Our Cyborg Reality Part 3: The Future
In part 1, I spoke about the physical developments of human beings throughout their evolution. In part 2, I spoke about the invention of cyber-space as an augmentation of the mind. Here, in part 3, I will take a look at what comes next, which of course is mere conjecture, but it is fun, mere conjecture. The possibilities of this ongoing technological development are pretty astounding, the implications even more so –terrifyingly so at times. In order to keep focused while we talk about something so vast as the future of mankind, I am going to look at two interesting possibilities –immortality and destruction. Technology continually provides us with means to prolong our lives. Perhaps, in time, our tech-supported bodies will be capable of surviving indefinitely. If not our bodies, perhaps our minds. On the other hand, the rapid growth of technology causes some concern. When does it become a threat to us? When does the artificial intelligence that we create become something more than we can handle or understand? Let’s look at immortality first.
Immortality: The Body
As I spoke about in part 1, the augmentations to the physical self have allowed for us to live longer and to endure what otherwise could not have been endured. As developments in science move forward, some believe that the synthetic augmentations to our bodies might allow for us to live forever. I personally think is an unlikely scenario, but then again, who can really say what the long-term looks like? What seems ridiculous now may be commonplace in 1,000 years. This, of course, would fall into the realm of the ‘gentle extinction’ I spoke about in part 1, where the slow developments over time eventually change us into something else. It is evolution and extinction occurring slowly and simultaneously.
Immortality: The Mind
In the digital age, the concept of the human mind has exploded into something entirely different. Everyone with a computer or phone is regularly tapped in to this intangible space wherein they place just about everything. Comprehensive identities can be constructed out of the information in cyber-space. Many people spend more hours in a day grooming their digital image than their physical one. But reconstructing someone’s identity based on Facebook and Twitter is one thing, what about actually reconstructing the human brain? People are trying to now.
The ‘Human Brain Project’ is a 1.6 billion dollar effort to map and recreate a functional simulation of the human brain with a supercomputer. There is a lot of debate regarding whether or not the feat is even possible, but they are trying nonetheless. For our sake, we our going to entertain the idea that they will succeed. What does that mean? It means that digital versions of ourselves could be preserved indefinitely. It means that after we pass, our consciousness may still exist in that invisible space. What is now merely an extension of our mind, could, in the future, actually become a replacement. Think about all the ways in which you could be preserved already. How much information do you have in Facebook, Twitter, or email? How many memories do you have stored on your hard drive?
Technology has a long way to go, of course, and there is no saying whether or not it will actually get to the point of being able to digitally preserve entire identities or minds. Even if it can, the questions never cease. Can we exist separate from our bodies? How do we treat artificial versions of the self? Could those artificial identities experience change or would they be frozen in whatever state the original identity was when it perished? Would we be able to augment digital consciousness by merging it with another digital consciousness? Questions, questions, questions.
Destruction: The Technological Singularity
We have all seen the movies and read the books. Robots rise up and kill us all. Aside from making great fiction, though, how much of a threat does technology pose? Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, amongst many other things, is one of the leading proponents of the theory of the technological singularity. There are many, many critics of Kurzweil’s hypotheses, but his ideas are interesting and beg consideration.
The technological singularity would occur when a super-intelligence emerges out of our technological advancements. It is the point at which the artificial intelligence that we fabricate is actually superior to our own, where predictability goes off the charts and progress spins out of our control. Author James John Bell, in an article in The Futurist titled ‘Exploring the Singularity’ states that “we won’t just experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century –it will be more like 20,000 years of progress.” Kurzweil postulates a ‘law of accelerating return,’ which notes that the rate of change in areas such as technological growth, tends to increase exponentially over time. With every barrier we reach, something new comes into play that allows us to cross that barrier. Continuing like this, the technological singularity seems an inevitability. This is a frightening idea to many, because it does not seem like a reality that would end well for us.
Whether or not the singularity will occur is still hotly debated, and whether or not it would bring about our demise is another matter entirely. Our ‘not knowing’ what will come of it is exactly what defines the theoretical phenomenon in the first place. Perhaps the intelligence would still require humans for basic necessities like energy and maintenance, but there are also easy ways to imagine a super-intelligence getting around that obstacle. One cause for concern is that machines and technological intelligence would not require as nurturing an environment as we do. They could survive in harsh the and unforgiving conditions that we seem to be bringing about in parts of the world. Another concern is that if the super-intelligence is in fact superior, then it stands to reason that we would fall victim to subjugation or death; at least in human history it seems to be a trend that perceived superiority leads to such misfortune.
Conclusion?
Not in the slightest. This wild goose is out there, way out there. Who knows what will come of our progress? Longevity, immortality, or extinction. The possibilities lie across the board. With such profound implications, though, these matters are important to consider. Entire fields of study are rising out of the mix, from cyborg anthropology to robot ethics. Science, unlike religion, does not codify the world through a moral lens, but the moral implications that stem out of scientific inquiry are ever-present and must –must –be brought into consideration every step of the way.
Related Articles
http://vimeo.com/humanbrainproject/overview –a video about the Human Brain Project
The Human Brain Project Home Page
Article about Human Brain Project
How Stuff Works Article on Digital Immortality
This is just a link to the movie trailer for ‘The Terminator’ — just because
Your thoughts are similar to mine on this topic. I was also sceptical about bodily immortality, but recently a fellow twitter sent me a link to a piece of news that explained how doctors have already been able to synthesize an artificial trachea and bones using a 3D printer and stem cells, so the possibility seems a bit less remote. Can you imagine? “You have lung cancer? No problem, let us print you some new, young lungs.” Simply mind-boggling.
Uploading, however, seems the most viable option in the long term. I have little doubt immortality will be technically possible some time in the future: what remains to be see is whether we are ready for it as a society, meaning: will there still be a middle class capable of affording it? I certainly hope so.
Wow! I should have looked more into the bodily side of the question. That is astounding. What really intrigues me is, as you said, the question of whether or not we can handle it. The possibility of socio-economic differences causing such a huge rift in life expectancy –I shudder to think of it. Also, if we do enhance our bodies to a point of immortality, or at least extreme longevity, what happens to our minds? Can we handle so long an existence? Would we have to regularly ‘make space’ for more memories by downloading unnecessary ones into some database to avoid deterioration? I sometimes wish I had the motivation to write a science fiction novel.
Pingback: The Path Towards Immortality
Interesting considerations in all three cyborg posts. The one thing left open, I suppose, is the point that Amber Case made in the TED talk: without cultivating our minds, memories, identities with “down” time and the break away from the collective brain, what happens to our individual creativity, our intelligence? If the technology contains within it the possibility to also limit us, then we may reach a point in our technological imaginations in which we just can’t go any further, thus negating the risk of ever developing advanced artificial intelligence. (?)
Also, there are physical limits to the technology, such as energy to power these systems and other resources required to create the parts.
It’s all very interesting, this great unknown.
That is interesting, and I am glad you bring it up! I have often wondered myself if there is a sort of self defeating pinnacle of technological advancement. I think that there must be, but that the context of this point’s arrival is key. There is a chance, I suppose, that no superintelligence will emerge before we ‘fall from creative grace,’ but I tend to think that this fall would occur simultaneously with the emergence of a superintelligence or even the technological singularity. Until technology reaches a point where it is entirely independent, self-replicating, and ‘aware,’ I think that there will always be a need for human creativity. It is, after all, this pursuit of technological perfection that has us motivated. If reached, then the creative human mind could, and probably would, become obsolete, but then the technology picks up where we left off, and God only knows what would happen. The technological singularity is the point beyond which we cannot truly predict outcomes.
I think that it is possible, however, to become lazy enough before this is reached. The less and less we rely on our own minds for memory recall, decision making, and calculation, the less and less sharp those minds become.
I have thought of the physical limits as well. It is interesting to me because I sometimes entertain the notion that machines are indeed a different life form. They are animated, after all, and many can independently reproduce. Requirements of energy and power and maintenance are really no different than our requirements of energy, power, and maintenance. They differ only in form. What I am saying, I think, is that ‘life will find a way.’ Considering machines and computers as life forms, which is a valid consideration in my opinion, we have to consider that evolution and adaptation will take its course. For now, of course, it is humans providing these machines with what they need. Surely this would need to change, and I do not think that that change is so unimaginable!
Thank you for commenting and making me think! This effect on the creative mind is really something to ponder.
The one thing that I cannot account for in this scenario, which is otherwise intriguingly plausible, is motivation. How can a machine develop desire? How can a machine imagine, want, yearn, and therefore evolve? So far, desire still comes from humans, computers are programmed by us. It is the want of things that creates adaptation. Creativity is only part intellect, the rest is emotion.
I wonder what kind of story you’d write on this if you were inclined toward science fiction?
That is an important consideration. I wonder if, as you say, motivation stems out of desire or necessity. Strip life down to its foundations, and you have the pursuit of basic needs –water, shelter, food etc. By working in groups to acquire these needs, we get culture and tradition. After agriculture, the individual was truly born, time was freed up (because not everyone was in constant search of sustenance), and people could specialize. This led to more innovative methods of irrigation in Egypt, for example. On the one hand, it could have been a desire to better water crops, but on the other –with increasing population –it could have been a necessity. If machines became aware of their needs, then desire might not come into play. Innovation and synthesis of information might be a computable result of necessity. Machine A requires x amount of energy to maintain function, Machine B has energy to spare. Sharing, in this case, might require no creativity at all.
Of course, this still doesn’t answer the question entirely. Growth, as you say –and as I suggest in my Poetry of Science post –is most vigorous when it involves passions. But there is the argument that Plato is right, that art and creativity of that sort only distract from the actual truth of the world by inadequately mimicking it. So, perhaps the passionless and emotionless machines would experience if not a vigorous growth, a focused one, free of error or extraneous pursuits. Humans now are studying the quantum world, but is this necessary to survival? Machines, I think, would be able to decide, to pick and choose from all the possible paths the one that is the most efficient and beneficial.
I have thought of writing science fiction! I have a long plot in mind that involves longevity, memory storage, digital avatars, class struggle. I fear the details, though, as my background in science is limited. I am taking some online courses on coursera now that will hopefully change that!
I think one of the few things Freud got right was his theory of the Pleasure Principle. Essentially, we seek pleasure and avoid suffering to meet our needs… yes, we delay gratification for greater goods, etc., but it still comes down to the imaginative construct of desire. People eat and drink water because they desire life… well, some do. Obviously, this breaks down under conditions of mental illness or great anguish, when all pleasure is gone, and then so goes the desire to survive.
Yes, I think you should write science fiction. Begin collecting your spam and search term data now as a means of learning ‘cyborg language.’ : )
I liked your discussion on Plato in the earlier post about your students deciding upon language of science or art. I worked with pre-kindergarten and kindergarten aged children in a school for a few years. I found the experience changed how I felt about learning, language and traditional modes of classifying information.
Good luck with your courses.
I’ll have to revisit Freud on that. I hadn’t thought of the desire for life, only the need for it. But, you’re absolutely right –there is no inherent need for it at all! I will have to rethink the hypothetical supermachine, and let you know what comes to mind. For now, though, you have me convinced that without desire, advancement would be impossible. It would need to want to live.
Maybe a machine could have desire? There are people working on mapping the human brain. If it were indeed an accurate replica, then it might have desire. I don’t know!
You have the exact spot to begin writing now, “I don’t know!” All worthy stories begin this way.
(Of course, if that is true, then I have many worthy stories… I better get to work.)
Also, I have decided to write a spam poem this weekend (maybe monday)! You have inspired me. I will be sure to link to your blog when I post it!
We’ll be sure to let the blogger “The Subversive Elkement” know about it… she’s a huge supporter of spam poets.