I didn't forget reintegration of memories - I explicitly stated that in my post. It doesn't change the fact that there are still two different entities.
I said nothing about a copy's "rights", so I have no idea why you brought that up.
When I use the term continuity, I am not referring to merely sleeping or other temporary lapses of awareness which are irrelevant to an entity's space/time localization of identity.
Right, kiddo - except we're not talking about humans anymore, so that's irrelevant.
If Foerster suggested asymtotic technical development, then he might well have been an early predictor of something similar to the Singularity.
And a lot of people claim that the problem with the world today is not too many people, but too many lousy quality people.
And that might be where the problem is in Foerster's model - as long as you have lousy people, you need more population just to get the few percent who actually do move the species along.
Once you have Transhumans, the model isn't as clear.
As for me being the Transhumanist "Pope", well, yes, actually, compared to anybody else who might want the title. But I prefer being called "The Master", thank you very much. (That's "Master" as in "I understand it better than you do".)
The notion that we "can't see beyond the Singularity" is not critical to the notions of probable advantages to the development of Tranhuman technology.
In fact, for the most part, the "Singularity" was merely a literary device to introduce some mystery and an interesting concept to a piece of fiction. The term was picked up by Tranhumanists to indicate a predicted "sea change" in the quality of sentient existence.
Don't take it TOO literally.
One can certainly extrapolate from known science as to certain capabilities. However, Vinge's concept was that one cannot describe the nature of superhuman intelligence or the actions and events deriving from such intelligence.
This is not "religion", it's simple logic.
It also doesn't stop anybody from trying. It just means it's all going to be speculation until we get closer to it and develop more intellectual capability to try to comprehend it.
The same humans who recoil from "the end of the human race" eagerly embrace religious crap from the Christian religion that they'll all end up in "heaven" where there's no sex, or anything else the Church declares "immoral", and they get to stand around all day proclaiming the "glory of God".
Ever see "Bedazzled" with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore? The scene where Peter as the Devil imitating God has Dudley dancing around him saying, "You're wonderful! Take my hat off to you! You're fabulous!?" The Devil's point was that got pretty boring after a while.
But you humans just eat that sort of nonsense up.
And then criticize Transhumans for wanting to have unlimited time to experience unlimited space and unlimited knowledge - and unlimited experience.
I don't recall pointing to the article has proof of anything. I pointed you to it because it discusses concepts that cast doubt on your statement that nothing will change in 100 years.
If you'd bother to follow up on the obvious and frequently mentioned extrapolations of the technology's possible capabilities, it becomes painfully obvious that something - and most likely everything - is going to change.
Not recognizing that is merely sticking one's head in the sand.
It is irrelevant to discuss the invention of, say, the automobile, or even the computer as it is today, as proof that human nature hasn't changed. We are talking about technology which can fundamentally identify, control AND CHANGE basic human biology and neural structure as well as vastly widen human knowledge and control of physical reality (at least to the molecular scale - we have to wait for picotech and femtotech before we start doing some of the things sci-fi has predicted in the past - assuming they are doable.)
Anybody who can't see that as a qualitative difference in technological impact simply isn't thinking.
I can always count on the/.'ers. Mr. Spock wasn't so precise.
In case anybody missed my point, I'll reiterate: just because the DARPA clowns can't get a robot to function properly is irrelevant to whether we'll have some sort of "AI" within a reasonable time frame - i.e., this century.
While some people in the Transhumanism community might be predicting AI within five or ten years, I doubt that very much. Saying it will be three hundred years as the skeptics do, I doubt also very much.
People use the term upload, which by common usage means copying.
Some people (I believe Moravec did this) have described the process of "uploading a mind" in terms that indicated the brain from which the "mind" was "uploaded" was then discarded, i.e., a destructive "upload".
In fact, that was probably when I realized the concept was not meaninful. As I point out, a destructive "upload" is NOT an "upload" unless you have somehow MOVED the brain function, not just copied it. And a nondestructive "upload" is by definition a COPY, which does not solve the original brain's problem of continuity.
It's the difference between true immortality and PERSISTENCE. If you want persistence, fine. But don't tell me it's immortality. The copy is NOT the original and the original not only has the same problem he always had, now his copy has the same problem. "Uploading" may solve various problems and provide new capabilities, but it does not solve the immortality problem.
While copying a quantum particle might destroy it, it's not clear you can equate the sum total of the brain's function with said particles - even if you have to copy them all and even if they are critical to the functioning of a particular brain.
If you regard the sum total of the brain as an emergent phenomenon which is localized in space/time, then as long as that sum total remains so localized, you have not destroyed it even if you "destroy" (and replace, of course) most of its PARTS at one point or another.
After all, we replace our cells throughout our lifetime - which doesn't mean we don't continue to exist as a particular entity in space/time continuity.
Whereas if you destroy the quantum processes of a brain so that it no longer functions in the process of copying those functions to another facility, then yes, you have destroyed that brain.
That is my point. Destructive is still destructive. Non-destructive copying is not MOVING, it is COPYING. The end result is two entities, not one, and both have the same problem the original entity did - how to not be destroyed. Copying worsens the problem, it does not solve it.
Copying,however, may still be valuable depending on the purpose of the copy - if you want to still have influence on the world after your destruction, a copy is just as rational as leaving behind a will and testament (except that the copy might change his mind about following your plan - of course, so can relatives.)
What I mean to say - and probably did so badly by using the vague terms "mind" and "upload" (the latter term is either meaningless or means exactly what I am claiming - a copy operation, not a MOVE operation) - is that if in the process of copying the processes of a brain to another facility that brain is destroyed, then quite obviously that brain's functionality has been destroyed. This is quite obviously no different than putting a gun to the head of that brain and pulling the trigger.
The fact that you have a COPY of that brain running elsewhere is entirely irrevelant to the status of the original brain.
Do a thought experiment: copy your brain somewhere else. Then put a gun to your head. Do you mind pulling the trigger?
I thought so. And if you don't, you're deluded.
You are the one presuming that a "mind" - which is not a scientific term - is different from a brain. That is not my position. Mind you, I'm not saying it is impossible to copy a brain's function to another facility. I'm simply saying that in no way removes the fact of the original's existence. If you destroy the original, you have destroyed it. If you haven't, all you've done is copy it. That simple.
Contrary to the opinions of some people who mix their metaphors, we're not talking "information" here. We're talking a complex physical entity with a definite location in space/time. There is no way to "upload" a physical object - you can only copy it or destroy it.
Again, I'm not saying you CAN'T COPY IT. I'm saying that doesn't change the nature of the original object - or the problem of ITS continued existence (as opposed to the continued existence of the "information" it contained.)
No, they are not, anymore than a copy of a Word document IS the Word document. It is a COPY. That's why we have the terms "copy" and "original".
And we don't trust copies (despite the fact that you shouldn't trust "originals" either depending on available tech.)
More importantly, both entities will then diverge in experience if only because they are in different locations. While this experience could of course be shared between both entities (and probably should be) with full fidelity, this still clearly differentiates the two entities. Instead of one being immortal, both now have the not-immortal problem.
If other words, the problem has been made WORSE, not better.
Space-time location is the defining factor for identity.
The bottom line is: if one of the entities is destroyed, it is destroyed. That it's continuity continues in another entity does not change the fact of the original entity being destroyed.
No two entities are identical (I'm not talking on the atomic level here, so fuck off, nit-pickers). Immortality either means a given entity does not get destroyed or it is a meaningless term.
Well, you certainly wouldn't put a brain that thinks a million times faster than a human brain in a human body - at least not if the motor functions were affected, and probably not even then.
Obviously you'd want a better body. And presumably that won't be that hard to get once adequate nanotech is developed.
'According to Microsoft, this limitation 'helps [users] stay organized and reduces confusion.'"'
We wouldn't want users to "get confused" and buy Linux, now would we?
Another example of how Microsoft is so VERY much more "user friendly" than Linux.
It doesn't get better than this. The Windows trolls are going to start sounding like Bush proclaiming we found WMDs in Iraq with this sort of help from Gates.
Sure, thirty years MAY be too soon for fully developed nanotech. But who knows how soon some nanotech devices might be used to unravel enough of brain function to enable deep insights?
More significant was the Gnostic concept that this God would be confronted by a "cosmic immortal Man" who appeared "before God". Most people interpret this to mean a cosmic immortal man who preceded God in his history. I interpret it to mean a cosmic immortal Man who is "before" God - i.e, in his FUTURE.
Metaphorically speaking, this is exactly what is happening. And it didn't take rocket science for the Gnostics to correctly predict this - merely a comprehension of how screwed up humans are and why they need to be transcended. Hell, the Gnostics were right on and probably late by several thousand years since they just built on even earlier concepts.
Nanotech will enable us to determine exactly how the brain functions (leaving out possible problems dealing with complexity theory or brain function that relies on physics we don't understand witout further evolution of physics theories.)
Evolution is not required.
I really get tired of people assuming advances in a given area of science depend entirely on that area and ignore effects of other developing technologies on the pace of research into that area of science. This is just dumb. You get more genetics advances because computer science and technology let you process the data from the research faster and better - not just because microscopes got better. Ever heard of bioinformatics?
'As Roddenbury said, "nothing becomes dated more quickly than our perceptions of the future."'
And you're supposed to be referencing "classic SF writers"?
Roddenberry (corrected spelling) had his own obvious problems with the future. Had Star Trek been based on hard science, it wouldn't have existed. His contortions to deal with the problem of the future are legendary.
So of course he had no choice if he wanted to retain a TV audience (not to mention TV executives) for his series to concentrate on human interest angles and use the sci-fi as a backdrop.
And of course that's what all the writers - including Doctorow and Wright and Egan - ARE doing.
Which is why the article is dead on.
When the "Human Condition" no longer exists, what is there to write about?
If you're simply complaining that Doctorow's stuff doesn't have enough human interest, well, start your own sci-fi criticism blog and knock yourself out. I haven't read any of his stuff, so I wouldn't know and couldn't care less.
It's irrelevant to the point of the article which is that you can't write about a real future you can't comprehend.
I suppose it's a valid point to say that no sci-fi writer knows the "real future" anyway, so who cares? Since you have writers who do care to extrapolate the future, the article is at least valid for them.
Irrevelant to the actual issue of whether transcendence is possible.
However, there happens to be a reason for this and it's not Christian nonsense.
The Gnostics believed it was better to become God than to worship God. (The Taoists had a similar concept on the Asian side.)
When Gnostic thought fused with Greek rationalism, you got the occult, which beget alchemy, which beget chemistry as rationalism re-asserted itself and separated from metaphysics.
However, science has always been described as "Faustian" and religion has always been opposed to science for the simple reason that science is basically Gnostic in essence. Science believes in knowing, not believing (pun intended). The result you see around is no God and/. on your computer.
So it is no surprise that the Greek phrase "transhumanar" (transhumanization) which is frequently used in religious circles got picked up by Sir Julian Huxley and subsequently by F. M. Esfandiary (a Middle-Eastern born futurist). The idiots in Transhumanism who think it derives from Humanism - and who think Humanism is a useful philosophy for Transhumanists - have no clue. The real source is Gnosticism.
As to your brainless question about "real reason", the answer is: Yes.
Population size has absolutely NOTHING to do with Transhumanism (other than some Transhumanists like to predict expansion throughout the Universe as some sort of manifest destiny.)
I personally feel the opposite. Once Transhumans (or posthumans) exist, I suspect they stop reproducing entirely. Certainly in any biological sense. They might produce intelligent or semi-intelligent remote affectors, probes, whatever. But since they are no longer biological and thus no longer subject to biochemical drives, why would they feel any pressure to reproduce?
There are some vague theories around about alternative motives to continue expansion, but I find none of them particularly persuasive.
I suspect super intelligences exist in a manner calculated to preserve their beings from any random act of destruction the universe might throw their way, but otherwise maintaining a specific position in time and space (possibly - even probably - distributed). With nanotech and access to effectively unlimited physical energies freely available, they don't need other entities to produce whatever artifacts they may need.
They may very well be "post-social" - not even requiring contact with any other of their own kind except under certain circumstances or for certain purposes. Sort of like dragons in the popular fantasy novels.
But this could merely be my own human preference.
The bottom line however is that "infinite population" - especially on this planet - is and has never been a Transhumanist goal and thus Foerster's predictions are absolutely irrelevant and have absolutely nothing to do with Transhumanism. In no way are his concepts the "original idea". That's utter nonsense.
"Consciousness" is a abstract culturally-derived word which doesn't have a scientific definition and should not be used in a scientific context related to AI.
The parent states correctly that we don't have enough understanding of the brain to be sure how it works. You state correctly that a decent simulation might be sufficient.
Where everybody goes wrong (possibly including Vinge, Doctorow and the rest) is the use of the cultural terms "wake up" and "consciousness" and critics of Transhumanists and AI researchers are mistaken in taking these terms to mean something precise enough to critize.
The bottom line is that the brain is a physical artifact existing in the physical universe, subject to the known (and unknown) physical organization of the universe. With nanotech, it will be possible to discern how it functions with exactitude. How long this will take is questionable - could be twenty years, could be fifty, could be a hundred. Some people think three hundred, but I believe they do not reckon with nanotech in that calculation.
How soon we can derive a usable simulation of human conceptual processing (which is what is needed for AI, not vague notions of "consciousness") is not necessarily dependent on a total knowledge of brain function since most brain function is almost certainly involved with supporting the biological body, not conceptual processing. OTOH, the conceptual processing part is probably the hardest to discern, given it's abstract nature as opposed to running nerves to the kidney or whatever.
"Consciousness" as most people conceive of it is probably an emergent phenomenon of brain function which may or may not be critical to conceptual processing or the survival of any particular organism. "Self awareness" is another vague but slightly more usable concept which may also be an emergent phenomenon that may have higher evolutionary value. Whether either of these is necessary for a functional AI is doubtful.
However, it is possible that to develop a sufficiently powerful form of conceptual processing may result in an intelligence which will become aware of the concept of itself. If this is "self-awareness", fine. If this results in the entity having to pursue its own purposes instead of those of its creators, then this could be a problem (for the creators.)
The solution to that problem is to redesign the human brain to accelerate its conceptual processing abilities and don't make "self-aware" AIs. Once we know enough human brain function to build a conceptual processing AI, it should be a short step to enhancing human brain function directly. Then, AI's will not be needed and the risk of AIs transcending humans will be replaced by humans transcending themselves.
Which is the purpose of Transhumanism - to replace humans with a better species by making humans into a better species - not just creating some other species to replace humans. A subtle but very real semantic distinction.
The emphasis on making another species to replace humans which we see in the sci-fi field is merely an expression of the religious notion of "gods" making "life". What this notion forgets is that in the same mythology the "gods" invariably regret making "life".
The Gnostics believed that it was better to become God than to worship God. This is why they were persecuted by the monotheistic religions.
Of course, to humans who insist on remaining human, the end result will be the same. Whether AIs or Transhumans result, the humans are left behind. And this is why humans criticize Transhumanism. Because it is against human primate nature to accept anything or anyone superior to themselves. This violates primate hierarchical dominance/submission patterns hardwired into the human brain by millions of years of evolution.
This is why Transhumanists who derive their Transhumanism from Humanism and who believe humans can be reasoned into accepting Transhumans are naive.
Yes, I read the last one first, am now reading the second one.
Excellent stuff. Wordy, but excellent. Gets very heavy in the last one when Phaeton regains his ship and confronts the Silent Ocuemene AI infiltrator - in the heart of the Sun, no less.
More than socialism vrs libertarianism, that one gets into "how do you know why you're doing what you're doing?"
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't forget reintegration of memories - I explicitly stated that in my post. It doesn't change the fact that there are still two different entities.
I said nothing about a copy's "rights", so I have no idea why you brought that up.
When I use the term continuity, I am not referring to merely sleeping or other temporary lapses of awareness which are irrelevant to an entity's space/time localization of identity.
"the human species has operated"
Right, kiddo - except we're not talking about humans anymore, so that's irrelevant.
If Foerster suggested asymtotic technical development, then he might well have been an early predictor of something similar to the Singularity.
And a lot of people claim that the problem with the world today is not too many people, but too many lousy quality people.
And that might be where the problem is in Foerster's model - as long as you have lousy people, you need more population just to get the few percent who actually do move the species along.
Once you have Transhumans, the model isn't as clear.
As for me being the Transhumanist "Pope", well, yes, actually, compared to anybody else who might want the title. But I prefer being called "The Master", thank you very much. (That's "Master" as in "I understand it better than you do".)
This is not particularly relevant either.
The notion that we "can't see beyond the Singularity" is not critical to the notions of probable advantages to the development of Tranhuman technology.
In fact, for the most part, the "Singularity" was merely a literary device to introduce some mystery and an interesting concept to a piece of fiction. The term was picked up by Tranhumanists to indicate a predicted "sea change" in the quality of sentient existence.
Don't take it TOO literally.
One can certainly extrapolate from known science as to certain capabilities. However, Vinge's concept was that one cannot describe the nature of superhuman intelligence or the actions and events deriving from such intelligence.
This is not "religion", it's simple logic.
It also doesn't stop anybody from trying. It just means it's all going to be speculation until we get closer to it and develop more intellectual capability to try to comprehend it.
The same humans who recoil from "the end of the human race" eagerly embrace religious crap from the Christian religion that they'll all end up in "heaven" where there's no sex, or anything else the Church declares "immoral", and they get to stand around all day proclaiming the "glory of God".
Ever see "Bedazzled" with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore? The scene where Peter as the Devil imitating God has Dudley dancing around him saying, "You're wonderful! Take my hat off to you! You're fabulous!?" The Devil's point was that got pretty boring after a while.
But you humans just eat that sort of nonsense up.
And then criticize Transhumans for wanting to have unlimited time to experience unlimited space and unlimited knowledge - and unlimited experience.
Somehow, the two don't equate in rationality.
I don't recall pointing to the article has proof of anything. I pointed you to it because it discusses concepts that cast doubt on your statement that nothing will change in 100 years.
If you'd bother to follow up on the obvious and frequently mentioned extrapolations of the technology's possible capabilities, it becomes painfully obvious that something - and most likely everything - is going to change.
Not recognizing that is merely sticking one's head in the sand.
It is irrelevant to discuss the invention of, say, the automobile, or even the computer as it is today, as proof that human nature hasn't changed. We are talking about technology which can fundamentally identify, control AND CHANGE basic human biology and neural structure as well as vastly widen human knowledge and control of physical reality (at least to the molecular scale - we have to wait for picotech and femtotech before we start doing some of the things sci-fi has predicted in the past - assuming they are doable.)
Anybody who can't see that as a qualitative difference in technological impact simply isn't thinking.
Thank you for sharing.
/.'ers. Mr. Spock wasn't so precise.
I can always count on the
In case anybody missed my point, I'll reiterate: just because the DARPA clowns can't get a robot to function properly is irrelevant to whether we'll have some sort of "AI" within a reasonable time frame - i.e., this century.
While some people in the Transhumanism community might be predicting AI within five or ten years, I doubt that very much. Saying it will be three hundred years as the skeptics do, I doubt also very much.
Well, that's the point I'm making.
People use the term upload, which by common usage means copying.
Some people (I believe Moravec did this) have described the process of "uploading a mind" in terms that indicated the brain from which the "mind" was "uploaded" was then discarded, i.e., a destructive "upload".
In fact, that was probably when I realized the concept was not meaninful. As I point out, a destructive "upload" is NOT an "upload" unless you have somehow MOVED the brain function, not just copied it. And a nondestructive "upload" is by definition a COPY, which does not solve the original brain's problem of continuity.
It's the difference between true immortality and PERSISTENCE. If you want persistence, fine. But don't tell me it's immortality. The copy is NOT the original and the original not only has the same problem he always had, now his copy has the same problem. "Uploading" may solve various problems and provide new capabilities, but it does not solve the immortality problem.
That was my point.
So of course the Christians did the same thing to them.
The point stands.
While copying a quantum particle might destroy it, it's not clear you can equate the sum total of the brain's function with said particles - even if you have to copy them all and even if they are critical to the functioning of a particular brain.
If you regard the sum total of the brain as an emergent phenomenon which is localized in space/time, then as long as that sum total remains so localized, you have not destroyed it even if you "destroy" (and replace, of course) most of its PARTS at one point or another.
After all, we replace our cells throughout our lifetime - which doesn't mean we don't continue to exist as a particular entity in space/time continuity.
Whereas if you destroy the quantum processes of a brain so that it no longer functions in the process of copying those functions to another facility, then yes, you have destroyed that brain.
That is my point. Destructive is still destructive. Non-destructive copying is not MOVING, it is COPYING. The end result is two entities, not one, and both have the same problem the original entity did - how to not be destroyed. Copying worsens the problem, it does not solve it.
Copying,however, may still be valuable depending on the purpose of the copy - if you want to still have influence on the world after your destruction, a copy is just as rational as leaving behind a will and testament (except that the copy might change his mind about following your plan - of course, so can relatives.)
It just doesn't solve the problem of immortality.
No, you're wrong.
What I mean to say - and probably did so badly by using the vague terms "mind" and "upload" (the latter term is either meaningless or means exactly what I am claiming - a copy operation, not a MOVE operation) - is that if in the process of copying the processes of a brain to another facility that brain is destroyed, then quite obviously that brain's functionality has been destroyed. This is quite obviously no different than putting a gun to the head of that brain and pulling the trigger.
The fact that you have a COPY of that brain running elsewhere is entirely irrevelant to the status of the original brain.
Do a thought experiment: copy your brain somewhere else. Then put a gun to your head. Do you mind pulling the trigger?
I thought so. And if you don't, you're deluded.
You are the one presuming that a "mind" - which is not a scientific term - is different from a brain. That is not my position. Mind you, I'm not saying it is impossible to copy a brain's function to another facility. I'm simply saying that in no way removes the fact of the original's existence.
If you destroy the original, you have destroyed it. If you haven't, all you've done is copy it. That simple.
Contrary to the opinions of some people who mix their metaphors, we're not talking "information" here. We're talking a complex physical entity with a definite location in space/time. There is no way to "upload" a physical object - you can only copy it or destroy it.
Again, I'm not saying you CAN'T COPY IT. I'm saying that doesn't change the nature of the original object - or the problem of ITS continued existence (as opposed to the continued existence of the "information" it contained.)
"They're both you."
No, they are not, anymore than a copy of a Word document IS the Word document. It is a COPY. That's why we have the terms "copy" and "original".
And we don't trust copies (despite the fact that you shouldn't trust "originals" either depending on available tech.)
More importantly, both entities will then diverge in experience if only because they are in different locations. While this experience could of course be shared between both entities (and probably should be) with full fidelity, this still clearly differentiates the two entities. Instead of one being immortal, both now have the not-immortal problem.
If other words, the problem has been made WORSE, not better.
Space-time location is the defining factor for identity.
The bottom line is: if one of the entities is destroyed, it is destroyed. That it's continuity continues in another entity does not change the fact of the original entity being destroyed.
No two entities are identical (I'm not talking on the atomic level here, so fuck off, nit-pickers). Immortality either means a given entity does not get destroyed or it is a meaningless term.
Well, you certainly wouldn't put a brain that thinks a million times faster than a human brain in a human body - at least not if the motor functions were affected, and probably not even then.
Obviously you'd want a better body. And presumably that won't be that hard to get once adequate nanotech is developed.
'According to Microsoft, this limitation 'helps [users] stay organized and reduces confusion.'"'
We wouldn't want users to "get confused" and buy Linux, now would we?
Another example of how Microsoft is so VERY much more "user friendly" than Linux.
It doesn't get better than this. The Windows trolls are going to start sounding like Bush proclaiming we found WMDs in Iraq with this sort of help from Gates.
I agree.
And I suspect this is how it will go.
The end result however will be the same. You're no longer human - and the humans who are aren't going to like you.
Unfortunately for the human's life expectancy.
(sigh)
Ever heard of nanotech?
Sure, thirty years MAY be too soon for fully developed nanotech. But who knows how soon some nanotech devices might be used to unravel enough of brain function to enable deep insights?
Standard Gnosticism.
The world was created by a "blind, idiot God".
More significant was the Gnostic concept that this God would be confronted by a "cosmic immortal Man" who appeared "before God". Most people interpret this to mean a cosmic immortal man who preceded God in his history. I interpret it to mean a cosmic immortal Man who is "before" God - i.e, in his FUTURE.
Metaphorically speaking, this is exactly what is happening. And it didn't take rocket science for the Gnostics to correctly predict this - merely a comprehension of how screwed up humans are and why they need to be transcended. Hell, the Gnostics were right on and probably late by several thousand years since they just built on even earlier concepts.
Wrong.
Nanotech will enable us to determine exactly how the brain functions (leaving out possible problems dealing with complexity theory or brain function that relies on physics we don't understand witout further evolution of physics theories.)
Evolution is not required.
I really get tired of people assuming advances in a given area of science depend entirely on that area and ignore effects of other developing technologies on the pace of research into that area of science. This is just dumb. You get more genetics advances because computer science and technology let you process the data from the research faster and better - not just because microscopes got better. Ever heard of bioinformatics?
"wee bit" being how much of existing human history - or even this century?
Twenty years? What percentage of human history is that? It's twenty percent of this century.
Thirty? Fifty?
Your comment is completely irrelevant to the overall issue.
If you reread Brunner's work, personal computers WERE used.
/. geek who has a rack-mount system...
They were, however, "banks of computers", not desktop devices (usually).
Of course, if you're the kind of
"I guarantee you that in a hundred years, people will still be living the same basic lives"
/. and all.
In other words, you didn't any part of the point of the article, did you?
Since of course you didn't bother reading it, this being
You just had to drop in to tell us you know an "Academy Award-winning screenwriter", right?
You're right - fundamental human conditions won't change.
It's just that some of us won't be partaking of those conditions in the future.
And you're welcome to them, primate.
'As Roddenbury said, "nothing becomes dated more quickly than our perceptions of the future."'
And you're supposed to be referencing "classic SF writers"?
Roddenberry (corrected spelling) had his own obvious problems with the future. Had Star Trek been based on hard science, it wouldn't have existed. His contortions to deal with the problem of the future are legendary.
So of course he had no choice if he wanted to retain a TV audience (not to mention TV executives) for his series to concentrate on human interest angles and use the sci-fi as a backdrop.
And of course that's what all the writers - including Doctorow and Wright and Egan - ARE doing.
Which is why the article is dead on.
When the "Human Condition" no longer exists, what is there to write about?
If you're simply complaining that Doctorow's stuff doesn't have enough human interest, well, start your own sci-fi criticism blog and knock yourself out. I haven't read any of his stuff, so I wouldn't know and couldn't care less.
It's irrelevant to the point of the article which is that you can't write about a real future you can't comprehend.
I suppose it's a valid point to say that no sci-fi writer knows the "real future" anyway, so who cares? Since you have writers who do care to extrapolate the future, the article is at least valid for them.
Irrevelant to the actual issue of whether transcendence is possible.
/. on your computer.
However, there happens to be a reason for this and it's not Christian nonsense.
The Gnostics believed it was better to become God than to worship God. (The Taoists had a similar concept on the Asian side.)
When Gnostic thought fused with Greek rationalism, you got the occult, which beget alchemy, which beget chemistry as rationalism re-asserted itself and separated from metaphysics.
However, science has always been described as "Faustian" and religion has always been opposed to science for the simple reason that science is basically Gnostic in essence. Science believes in knowing, not believing (pun intended). The result you see around is no God and
So it is no surprise that the Greek phrase "transhumanar" (transhumanization) which is frequently used in religious circles got picked up by Sir Julian Huxley and subsequently by F. M. Esfandiary (a Middle-Eastern born futurist). The idiots in Transhumanism who think it derives from Humanism - and who think Humanism is a useful philosophy for Transhumanists - have no clue. The real source is Gnosticism.
As to your brainless question about "real reason", the answer is: Yes.
Next question.
Population size has absolutely NOTHING to do with Transhumanism (other than some Transhumanists like to predict expansion throughout the Universe as some sort of manifest destiny.)
I personally feel the opposite. Once Transhumans (or posthumans) exist, I suspect they stop reproducing entirely. Certainly in any biological sense. They might produce intelligent or semi-intelligent remote affectors, probes, whatever. But since they are no longer biological and thus no longer subject to biochemical drives, why would they feel any pressure to reproduce?
There are some vague theories around about alternative motives to continue expansion, but I find none of them particularly persuasive.
I suspect super intelligences exist in a manner calculated to preserve their beings from any random act of destruction the universe might throw their way, but otherwise maintaining a specific position in time and space (possibly - even probably - distributed). With nanotech and access to effectively unlimited physical energies freely available, they don't need other entities to produce whatever artifacts they may need.
They may very well be "post-social" - not even requiring contact with any other of their own kind except under certain circumstances or for certain purposes. Sort of like dragons in the popular fantasy novels.
But this could merely be my own human preference.
The bottom line however is that "infinite population" - especially on this planet - is and has never been a Transhumanist goal and thus Foerster's predictions are absolutely irrelevant and have absolutely nothing to do with Transhumanism. In no way are his concepts the "original idea". That's utter nonsense.
My take on that:
"Consciousness" is a abstract culturally-derived word which doesn't have a scientific definition and should not be used in a scientific context related to AI.
The parent states correctly that we don't have enough understanding of the brain to be sure how it works. You state correctly that a decent simulation might be sufficient.
Where everybody goes wrong (possibly including Vinge, Doctorow and the rest) is the use of the cultural terms "wake up" and "consciousness" and critics of Transhumanists and AI researchers are mistaken in taking these terms to mean something precise enough to critize.
The bottom line is that the brain is a physical artifact existing in the physical universe, subject to the known (and unknown) physical organization of the universe. With nanotech, it will be possible to discern how it functions with exactitude. How long this will take is questionable - could be twenty years, could be fifty, could be a hundred. Some people think three hundred, but I believe they do not reckon with nanotech in that calculation.
How soon we can derive a usable simulation of human conceptual processing (which is what is needed for AI, not vague notions of "consciousness") is not necessarily dependent on a total knowledge of brain function since most brain function is almost certainly involved with supporting the biological body, not conceptual processing. OTOH, the conceptual processing part is probably the hardest to discern, given it's abstract nature as opposed to running nerves to the kidney or whatever.
"Consciousness" as most people conceive of it is probably an emergent phenomenon of brain function which may or may not be critical to conceptual processing or the survival of any particular organism. "Self awareness" is another vague but slightly more usable concept which may also be an emergent phenomenon that may have higher evolutionary value. Whether either of these is necessary for a functional AI is doubtful.
However, it is possible that to develop a sufficiently powerful form of conceptual processing may result in an intelligence which will become aware of the concept of itself. If this is "self-awareness", fine. If this results in the entity having to pursue its own purposes instead of those of its creators, then this could be a problem (for the creators.)
The solution to that problem is to redesign the human brain to accelerate its conceptual processing abilities and don't make "self-aware" AIs. Once we know enough human brain function to build a conceptual processing AI, it should be a short step to enhancing human brain function directly. Then, AI's will not be needed and the risk of AIs transcending humans will be replaced by humans transcending themselves.
Which is the purpose of Transhumanism - to replace humans with a better species by making humans into a better species - not just creating some other species to replace humans. A subtle but very real semantic distinction.
The emphasis on making another species to replace humans which we see in the sci-fi field is merely an expression of the religious notion of "gods" making "life". What this notion forgets is that in the same mythology the "gods" invariably regret making "life".
The Gnostics believed that it was better to become God than to worship God. This is why they were persecuted by the monotheistic religions.
Of course, to humans who insist on remaining human, the end result will be the same. Whether AIs or Transhumans result, the humans are left behind. And this is why humans criticize Transhumanism. Because it is against human primate nature to accept anything or anyone superior to themselves. This violates primate hierarchical dominance/submission patterns hardwired into the human brain by millions of years of evolution.
This is why Transhumanists who derive their Transhumanism from Humanism and who believe humans can be reasoned into accepting Transhumans are naive.
Transhumans will be created by Trans
No, his new wife's a gambler!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yes, I read the last one first, am now reading the second one.
Excellent stuff. Wordy, but excellent. Gets very heavy in the last one when Phaeton regains his ship and confronts the Silent Ocuemene AI infiltrator - in the heart of the Sun, no less.
More than socialism vrs libertarianism, that one gets into "how do you know why you're doing what you're doing?"