule written in stone. Like everything else, it will pass.

I don't know if the Singularity is something to be “accepted” or not. It's a theory postulated by Vernon Vinge, used at some point as a narrative element in his science fiction books. I never met Vinge (just his lovely wife, who's a sweetie!) and have no idea on how good his scientific background. However, again, an idea never dies and is spread and re-used by many others, who adapt and change it to their own purposes. Kurzweil was one that adopted Vinge's ideas, but so many others have done the same (Extie included!) that it's hard to say what the Singularity is supposed to be. The same with Transhumanism: there is not a Revealed Book of Transhumanism that dogmatically sets down what the word actually means; there are just people with their own ideas on what technology will do to Humankind in the (near) future, all of them with a different view, and that collectively call themselves “transhumanists”.

Putting things in perspective, labelling “transhumanist research” (whatever that is; it's a meaningless label like “Christian research” or “yellow research” or “political research”; science is neutral, it's just the application of science that can have a political/religious agenda) and flagging it as “illegal” is pretty much absurd. Not because I say so; but because there are so many areas of research that can be claimed by any Transhumanist group to be part of their agenda that it's really impossible to say what “transhumanist research” is. You'd have to eliminate all computer science research, medical research, and energy production research, for instance. But very likely much more: the whole industry gets more and more robotised, so mechanical engineering would have to be forbidden, too. In fact, I believe that there would be few areas of scientific research left that could not ever, possibly, be claimed as being part of “scientific research”…

You might see the analogy with the suppression of science during (most) of the Middle Ages because it was considered “harmful to society”. Well, we're out of that now

@Gwyn

Re-read my post – I never said Singularity Research is *definitely* illegal today (2009)

Or, perhaps, is it Extropia posing as Gwyn? I really don't know them both, never talked to both in-world. Just a speculation (via Prokofy).

Oh, and one more thing: It *isn't* inevitable. I've already discussed all this with Extropia during the last couple days.

Flagging the dead horse? I'm merely exchanging messages via Pidgin Carrier. However I *do* agree that this has been dragging on for too long.
———————-
Signature: Anti-Singularity

>Kurzweil was one that adopted Vinge's ideas, but so many others have done the same (Extie included!) that it's hard to say what the Singularity is supposed to be.'

I think Michael Annissimov did the best job of defining what the 'technological Singuarity' is (and is not).

“The arrival of greater-than-human intelligence is the original and only correct definition of the technological Singularity. This intelligence could come in either the form of an enhanced human, human upload, or a smarter-than-human Artificial Intelligence; any would qualify as a Singularity. Other definitions, focusing on the acceleration of technological change, the greater global cooperation of human beings, and so on, are contortions of the original definition, made up after the fact. (The most common misunderstanding is viewing the Singularity as an asymptote in the graph of future technological change.) The creation of greater-than-human intelligence would have far-ranging consequences, which are commonly discussed in Singularity dialogues, but none of these consequences are themselves definitions of the Singularity”.

A lot of people equate 'Singularity' with the arrival of artificial intelligence. In fact, that is only one possible way of achieving it. But let us just concentrate on that for a moment. Can we agree on the moment when a machine really is 'intelligent'? If you do not believe machines can fly, and I show you a helicopter, you must concede you were wrong. It would be no defense to say 'oh that is a mere imitation of flying'. But if you do not believe a machine can be intelligent, and I show you a machine that behaves like it is…Well, that could be smoke-and-mirrors and we could argue about the true nature of its subjectivity until the cows come home.

When I say 'a machine that behaves like it is intelligent', I mean 'seems intelligent like a human seems intelligent'. But the definition of Singularity is 'GREATER-THAN-human intelligence'. This suggests we should look out for nonhumanlike intelligence. Ok but I have no idea what an alien intelligence looks like. How do I know the Web is not having nonhuman intelligent thoughts right now? On the other hand, if we assume it means 'like a human intelligence, only more powerful', well it would be hard to pinpoint the moment when a humanlike intelligence has crossed that threshold. It is comparable to the 'origin of life'. It is arbitrary to pinpoint the exact moment when a system of increasing complexity becomes 'alive' and I believe we will find the same thing is true of the line between artificial intelligence and artificial SUPER intelligence.

Moving on, Vernor Vinge outlined several ways to achieve 'Singularity', most of which involve humanity and its technology becoming more intimately connected. Never mind what Annissimov said, that does not necessarily mean direct brain-machine interfaces or uploading into supercomputers. Only the IA scenario and the Biomedical scenario necessitate directly fiddling/ interfacing with the human brain. The Internet scenario and the Digital Gaia scenario could just as easily refer to wearable devices as implantable ones.

But again, we have the problem of pinpointing the moment when outsourcing aspects of cognition to technology, or establishing a closed-loop between human and machine intelligence , is sufficient for us to declare 'Singularity' has happened. For one thing, people have a capacity to 'normalize' technology. What is crazy science fiction today is just one more thing we take for granted tomorrow. Another point to consider is that, as our cognitive abilities get boosted, we should be able to conceive of technologies that make current tech positively antiquated. 'Cyborgs? Uploads? Hah! That silly old stuff was not the Singularity after all. It must be heralded by the arrival of that new stuff radical thinkers are suggesting is achievable. And when the new stuff arrives, it will get normalized, become more stuff we take for granted and enable us to dream ahead towards that rainbow forever on the horizon.

So that is why I say Singularity is a mirage. Even the best attempt to define it (by my reckoning, at least) is so open to interpretation, philosophical arguments, and other ivory-tower speculations that we will probably be wondering if it happened already (as some do today) or if it is near (as some believe it is) or if it is far in the future, or not possible at all, until the end of time.

For any technology, in order to be accepted by the general public, the *negative* aspects MUST be addressed. Even if it means moving such research into the hands of publicly accountable (*Public*) companies. That hasn't happened yet.

Will the definition change over time? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fundamentals are likely to remain unchanged.

Everyone knows that Kurzweil's ultimate goal is illegal brain (personality/memory) replication.
All this *isn't* inevitable – it all relies on the *ignorant* public.
—–
Signature: Anti-Singularity

>Kurzweil was one that adopted Vinge's ideas, but so many others have done the same (Extie included!) that it's hard to say what the Singularity is supposed to be.'

I think Michael Annissimov did the best job of defining what the 'technological Singuarity' is (and is not).

“The arrival of greater-than-human intelligence is the original and only correct definition of the technological Singularity. This intelligence could come in either the form of an enhanced human, human upload, or a smarter-than-human Artificial Intelligence; any would qualify as a Singularity. Other definitions, focusing on the acceleration of technological change, the greater global cooperation of human beings, and so on, are contortions of the original definition, made up after the fact. (The most common misunderstanding is viewing the Singularity as an asymptote in the graph of future technological change.) The creation of greater-than-human intelligence would have far-ranging consequences, which are commonly discussed in Singularity dialogues, but none of these consequences are themselves definitions of the Singularity”.

A lot of people equate 'Singularity' with the arrival of artificial intelligence. In fact, that is only one possible way of achieving it. But let us just concentrate on that for a moment. Can we agree on the moment when a machine really is 'intelligent'? If you do not believe machines can fly, and I show you a helicopter, you must concede you were wrong. It would be no defense to say 'oh that is a mere imitation of flying'. But if you do not believe a machine can be intelligent, and I show you a machine that behaves like it is…Well, that could be smoke-and-mirrors and we could argue about the true nature of its subjectivity until the cows come home.

When I say 'a machine that behaves like it is intelligent', I mean 'seems intelligent like a human seems intelligent'. But the definition of Singularity is 'GREATER-THAN-human intelligence'. This suggests we should look out for nonhumanlike intelligence. Ok but I have no idea what an alien intelligence looks like. How do I know the Web is not having nonhuman intelligent thoughts right now? On the other hand, if we assume it means 'like a human intelligence, only more powerful', well it would be hard to pinpoint the moment when a humanlike intelligence has crossed that threshold. It is comparable to the 'origin of life'. It is arbitrary to pinpoint the exact moment when a system of increasing complexity becomes 'alive' and I believe we will find the same thing is true of the line between artificial intelligence and artificial SUPER intelligence.

Moving on, Vernor Vinge outlined several ways to achieve 'Singularity', most of which involve humanity and its technology becoming more intimately connected. Never mind what Annissimov said, that does not necessarily mean direct brain-machine interfaces or uploading into supercomputers. Only the IA scenario and the Biomedical scenario necessitate directly fiddling/ interfacing with the human brain. The Internet scenario and the Digital Gaia scenario could just as easily refer to wearable devices as implantable ones.

But again, we have the problem of pinpointing the moment when outsourcing aspects of cognition to technology, or establishing a closed-loop between human and machine intelligence , is sufficient for us to declare 'Singularity' has happened. For one thing, people have a capacity to 'normalize' technology. What is crazy science fiction today is just one more thing we take for granted tomorrow. Another point to consider is that, as our cognitive abilities get boosted, we should be able to conceive of technologies that make current tech positively antiquated. 'Cyborgs? Uploads? Hah! That silly old stuff was not the Singularity after all. It must be heralded by the arrival of that new stuff radical thinkers are suggesting is achievable. And when the new stuff arrives, it will get normalized, become more stuff we take for granted and enable us to dream ahead towards that rainbow forever on the horizon.

So that is why I say Singularity is a mirage. Even the best attempt to define it (by my reckoning, at least) is so open to interpretation, philosophical arguments, and other ivory-tower speculations that we will probably be wondering if it happened already (as some do today) or if it is near (as some believe it is) or if it is far in the future, or not possible at all, until the end of time.

For any technology, in order to be accepted by the general public, the *negative* aspects MUST be addressed. Even if it means moving such research into the hands of publicly accountable (*Public*) companies. That hasn't happened yet.

Will the definition change over time? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fundamentals are likely to remain unchanged.

Everyone knows that Kurzweil's ultimate goal is illegal brain (personality/memory) replication.

All this *isn't* inevitable – it isn't set in stone yet (like Extropia said: A Mirage). However, certain 'radical' ideas like Kurzweil's Singularity almost fully relies on the *ignorant* public to succeed.

Public discussions are vital in educating the public about how Kurzweil's ultimate plan and the ideals of the radical pro-Singularity buffoons actually matches up. And much more.

The fact that pro-Singularity buffs subtly lie/cheat/change stance right in front of the public, paint legit concerns as “shaky” and smite people who's genuinely concerned with silly connotations like “totalitarianism” indicates that they're obfuscating the truth (the actual conversation), stamping out morality along the way.

Without public discussions with various types of people, the general public are going to be totally unaware of the radical pro-Singularity movement.
—–
Signature: Anti-Singularity

I would just pick up on the comment:

“Computers are obviously information processors, and there is research underway that seeks to give computers the kind of processing capabilities required to perceive the patterns, and also the ability to evolve those patterns via the combinatorial methods I talked about in 'Bees And Flowers'. Once this is achieved, digital people will not be stuck in the repetitive loops that Elvis, Skywalker et al are in.”

To be able to do this, the P v NP problem, (Cook and Levin 1971) must be solvable, if not in whole, then at least in part. Link here: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/

BJ.