|
(WARNING A VERY LONG READ. the first paragraph gives the main thrust of the paper)
Two technologies more than any others have the power to radically transform human existence. This two two technologies are self-replicating machines and the power to digitally store the human brain. In a path of technological development that I will lay out in more full, though admittedly still sketchy detail, these two technologies will change human society more than any human development with the possible exception of agriculture. In combination, they imply that the physical universe will become unnecessary and the next step to human existence will be to act as lords of time and space in a digital universe of our own creation. This implication is truly far out, though it follows from the advent of two proposed future technologies. Follow me on a journey through the next centuries and the next logical step of human destiny.
The first technology is a more well established idea, so I will begin with it This technology has already a primitive proof of concept. Adrian Bowyer of Bath university has created a prototype of a machine called Rep Rap(http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page). which is capable of printing the parts for a copy of itself. While this is certainly a far cry from the true ideal of a self-replicating machines, it seems almost certain that this a technology that is feasible. The run away evolution of self-replicating machines to their own ends is a possible down fall of this technology, and as such utmost caution must be taken when working on a self assembling machine. The plus sides are truly staggering however.
Every implement of human construction, every road, every bridge, and every vehicle could be built by blind machines without the touch of a human hand. In fact, imbued with artificial intelligence, it's very likely that these machines could improve themselves beyond the ken of any human maker, though this point is unnecessary for the main thrust of my argument. The point is that a properly designed machine could accomplish any physical task currently accomplished by man. Considering a current tendency towards apathy and nihilism, further reducing the purpose of modern man may not be desirable, though this point is also tangential the thrust of my argument. The main thrust is truly very simple.
A well designed self replicating machines would be more than a simple replicator. While imbuing a machine with the ability recreate itself from scratch is a remarkable achievement, we can do better. We're going to call our prototypical machine by a the unassuming name of Genesis. Genesis is more than capable of rebuilding itself, but that is not it's primary goal. In fact, with proper programming, it is believed that Genesis will be capable of building any machine within a reasonable size of itself, assuming proper raw materials are provided or obtainable. The ready availability of raw materials is a spanner in the works of this theory, since every hill side doesn't contain advanced technological building materials. However, even if proper materials have to be spoon fed to Genesis, it certainly represents a labor saving innovation. So we assume we provided Gensis with iron, silicon, and any material it may need to build itself. After a slow start, the growth of Genesis' abilities could be staggering.
First and foremost is to establish that Genesis could build an economy to supply itself with the raw materials it needs to performs miraculous feats. So we will start by programming Genesis to create a raw materials factory for its own exploits. Genesis would of course have to be situated in a spot rich in raw materials. It would have to know what mining techniques would be needed to access those materials. With these instructions and materials available, Genesis begins building machines to harvest the materials. It build machines that build storage depots, machines that level out roads to future construction sites, and it builds machines to carry those materials to those far away sites. With proper instruction, if Genesis encounters a high mountain, it could create an army of tunnel building robots. If it reaches the ocean, it could build a whole port, including a storage sheds and a boat factory.
From its initial instructions Genesis has established its ability to deliver raw materials to itself and any construction site we want it reach. So lets see what we can do with this ability.
The lifeblood of human industry, that is the raw materials and vehicles could easily be supplied by self replicating machines. For instance, imagine a road construction project. The first replicator finds materials to build a copy of itself, with slightly modified instruction. The seconds instructions are to begin building mining instruments. The third (or third hundred after two hundred and ninety nine builders of mining machines have already been replicated) is instructed to build road leveling machines The fourth is instructed to build gravel gatherers and grinders. The fifth is instructed to take raw road building materials and turn them into roads. Other than initially programming Genesis, this happens automatically. Genesis has constructed a road building army, and all he needed was an initial investment of raw materials and a push in the right direction.
It is easy to see the advantage of such an army of resourceful machines. But their true purpose within my vision must remain murky for some time.
The second technology that will completely revolutionize human society is the ability to digitally represent a human brain. To some, this represent a philosophical impossibility. Religious apologists among others argue that some aspect of human existence is fundamentally unrelated to our physical being. There exists an essence, most commonly called a soul, that resides neither in the grey matter of our brain nor any other part of our bodies. This philosophical school was most elegantly articulated by mathematician Rene Descartes, though it has existed since the Greek roots of philosophy.
While it is a very big subject, and one that is under much debate among professional philosophers, I do not believe it is valid. To comprehensively rebut every point offered by a dualist would be both beyond the scope and unnecessary. The logic of my proposal is sound if the material nature of our consciousness is sound. So I will assume it so and continue my argument! But first a small explanation of my opposition to Cartesian dualism.
The modern science of neurology is extraordinarily primitive. The human mind is a large and complicated entity. Serious study began only the last half of the last century with the advent of magnetic resonance imagery. Since then we have been able to look directly into a human mind (albeit with very sketchy detail) and observe the results of various types of thinking on our grey matter. I only need to make one point on this subject however. A relation between conscious actions, thoughts, unconscious dreams, and everything in between has been observed in the electrochemical reactions of our physical brain. No mechanism for an immaterial soul has been observed or truly proposed. To greatly oversimplify the philosophical debate is essentially comes down to accepting that though currently mysterious, the physical interactions inside our grey matter generate our subject experience, or some unknown force that generates our subjective experience exists, though undiscovered despite concerted and penetrating searches. With the logic of Occam's razor, I choose the former.
Only a single implication of this philosophical scuffle is important to my point. If the brain is no more than an electrochemical machine (the words no more may be misleading here, I don't wish to imply anything other than its profound depth), than the sums of its inputs and outputs could be duplicated in a computer. In territory already well covered in science fiction, the inputs could be assigned by a sufficiently advanced computer, and the outputs fed back into a digital universe. The plus side here is that our designer digital universe could be arbitrarily designed to suit our needs.
Technology at its core seeks to control the world around us. To make life easier, to reducer our labor, to increase our efficiency of travel, to better apply our brain power by putting the physical world secondary to our will. The ultimate driving goal of technology is to provide us with infinite power to shape the world around us as we please, a power normally reserved for a concept known as gods. A digital universe could potentially imbue every individual with deific powers to go anywhere, create anything, and see everything. Space travel would a simple exercise for a digital being. A pause button is infinitely more effective than cryogenic storage.
An immediate objection can be raised with this argument but in a sneaky fashion I chose to take care of this bugaboo before it reared its head. The physical world will still be necessary since computers must be built to contain this computer mainframe and our digital universe. Enter Genesis. Replicating computers limited only by available resource is a task to which Genesis would find itself imminently suited to.
Thus in conjunction, these technologies render mankind to step out of a universe bounded by physical rules, by main death and scarcity, into a digital world of their own creation. Together they represent the ability for a man to live in a world limited only by his imagination.
|
Did you write this? It's interesting.
Also, I just watched Ghost in the Shell!
|
On July 30 2010 10:46 fabiano wrote:
Did you write this? It's interesting.
Also, I just watched Ghost in the Shell!
I did indeed write this, on a caffeine induced writing spree, in one sitting
|
I don't want robots to build my roads and do things for me. I want to do that stuff myself. Nothing better than a good ol' hands on job to pass the time before my existance ends.
|
|
|
Very interesting. To further improve the paper,
Try to answer these questions:
1.) In what sense is our consciousness tied to our non-mental physical being?
2.) Without the need to eat, sleep, excrete, procreate, etc... what portion of our mental existence remains?
3.) If in fact, those biological necessities, and the millions of years of resulting behavioral evolution are inextricable from what we consider "the mind," are we willing to create a "digital universe" that replicates that need to eat, sleep, etc?
4.) What about the limits of the human mind, i.e. the weakness of human short-term and long-term memory, the speed limits of inputting, processing, and outputting data?
The most crucial question that needs to be answered to make the "digitization of the mind" warrant serious debate is to define at what point you would consider the "digitization of the mind" successful: what core functionalities or components would need to be replicated? (You did a great job with describing Genesis, and you should try to do the same with this second technology)
|
On July 30 2010 11:12 love1another wrote:
Very interesting. To further improve the paper,
Try to answer these questions:
1.) In what sense is our consciousness tied to our non-mental physical being?
2.) Without the need to eat, sleep, excrete, procreate, etc... what portion of our mental existence remains?
3.) If in fact, those biological necessities, and the millions of years of resulting behavioral evolution are inextricable from what we consider "the mind," are we willing to create a "digital universe" that replicates that need to eat, sleep, etc?
4.) What about the limits of the human mind, i.e. the weakness of human short-term and long-term memory, the speed limits of inputting, processing, and outputting data?
The most crucial question that needs to be answered to make the "digitization of the mind" warrant serious debate is to define at what point you would consider the "digitization of the mind" successful: what core functionalities or components would need to be replicated? (You did a great job with describing Genesis, and you should try to do the same with this second technology)
A very helpful critique. As I was only attempted to broadly lay out the plan, I some what glossed over some nuances. In a further revision I will attempt to expand upon the questions you have raised. If I expand it enough, it will probably grow to a full book. That would be good. Then I could aim to have it published.
1) consciousness exists only within our brain. All signals entering and leaving the brain could be handled by the mainframe of the digital universe.
2/3) This is a question that is difficult to answer, since the advent of a digital universe would change so many fundamental assumptions about the very nature of what it means to be human. I believe that initially our avatars within the digital universe would take human form with human biological needs. If our minds in digital form evolve beyond needing reminders of our animal past, they can be done away with in turn.
4) I had considered. If we are able to duplicate the functioning of a human mind, there is no reason we we could not improve upon nature and give a digital human incredible depth of information processing. I felt that while an intriguing implication, it was out of the scope of my initial thrust. Perhaps this theory could be expanded into a chapter.
Further topics for consideration include the needed for physical humans to remain as caretakers for Genesis and its army of robot helpers, the potential for Genesis to develop sentience and perhaps malicious intent, and the disastrous results that could come from Genesis choosing to turn its power on developing weapons of war.
The interplay between the development of nanotechnology and this theory is also an intriguing avenue to explore, as well as the question of where the power for genesis would come (my gut says miniaturized nuclear fusion reactors).
In short, there are many implications, questions, and philosophical issues raised by my short treatment of the subject. I will write more on these subjects.
|
Wow, interesting read.
Anyways, there are many problems with slowly digitizing the world beyond the usual robot goes rogue and eradicates humanity. Assuming we eventually create robots to do labor for us, what will happen if the robots malfunction? Skills vanish if they are not used. Given enough time, the skills necessary to produce the robots will vanish if the robots are self replicating.
Also, any powerful technology can always be used offensively. The weaponry available now may seem dangerous, but what about 100 years from now? A madman with nukes is dangerous, but what about a madman with an artificial nanite virus or a planet destroying bomb?
Not saying that technological progress is bad, but some progress SHOULD be questioned for its practical use and its potential negative impact. Not all progress is good.
Finally, a thought on human 'souls' or whatever. This 'creativity' attribute people seem to place on a pedestal isn't special, nor unnatural. All ideas are based off something else. The brain stores information on everything we see and makes associations. Has anything truly beyond the perception of man been spontaneously imagined? I don't think so, but feel free to point any out. Add to the fact that other animals have measurable intelligence and are capable of using tools, I believe humans are only a step above the animals on Earth.
|
On July 30 2010 11:23 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2010 11:12 love1another wrote:
Very interesting. To further improve the paper,
Try to answer these questions:
1.) In what sense is our consciousness tied to our non-mental physical being?
2.) Without the need to eat, sleep, excrete, procreate, etc... what portion of our mental existence remains?
3.) If in fact, those biological necessities, and the millions of years of resulting behavioral evolution are inextricable from what we consider "the mind," are we willing to create a "digital universe" that replicates that need to eat, sleep, etc?
4.) What about the limits of the human mind, i.e. the weakness of human short-term and long-term memory, the speed limits of inputting, processing, and outputting data?
The most crucial question that needs to be answered to make the "digitization of the mind" warrant serious debate is to define at what point you would consider the "digitization of the mind" successful: what core functionalities or components would need to be replicated? (You did a great job with describing Genesis, and you should try to do the same with this second technology) A very helpful critique. As I was only attempted to broadly lay out the plan, I some what glossed over some nuances. In a further revision I will attempt to expand upon the questions you have raised. If I expand it enough, it will probably grow to a full book. That would be good. Then I could aim to have it published. 1) consciousness exists only within our brain. All signals entering and leaving the brain could be handled by the mainframe of the digital universe. 2/3) This is a question that is difficult to answer, since the advent of a digital universe would change so many fundamental assumptions about the very nature of what it means to be human. I believe that initially our avatars within the digital universe would take human form with human biological needs. If our minds in digital form evolve beyond needing reminders of our animal past, they can be done away with in turn. 4) I had considered. If we are able to duplicate the functioning of a human mind, there is no reason we we could not improve upon nature and give a digital human incredible depth of information processing. I felt that while an intriguing implication, it was out of the scope of my initial thrust. Perhaps this theory could be expanded into a chapter. Further topics for consideration include the needed for physical humans to remain as caretakers for Genesis and its army of robot helpers, the potential for Genesis to develop sentience and perhaps malicious intent, and the disastrous results that could come from Genesis choosing to turn its power on developing weapons of war. The interplay between the development of nanotechnology and this theory is also an intriguing avenue to explore, as well as the question of where the power for genesis would come (my gut says miniaturized nuclear fusion reactors). In short, there are many implications, questions, and philosophical issues raised by my short treatment of the subject. I will write more on these subjects.
Hmm, are you referring to an entire virtual world with virtual "intelligent" beings or to a world where people can simply "jack in" to the mainframe, so to speak?
|
A digital universe could potentially imbue every individual with deific powers to go anywhere, create anything, and see everything.
I hope the games are good, because without struggle existence is boring.
|
On July 30 2010 11:23 GeneralStan wrote:
1) consciousness exists only within our brain. All signals entering and leaving the brain could be handled by the mainframe of the digital universe.
2/3) This is a question that is difficult to answer, since the advent of a digital universe would change so many fundamental assumptions about the very nature of what it means to be human. I believe that initially our avatars within the digital universe would take human form with human biological needs. If our minds in digital form evolve beyond needing reminders of our animal past, they can be done away with in turn.
4) I had considered. If we are able to duplicate the functioning of a human mind, there is no reason we we could not improve upon nature and give a digital human incredible depth of information processing. I felt that while an intriguing implication, it was out of the scope of my initial thrust. Perhaps this theory could be expanded into a chapter.
I agree that answering many of these questions fully would be out of the scope of your paper. However, something that should be in the scope of your paper is that main point I stated where you need to set a "finish line." And to pick a reasonable finish line would require you to seriously consider those questions I raised.
And considering those questions, as you are finding, is highly nontrivial. For example your answers to 1,2,3 are already somewhat contradictory.
If your answer to 1) is true, this would preclude the inclusion of the genetic/reproductive machinery which would be crucial to the "evolution you mention in 2/3). And furthermore, it is very easy to say that certain factors can be "done away with" but in fact the coupling is extremely strong:
For example, we often say that what makes us human is our "ability to love." But in fact, our ability to love arises from our physical form and the resulting need to pass on our genes. (you can argue this particular point, that altruism is non-Darwinian, but the idea of the intense coupling of human sentiment and "animal instinct" remains)
So basically, there is a "trivial" destination. I use that word not to lessen the complexity of the feat but rather to imply the brute-force nature of the solution. If we can build a mainframe that can accurately simulate all interactions of the universe, and we can generate a local current-state we can consider that a mission accomplished for now. It is not an elegant solution and it does not address how such a Matrix-like universe would imply a "better life."
In lieu of such a brute-force approach, the problem devolves into one of philosophy, and becomes a controversial debate about what is the "essence" of a human being. To give an example of the difference, the brute force approach would be like asking somebody to make a gameboy advance emulator for the PC, where everything is mapped 1-to-1. The latter "essential" approach would be like asking somebody to port SCBW to a braille-based single-dimensional gaming console.
Anyway, your points are extremely interesting, and I hope your interest in this topic remains strong. I am eagerly waiting to see where this goes!
|
The problem is if machines do self replicate as you described then they will by your theory eventually reach a Technological Singularity.
This is not good for humans.
Interesting idea nonetheless
|
Isn't that what happened in the matrix?
Humans voluntarily plugged in and left the machines in charge.
Hundreds of years later someone "breaks free" and revolts against their presumed oppressors.
|
On July 30 2010 11:28 buhhy wrote:
Wow, interesting read.
Anyways, there are many problems with slowly digitizing the world beyond the usual robot goes rogue and eradicates humanity. Assuming we eventually create robots to do labor for us, what will happen if the robots malfunction? Skills vanish if they are not used. Given enough time, the skills necessary to produce the robots will vanish if the robots are self replicating.
Also, any powerful technology can always be used offensively. The weaponry available now may seem dangerous, but what about 100 years from now? A madman with nukes is dangerous, but what about a madman with an artificial nanite virus or a planet destroying bomb?
Not saying that technological progress is bad, but some progress SHOULD be questioned for its practical use and its potential negative impact. Not all progress is good.
Finally, a thought on human 'souls' or whatever. This 'creativity' attribute people seem to place on a pedestal isn't special, nor unnatural. All ideas are based off something else. The brain stores information on everything we see and makes associations. Has anything truly beyond the perception of man been spontaneously imagined? I don't think so, but feel free to point any out. Add to the fact that other animals have measurable intelligence and are capable of using tools, I believe humans are only a step above the animals on Earth.
There would always need to be humans living in the physical world, to prevent a robotic take over Most likely those who haven't entered the digital universe yet would be those caretakers Control over our robotic creations would be careful maintained via liberal use of a kill switch.
Essentially any robot created by Genesis would be programed to have a kill switch, allowing a human.
This obviously does not cover all contingencies. Most notably, with the incredible powers that Genesis has been imbued with, evolution would have to take place. Evolution requires self-replication and a method for change. Both of these have been given to Genesis, and so evolution follows naturally. Evolution of our machine creations may be desirable in creating novel solutions to our problems. It is also bound to cause hardship.
While the automatons may not have conscious intent, with run away reproduction could seriously endanger humanity. To evolve without a kill switch would be a potent advantage to a series of replicators that possessed it. Combined with other difficult to control adaptions, this could present a problem for the theory.
The solution that comes to my mind is to maintain military dominance over our creations, and certainly to not adopt deliberately adopt machine self-replication for military purposes. If then a series of replicators begins a destructive behaviour (for instance, erroneously destroying mainframes to replicate itself, or killing physical humans who get in the way of their road building efforts), they can be destroyed by conventional means, namely with bombs and guns.
This tangentially raises the question whether it would be ethically right for our species to generate a new form of life specifically serve us (presumably for an eternity) and to make strident efforts to limit their evolution and prevent them from developing sentience. This does not particular trouble me, since I eat hamburgers, but there are some that may stumble over this philosophical point.
Another random point: uploading your brain into a computer is unlikely to destroy the physical brain. Meaning that you may upload your brain, and live a normal life, while a digital copy with all of your memories, experiences, and personality will go onto experience an eternity as a digital entity.
Another random point: virus like behavoiur by users of the digital universe could severely disrupt life for others in the mainframe. A real world analogy would be trolls in Second Life, who constantly game the system to consume resources, crash servers, and generally make life difficult for legitimate players. Trolls in the digital mainframe would be a serious problem, as life in the mainframe would be a much more serious issue than game time in Second Life (which also raises the point that Second Life does aim to be a primitive form of what I have described here)
I agree that humans are simply animals, but a small step I think is a misleading way to label it. Our species truly has taken a paradigm shift beyond the standard evolution of life. The evolutionary race has been run, and won by Homo Sapiens.
My thoughts here are unorganized, but I think I have touched upon all of the points you raised
|
On July 30 2010 11:46 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2010 11:23 GeneralStan wrote:
1) consciousness exists only within our brain. All signals entering and leaving the brain could be handled by the mainframe of the digital universe.
2/3) This is a question that is difficult to answer, since the advent of a digital universe would change so many fundamental assumptions about the very nature of what it means to be human. I believe that initially our avatars within the digital universe would take human form with human biological needs. If our minds in digital form evolve beyond needing reminders of our animal past, they can be done away with in turn.
4) I had considered. If we are able to duplicate the functioning of a human mind, there is no reason we we could not improve upon nature and give a digital human incredible depth of information processing. I felt that while an intriguing implication, it was out of the scope of my initial thrust. Perhaps this theory could be expanded into a chapter.
I agree that answering many of these questions fully would be out of the scope of your paper. However, something that should be in the scope of your paper is that main point I stated where you need to set a "finish line." And to pick a reasonable finish line would require you to seriously consider those questions I raised. And considering those questions, as you are finding, is highly nontrivial. For example your answers to 1,2,3 are already somewhat contradictory. If your answer to 1) is true, this would preclude the inclusion of the genetic/reproductive machinery which would be crucial to the "evolution you mention in 2/3). And furthermore, it is very easy to say that certain factors can be "done away with" but in fact the coupling is extremely strong: For example, we often say that what makes us human is our "ability to love." But in fact, our ability to love arises from our physical form and the resulting need to pass on our genes. (you can argue this particular point, that altruism is non-Darwinian, but the idea of the intense coupling of human sentiment and "animal instinct" remains) So basically, there is a "trivial" destination. I use that word not to lessen the complexity of the feat but rather to imply the brute-force nature of the solution. If we can build a mainframe that can accurately simulate all interactions of the universe, and we can generate a local current-state we can consider that a mission accomplished for now. It is not an elegant solution and it does not address how such a Matrix-like universe would imply a "better life." In lieu of such a brute-force approach, the problem devolves into one of philosophy, and becomes a controversial debate about what is the "essence" of a human being. To give an example of the difference, the brute force approach would be like asking somebody to make a gameboy advance emulator for the PC, where everything is mapped 1-to-1. The latter "essential" approach would be like asking somebody to port SCBW to a braille-based single-dimensional gaming console. Anyway, your points are extremely interesting, and I hope your interest in this topic remains strong. I am eagerly waiting to see where this goes!
I think my main problem here is that there truly are two different forms of the digital universe. The second, farther in the future, and impossible to predict, would come after we have found our footing, and come to grips with our powers. I will not speculate on what form existence may take here, since it defies any experience currently available to man.
In the earlier digital universe, it does seem likely that original our avatars would fully retain human form, and there would be physical rules binding those characters, but rules that could changed and bent to make life more convenient. An example would be that any destination can be arrived it instantaneously or nearly instantaneously. One day you're at home, in Tokyo, when you feel like going for a walk, so you, along the beaches of Hawaii, and then you stop in for a coffee at your favorite shop in Seattle, before going to fifth avenue in New York to do some shopping. In reality, it's unlikely that you would want to go to any of those places, since the type of urban space and architecture that could be generated given unlimited resources would be truly staggering! In another advantage, your house would always be in a perfect location, it could be arbitrarily large, and filled with any sort of material wealth that you have ever desired.
If it were possible to travel anywhere in the world on a whim, to buy whatever you wanted and to have a large house in a premier location in the physical universe, I'm sure just about everybody would take that lifestyle. Since the proposed digital universe would be indistinguishable from reality, the advantages are immediately obvious.
|
On July 30 2010 11:43 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +A digital universe could potentially imbue every individual with deific powers to go anywhere, create anything, and see everything. I hope the games are good, because without struggle existence is boring.
The games would be incredible, beyond your current comprehension. If Call of Duty is your sort of game, you could pick up a rifle and enter the fray, in seemingly perfect realism, but with no risk of injury. It puts paintball to shame.
If you had a broader strategic mind, you could take charge of the army and act as supreme commander in a war more glorious than any every fought.
For those of a more mercantile nature, you could compete against others to build a financial empire on a galactic scale.
Any concept for a computer game could be made into a real life experience in the digital universe, meaning that it is unlikely that an individual within the digital universe would find life dull or meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img837.imageshack.us/i/9poster.jpg/)
