The thread on immortality through technology got me thinking. So I ended up doing a little internet research on Ray Kurzwiel. It seems that him and his like believe in a period in time when technology will be so powerful that predicting it would be completely useless. They call this time period “The Singularity”. They claim that after this humans and robots will completely merge and transform the entire univererse into an intelligent being. The general consensus is that this “singularity” will happen within the next 25 years. Is there any credence to this hypothesis? It sounds as if these people are just like the Christians in prophesizing a utopian future (accept for the god killing all unbelievers part). What does Objectivism have to say about rational thinking computers? Would they have rights? What about a computer that was once a human but ‘downloaded’ their personality into it?
While I wouldn’t rule out some kind of computer/human “merger” in the distant future(this is already happening a little with various implants, etc.) I laughed out loud when I read that the “concensus” was that this would happen in about 25 years.
And my thinking is the same rights should apply to any entity, biological or artificial, if it has a valid volitonal conceptual faculty. I don’t know what principle you would use to seperate the two except the artificial was originally created to “work” for the biological i.e., human. Eventually though if the artificial entities really possessed volition we would have to respect their rights or else this would be some new kind of slavery. My guess is we are at least a hundred years from a true artificial intelligence so we probally don’t have to worry to much about this yet.
Is true AI really possible? I mean, you can have a computer that acts just like a human, but I don’t personally believe that it would ever actually have a consciousness.
I am a little skeptical about the idea of the singularity happening in the next 25 years. I mean, back in the 50’s weren’t they predicting that man would have flying cars and moon colonies and robots by the year 2000?
I saw this cool picture that was drawn back in 1900. It was an artist’s envisionment of the year 1999. Huge towers with walkways through them, horseless carriages (yes, they were shaped like carriages) going between them, and Zeppelins populating the sky. It was kind of neat.
The point is, I think Predicting technology is like predicting the weather. Sure you can forcast the next 6 days or so, but beyond that there is too much uncertainty.
As for rational computers, I admit that they may be possible, and when we do have them, they are entitled to the same rights as a man. Maybe I have watched the matrix trilogy and I, Robot too many times 
Is true AI really possible? I mean, you can have a computer that acts just like a human, but I don’t personally believe that it would ever actually have a consciousness.
Of course it’s possible. We know this because we all know that a rational faculty already exists, it was self-assembled by nature as our mind. To say that we could not at least duplicate what already exists would be a contradiction, or worse it would be assuming some “magical thing” that only humans could ever possess. Which has major problems with it. The only problem I see is when we will have the technical expertise to create a true A.I. and what exactly the demarcation of a “true” vs. “untrue” A.I. would be. As for predicting when the technology will exist all we can do now is make an educated guess, but we cannot deny its future possibiliy being that we are using such a faculty and it therefore already exists in some form.
The thread on immortality through technology got me thinking. So I ended up doing a little internet research on Ray Kurzwiel. It seems that him and his like believe in a period in time when technology will be so powerful that predicting it would be completely useless. They call this time period “The Singularity”.
Umm, this is all fine science fiction, but it’s totally arbitrary.
Umm, this is all fine science fiction, but it’s totally arbitrary.
I agree.
I have some knowledge of the transhumanist movement and of similar futurist groups, and some of their views, especially those on the so-called singularity, are pure mysticism. An example is the view that humans will be able to “upload” their consciousness into digital computers within a matter of decades. As someone else suggested, these views are no different than religious eschatology.
This is unfortunate, because despite their inclusion of a number of such irrational ideas, these groups do attract individuals who are genuine enthusiasts of legitimate scientific eventualities.
Moreover, many of the ideas advocated by such groups, like the World Transhumanist Association and the Extropy Institute, are profoundly good ideas that are very seldom advocated in mainstream society. They support the radical enhancement of human life through technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, cybernetic implants, etc.
Very much like the libertarians, however, these groups stand for some positive concrete goals while denying and opposing the rational philosophy that must underlie them. And just as with the libertarians, the result is that transhumanism includes many bizarrely irrational absurdities alongside some out-of-context good ideas. In fact the transhumanist movement, particularly the Extropian faction, contains many libertarians. The World Transhumanist Association seems to include far more leftists and socialists, though it contains libertarians as well.
As to the singularity, as conceived by many futurist groups it is arbitrary, mystical nonsense, but it is nevertheless based very roughly on a sound idea.
This is the fact that the rate of scientific advancement is continually accelerating. It is conceivable that the rate of advancement will, at some point in the coming century or two, become so rapid that the human condition will be impoved profoundly in a relatively short period of time.
This conception is, however, vastly different from the idea that mankind will ascend to virtual godhood through technology within 30 years.
The thread on immortality through technology got me thinking. So I ended up doing a little internet research on Ray Kurzwiel. It seems that him and his like believe in a period in time when technology will be so powerful that predicting it would be completely useless. They call this time period “The Singularity”. They claim that after this humans and robots will completely merge and transform the entire univererse into an intelligent being. The general consensus is that this “singularity” will happen within the next 25 years. Is there any credence to this hypothesis? It sounds as if these people are just like the Christians in prophesizing a utopian future (accept for the god killing all unbelievers part). What does Objectivism have to say about rational thinking computers? Would they have rights? What about a computer that was once a human but ‘downloaded’ their personality into it?
This is not the place to introduce religious debate, and your comparison of Scriptural prophecy with extreme technology predictions is a poor one. Whilst this is not the arena to discuss this, I will say this; I would respect your comments more if you did not make sweeping, unsupported statements. The Bible does NOT say that unbelievers will be destroyed, but that unrepentant wicked ones will. In other words, “believing” is not enough. By all means, you have a right to free speech, but unless you are prepared to research your assertions so that you may back them up, then it would be wise not to discuss matters of Scripture so that you do not cause offense. Avoid provocative statements, and stick to what you have actually researched. :lol:
Umm, this is all fine science fiction, but it’s totally arbitrary.
Funny that since I wrote that statement, I’ve become a faithful disciple of the Singularity Church. I now believe that it is probable that the aforementioned godhood will occur around 2025-2030, and expect to stick around for at least the next couple dozen billion years. (Either that, or to become a carbon-based foodstuff during the Nanonbot Revolution, and there’s no point worrying about that.) Certainly, I don’t expect our current civilization to survive in recognizable form over 50 years.
Radical as it may seem, the evidence for the singularity is all around us, and I’ve found it irrefutable. I suggest looking at one of these resources for more info:
The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era
Wikipedia: Technological Singularity
The Singularity Is Near (Repent! Repent! 
)
In Ray Kurzeil’s defense, in the interview with him that was linked to this site awhile back, he said that 25 years was the point at which longevity enhancing technologies would increase the human lifespan at a rate faster then people age. The average lifespan, in other words would be increasing at a rate faster then one year per year. I don’t know much about the transhumanist philosophy and am not trying to defend it. Just a clarification on time frame.
I read his book on the Singularity and he does not specifically predict 25 years, though I seem to remember something more in the realm of 50-80 years. He has cited lots of evidence to back up his predictions, quite convincingly, comparing bellcurves on technological advances with data creation and storage, etc to further his case. Since I am a techie, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched. Sony actually started patents rolling on a device that will stimulate the brain to produce sensory experiences, sort of like the doodad in Strange Days.
His immortality theory doesn’t stem from pure tech, but it does go hand in hand with it-- basically humans will engineer computers that can think faster than the human brain, which will in turn process data that will help us hash genes and the like, in addition to figuring out how to reverse-engineer the brain to work side by side with the raw binary processing of computers. At that point, when we and technology take off in symbiosis, that will be the singularity.
I’m wondering that after hundreds of years of trying to create an artifical intelligence just like a human being, scientists will throw back the curtain and show us a human baby born from a human being. 
Nah, it won’t just be a regular human baby, it’ll be a super-smart genetically engineered baby who’s been painted silver.
I saw this cool picture that was drawn back in 1900. It was an artist’s envisionment of the year 1999. Huge towers with walkways through them, horseless carriages (yes, they were shaped like carriages) going between them, and Zeppelins populating the sky. It was kind of neat.
I would love to see this. Does anyone have any idea who it’s by or where I could find it?
Is true AI really possible? I mean, you can have a computer that acts just like a human, but I don’t personally believe that it would ever actually have a consciousness.
I agree Moose. I have seen no evidence to suggest that a human mind could be duplicated in a machine (in a non-biological system). I never understood people’s fascination with AI or the fact that they are SURE its coming. Computers can do incredible things but I do not think it is possible to program a mind. Humans possess free will and I do not think that that can be programmed into any machine.
Of course it’s possible. We know this because we all know that a rational faculty already exists, it was self-assembled by nature as our mind. To say that we could not at least duplicate what already exists would be a contradiction, or worse it would be assuming some “magical thing” that only humans could ever possess.
To say that we could not duplicate exactly that which already exists is not a contradiction. Biological things cannot be duplicated. Mechanical analogues can take their place but they are not the same thing. A peg leg functions as a leg but it is not a leg. You could build a computer that looks and acts like a brain but that does not mean it is a brain. You could program a computer to act as though it has volition but that does not give it volition.
You could build a computer that looks and acts like a brain but that does not mean it is a brain.
Actually, yes it is. Any system that demonstrates volitional thought IS volitional, because it is impossible to behave rationally without rational thought actually going on.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that a human mind could be duplicated in a machine (in a non-biological system)… Computers can do incredible things but I do not think it is possible to program a mind.
Your ignorance of AI is not evidence that AI is impossible - it just means that you’re unqualified to conclude either way.
I do know something about AI programming, and the evidence suggests that while it is a very difficult problem, it is solvable. Desktop computers already exceed human memory capacity by a factor of 100. In about 10 years, the average computer will exceed human processing capacity. AI software already runs much of our economy, and it will continue to grow with computing power.
Humans possess free will and I do not think that that can be programmed into any machine.
The human brain is a machine of sorts. No one has found any magical properties that limit intelligence to biological systems. And if they did, we would switch to biological processing - hardware-wetware interfaces are already in use.
Biological things cannot be duplicated. Mechanical analogues can take their place but they are not the same thing.
Actually, part of the definition of living things is that they can be duplicated. We can already create a virus from scratch, and that ability is rapidly growing.
Biochemistry is well into the transition into an information science. You can download software right now that virtually creates new proteins and uses AI to check their usefulness.
I never understood people’s fascination with AI or the fact that they are SURE its coming.
The essays I linked by Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil explain why we can be “SURE.”
It is important to remember that rights don’t apply to consciousness. They apply to a living being with a volitional consciousness.
I tried to edit my last post with this, but I’ll just make a new post. Sorry if I clutter things up at all.
This is from Vernor Vinge’s essay:
The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
o There may be developed computers that are “awake” and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is “yes, we can”, then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)
o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may “wake up” as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
o Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect.
- How will this technology arrive?
"Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. "
Computer hardware has become more powerful and faster and smaller. How does this correlate with duplicating the human mind? It doesn’t. The human mind is beyond the power, speed, and utility of any computer. But this isn’t even the issue. If we matched our computer power with the brain’s, how would AI suddenly have the proper design to allow it to surpass the brain? What is astounding is how Vinge recognizes this problem, then runs past it and doesn’t look back.
-
How will they wake up? By making lots of networks lots of people use, and by following the logic of the first claim.
-
If they are still human, they cannot be considered “super_human." If they are not human, they cannot be considered "super_human.” What he is describing is people using tools and technology. This isn’t startling or new, nor is it reserved to the use of computers, nor will it change the nature of the concept HUMAN.
-
Neuroscientists are studying things such as the “collective mind” or the “social mind” or the “altruistic mind.” How is it that they will advance the understanding of the mind when they don’t understand it themselves (beyond a mass amount of particulars they have compiled)?
GreedyCapitalist:
Drew1776 said that he has seen no evidence to suggest computers becoming as strong as the brain. Your response was to call him ignorant, and then support your claim about AI with the idea that a desktop computer can hold more binary data than a brain. Then you leap to saying computers will out-perform the human mind. Don’t you think you need a little more information to justify your claims?
As far as the Vinge essay showing that it’s all “SURE”, I don’t see how you think Vinge demonstrates anything with certainty when he doesn’t think so himself. Every step of the way he says “if” and “may” and “I think [ie, I postulate]” and every step of the way he makes claims that are either without evidence, contrary to reality, or just plain illogical. Here’s a good example:
There is Good’s Meta-Golden Rule; perhaps there are rules for distinguishing self from others on the basis of bandwidth of connection. And while mind and self will be vastly more labile than in the past, much of what we value (knowledge, memory, thought) need never be lost. I think Freeman Dyson has it right when he says [9]: “God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.”
God indeed.
Computer hardware has become more powerful and faster and smaller. How does this correlate with duplicating the human mind? It doesn’t. The human mind is beyond the power, speed, and utility of any computer.
What does this mean? My pocket calculator has more “power, speed, and utility” than me when it comes to arithmetic. Are you claiming that there is a special realm of computing restricted to biology and/or the human brain? What is the evidence for this?