 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Living Forever >
Human Body Version 2.0
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0551.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Human Body Version 2.0
In the coming decades, a radical upgrading of our body's physical and mental systems, already underway, will use nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs. We already know how to prevent most degenerative disease through nutrition and supplementation; this will be a bridge to the emerging biotechnology revolution, which in turn will be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution. By 2030, reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed and nonbiological intelligence will merge with our biological brains.
Published on KurzweilAI.net Feb. 17, 2003. The author will present
a talk based on this article on Feb. 21 at Time magazine's
"The
Future of Life" conference.
Sex has already been largely separated from its biological function.
For the most part, we engage in sexual activity for intimate communication
and sensual pleasure, not reproduction. Conversely, we have multiple
methodologies for creating babies without physical sex, albeit most
reproduction still does derive from the sex act. Although not condoned
by all sectors of society, this disentanglement of sex from its
biological function has been readily, even eagerly, adopted by the
mainstream.
So why don’t we provide the same extrication of purpose from biology
for another activity that also provides both social intimacy and
sensual pleasure, namely eating? We have crude ways of doing this
today. Starch blockers, such as Bayer’s Precose, partially prevent
absorption of complex carbohydrates; fat blockers, such as Chitosan,
bind to fat molecules, causing them to pass through the digestive
tract; and sugar substitutes, such as Sucralose and Stevia, provide
sweetness without calories. There are limitations and problems
with each of these contemporary technologies, but a more effective
generation of drugs is being developed that will block excess caloric
absorption on the cellular level.
Let us consider, however, a more fundamental reengineering of the
digestive process to disconnect the sensual aspects of eating from
its original biological purpose: to provide nutrients into the bloodstream
that are then delivered to each of our trillions of cells. These
nutrients include caloric (energy-bearing) substances such as glucose
(from carbohydrates), proteins, fats, and a myriad of trace molecules,
such as vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, that provide building
blocks and facilitating enzymes for diverse metabolic processes.
An Era of Abundance
Our knowledge of the complex pathways underlying digestive processes
is rapidly expanding, although there is still a great deal we do
not fully understand. On the one hand, digestion, like any other
major human biological system, is astonishing in its intricacy and
cleverness. Our bodies manage to extract the complex resources
needed to survive, despite sharply varying conditions, while at
the same time, filtering out a multiplicity of toxins.
On the other hand, our bodies evolved in a very different era.
Our digestive processes in particular are optimized for a situation
that is dramatically dissimilar to the one we find ourselves in.
For most of our biological heritage, there was a high likelihood
that the next foraging or hunting season (and for a brief, relatively
recent period, the next planting season) might be catastrophically
lean. So it made sense for our bodies to hold on to every possible
calorie. Today, this biological strategy is extremely counterproductive.
Our outdated metabolic programming underlies our contemporary epidemic
of obesity and fuels pathological processes of degenerative disease
such as coronary artery disease, and type II diabetes.
Up until recently (on an evolutionary time scale), it was not in
the interest of the species for old people like myself (I was born
in 1948) to use up the limited resources of the clan. Evolution
favored a short life span—life expectancy was 37 years only
two centuries ago—so these restricted reserves could be devoted
to the young, those caring for them, and those strong enough to
perform intense physical work.
We now live in an era of great material abundance. Most work requires
mental effort rather than physical exertion. A century ago, 30
percent of the U.S. work force worked on farms, with another 30
percent deployed in factories. Both of these figures are now under
3 percent. The significant majority of today’s job categories,
ranging from airline flight attendant to web designer, simply didn’t
exist a century ago. Circa 2003, we have the opportunity to continue
to contribute to our civilization’s exponentially growing knowledge
base—incidentally, a unique attribute of our species—well
past our child-rearing days.
Our species has already augmented the "natural" order of our life
cycle through our technology: drugs, supplements, replacement parts
for virtually all bodily systems, and many other interventions.
We already have devices to replace our hips, knees, shoulders, elbows,
wrists, jaws, teeth, skin, arteries, veins, heart valves, arms,
legs, feet, fingers, and toes. Systems to replace more complex
organs (for example, our hearts) are beginning to work. As we’re
learning the principles of operation of the human body and the brain,
we will soon be in a position to design vastly superior systems
that will be more enjoyable, last longer, and perform better, without
susceptibility to breakdown, disease, and aging.
Artist and cultural catalyst Natasha Vita-More pioneered a conceptual
design for one such system, called Primo
Posthuman, designed for mobility, flexibility and superlongevity.
It features innovations such as a metabrain for global-net connection
with prosthetic neo-neocortex of AI interwoven with nanobots; smart
skin that is solar protected with biosensors for tone and texture
changeability, and high-acuity senses.
Introducing Human Body Version 2.0
We won’t engineer human body version 2.0 all at once. It will
be an incremental process, one already well under way. Although
version 2.0 is a grand project, ultimately resulting in the radical
upgrading of all our physical and mental systems, we will implement
it one benign step at a time. Based on our current knowledge, we
can already touch and feel the means for accomplishing each aspect
of this vision.
From this perspective, let’s return to a consideration of the digestive
system. We already have a reasonably comprehensive picture of the
constituent ingredients of the food we eat. We already have the
means to survive without eating, using intravenous nutrition (for
people who are unable to eat), although this is clearly not a pleasant
process, given the current limitations in our technologies for getting
substances in and out of the blood stream.
The next phase of improvement will be largely biochemical, in the
form of drugs and supplements that will block excess caloric absorption
and otherwise reprogram metabolic pathways for optimal health.
We already have the knowledge to prevent most instances of degenerative
disease, such as heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, and cancer,
through comprehensive programs of nutrition and supplementation,
something which I personally do, and will describe in an upcoming
book (A Short Guide to a Long Life, coauthored with Terry
Grossman, M.D.). I view our current knowledge as a bridge to the
full flowering of the biotechnology revolution, which in turn will
be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution.
It’s All About Nanobots
In a famous scene from the movie, The Graduate, Benjamin’s
mentor gives him career advice in a single word: “plastics.” Today,
that word might be “software,” or “biotechnology,” but in another
couple of decades, the word is likely to be “nanobots.” Nanobots—blood-cell-sized
robots—will provide the means to radically redesign our digestive
systems, and, incidentally, just about everything else.
In an intermediate phase, nanobots in the digestive tract and bloodstream
will intelligently extract the precise nutrients we need, call for
needed additional nutrients and supplements through our personal
wireless local area network, and send the rest of the food we eat
on its way to be passed through for elimination.
If this seems futuristic, keep in mind that intelligent machines
are already making their way into our blood stream. There are dozens
of projects underway to create blood-stream-based “biological microelectromechanical
systems” (bioMEMS) with a wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic
applications. BioMEMS devices are being designed to intelligently
scout out pathogens and deliver medications in very precise ways.
For example, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago
has created a tiny capsule with pores measuring only seven nanometers.
The pores let insulin out in a controlled manner but prevent antibodies
from invading the pancreatic Islet cells inside the capsule. These
nanoengineered devices have cured rats with type I diabetes, and
there is no reason that the same methodology would fail to work
in humans. Similar systems could precisely deliver dopamine to
the brain for Parkinson’s patients, provide blood-clotting factors
for patients with hemophilia, and deliver cancer drugs directly
to tumor sites. A new design provides up to 20 substance-containing
reservoirs that can release their cargo at programmed times and
locations in the body.
Kensall Wise, a professor of electrical engineering at the University
of Michigan, has developed a tiny neural probe that can provide
precise monitoring of the electrical activity of patients with neural
diseases. Future designs are expected to also deliver drugs to
precise locations in the brain. Kazushi Ishiyama at Tohoku University
in Japan has developed micromachines that use microscopic-sized
spinning screws to deliver drugs to small cancer tumors.
A particularly innovative micromachine developed by Sandia National
Labs has actual microteeth with a jaw that opens and closes to trap
individual cells and then implant them with substances such as DNA,
proteins or drugs. There are already at least four major scientific
conferences on bioMEMS and other approaches to developing micro-
and nano-scale machines to go into the body and bloodstream.
Ultimately, the individualized nutrients needed for each person
will be fully understood (including all the hundreds of phytochemicals)
and easily and inexpensively available, so we won’t need to bother
with extracting nutrients from food at all. Just as we routinely
engage in sex today for its relational and sensual gratification,
we will gain the opportunity to disconnect the eating of food from
the function of delivering nutrients into the bloodstream.
This technology should be reasonably mature by the 2020s. Nutrients
will be introduced directly into the bloodstream by special metabolic
nanobots. Sensors in our bloodstream and body, using wireless communication,
will provide dynamic information on the nutrients needed at each
point in time.
A key question in designing this technology will be the means by
which these nanobots make their way in and out of the body. As
I mentioned above, the technologies we have today, such as intravenous
catheters, leave much to be desired. A significant benefit of nanobot
technology is that unlike mere drugs and nutritional supplements,
nanobots have a measure of intelligence. They can keep track of
their own inventories, and intelligently slip in and out of our
bodies in clever ways. One scenario is that we would wear a special
“nutrient garment” such as a belt or undershirt. This garment would
be loaded with nutrient bearing nanobots, which would make their
way in and out of our bodies through the skin or other body cavities.
At this stage of technological development, we will be able to
eat whatever we want, whatever gives us pleasure and gastronomic
fulfillment, and thereby unreservedly explore the culinary arts
for their tastes, textures, and aromas. At the same time, we will
provide an optimal flow of nutrients to our bloodstream, using a
completely separate process. One possibility would be that all
the food we eat would pass through a digestive tract that is now
disconnected from any possible absorption into the bloodstream.
This would place a burden on our colon and bowel functions, so
a more refined approach will dispense with the function of elimination.
We will be able to accomplish this using special elimination nanobots
that act like tiny garbage compactors. As the nutrient nanobots
make their way from the nutrient garment into our bodies, the elimination
nanobots will go the other way. Periodically, we would replace
the nutrition garment for a fresh one. One might comment that we
do obtain some pleasure from the elimination function, but I suspect
that most people would be happy to do without it.
Ultimately we won’t need to bother with special garments or explicit
nutritional resources. Just as computation will eventually be ubiquitous
and available everywhere, so too will basic metabolic nanobot resources
be embedded everywhere in our environment. In addition, an important
aspect of this system will be maintaining ample reserves of all
needed resources inside the body. Our version 1.0 bodies do this
to only a very limited extent, for example, storing a few minutes
of oxygen in our blood, and a few days of caloric energy in glycogen
and other reserves. Version 2.0 will provide substantially greater
reserves, enabling us to be separated from metabolic resources for
greatly extended periods of time.
Once perfected, we will no longer need version 1.0 of our digestive
system at all. I pointed out above that our adoption of these technologies
will be cautious and incremental, so we will not dispense with the
old-fashioned digestive process when these technologies are first
introduced. Most of us will wait for digestive system version 2.1
or even 2.2 before being willing to do dispense with version 1.0.
After all, people didn’t throw away their typewriters when the first
generation of word processors was introduced. People held onto
their vinyl record collections for many years after CDs came out
(I still have mine). People are still holding onto their film cameras,
although the tide is rapidly turning in favor of digital cameras.
However, these new technologies do ultimately dominate, and few
people today still own a typewriter. The same phenomenon will happen
with our reengineered bodies. Once we’ve worked out the inevitable
complications that will arise with a radically reengineered gastrointestinal
system, we will begin to rely on it more and more.
Programmable Blood
As we reverse-engineer (learn the principles of operation of) our
various bodily systems, we will be in a position to engineer new
systems that provide dramatic improvements. One pervasive system
that has already been the subject of a comprehensive conceptual
redesign is our blood.
One of the leading proponents of “nanomedicine,” (redesigning our
biological systems through engineering on a molecular scale) and author
of a book with the same name is Robert Freitas, Research Scientist
at nanotechnology firm Zyvex Corp. Freitas’ ambitious manuscript
is a comprehensive road map to rearchitecting our biological heritage.
One of Freitas’ designs is to replace (or augment) our red blood cells
with artificial “respirocytes” that would enable us to hold our breath
for four hours or do a top-speed sprint for 15 minutes without taking
a breath. Like most of our biological systems, our red blood cells
perform their oxygenating function very inefficiently, and Freitas
has redesigned them for optimal performance. He has worked out many
of the physical and chemical requirements in impressive detail.
It will be interesting to see how this development is dealt with
in athletic contests. Presumably, the use of respirocytes and similar
systems will be prohibited from Olympic contests, but then we will
have the specter of teenagers in junior high school gymnasiums routinely
outperforming Olympic athletes.
Freitas envisions micron-size artificial platelets that could
achieve hemostasis (bleeding control) up to 1,000 times faster than
biological platelets. Freitas describes nanorobotic microbivores
(white blood cell replacements) that will download software to destroy
specific infections hundreds of times faster than antibiotics, and
that will be effective against all bacterial, viral and fungal infections,
with no limitations of drug resistance.
I’ve personally watched (through a microscope) my own white blood
cells surround and devour a pathogen, and I was struck with the
remarkable sluggishness of this natural process. Although replacing
our blood with billions of nanorobotic devices will require a lengthy
process of development, refinement, and regulatory approval, we
already have the conceptual knowledge to engineer substantial improvements
over the remarkable but very inefficient methods used in our biological
bodies.
Have a Heart, or Not
The next organ on my hit list is the heart. It’s a remarkable
machine, but it has a number of severe problems. It is subject
to a myriad of failure modes, and represents a fundamental weakness
in our potential longevity. The heart usually breaks down long
before the rest of the body, and often very prematurely.
Although artificial hearts are beginning to work, a more effective
approach will be to get rid of the heart altogether. Among Freitas’
designs are nanorobotic blood cell replacements that provide their
own mobility. If the blood system moves with its own movement,
the engineering issues of the extreme pressures required for centralized
pumping can be eliminated. As we perfect the means of transferring
nanobots to and from the blood supply, we can also continuously
replace the nanobots comprising our blood supply.
Energy will be provided by microscopic-sized hydrogen fuel cells.
Integrated Fuel Cell Technologies, one of many companies pioneering
fuel cell technology, has already created microscopic-sized fuel
cells. Their first-generation design provides tens of thousands
of fuel cells on an integrated circuit and is intended to power
portable electronics.
With the respirocytes providing greatly extended access to oxygenation,
we will be in a position to eliminate the lungs by using nanobots
to provide oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. One might point out
that we take pleasure in breathing (even more so than elimination!).
As with all of these redesigns, we will certainly go through intermediate
stages where these technologies augment our natural systems, so
we can have the best of both worlds. Eventually, however, there
will be no reason to continue with the complications of actual breathing
and the requirement of having breathable air everywhere we go.
If we really find breathing that pleasurable, we will develop virtual
ways of having this sensual experience.
We also won’t need the various organs that produce chemicals, hormones,
and enzymes that flow into the blood and other metabolic pathways.
We already create bio-identical versions of many of these substances,
and we will have the means to routinely create all biochemically
relevant substances within a couple of decades. These substances
(to the extent that we still need them) will be delivered via nanobots,
controlled by intelligent biofeedback systems to maintain and balance
required levels, just as our “natural” systems do today (for example,
the control of insulin levels by the pancreatic Islet cells). Since
we are eliminating most of our biological organs, many of these
substances may no longer be needed, and will be replaced by other
resources that are required by the nanorobotic systems.
Similarly the organs that filter the blood for impurities, such
as the kidneys, can also be replaced by nanorobot-based elimination
services.
It is important to emphasize that this redesign process will not
be accomplished in a single design cycle. Each organ and each idea
will have its own progression, intermediate designs, and stages
of implementation. Nonetheless, we are clearly headed towards a
fundamental and radical redesign of the extremely inefficient and
limited functionality of human body version 1.0.
So What’s Left?
Let’s consider where we are. We’ve eliminated the heart, lungs,
red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all
the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus,
stomach, small intestines, large intestines, and bowel. What we
have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, mouth
and upper esophagus, and brain.
The skeleton is a stable structure, and we already have a reasonable
understanding of how it works. We replace parts of it today, although
our current technology for doing this has severe limitations. Interlinking
nanobots will provide the ability to augment and ultimately replace
the skeleton. Replacing portions of the skeleton today requires
painful surgery, but replacing it through nanobots from within can
be a gradual and noninvasive process. The human skeleton version
2.0 will very strong, stable, and self repairing.
We will not notice the absence of many of our organs, such as the
liver and pancreas, as we do not directly experience their functionality.
The skin, however, is an organ we will actually want to keep, or
at least we will want to maintain its functionality. The skin,
which includes our primary and secondary sex organs, provides a
vital function of communication and pleasure. Nonetheless, we will
ultimately be able to improve on the skin with new nanoengineered
supple materials that will provide greater protection from physical
and thermal environmental effects while enhancing our capacity for
intimate communication and pleasure. The same observation holds
for the mouth and upper esophagus, which comprise the remaining
aspects of the digestive system that we use to experience the act
of eating.
Redesigning the Human Brain
The process of reverse engineering and redesign will also encompass
the most important system in our bodies: the brain. The brain is
at least as complex as all the other organs put together, with approximately
half of our genetic code devoted to its design. It is a misconception
to regard the brain as a single organ. It is actually an intricate
collection of information-processing organs, interconnected in an
elaborate hierarchy, as is the accident of our evolutionary history.
The process of understanding the principles of operation of the
human brain is already well under way. The underlying technologies
of brain scanning and neuron modeling are scaling up exponentially,
as is our overall knowledge of human brain function. We already
have detailed mathematical models of a couple dozen of the several
hundred regions that comprise the human brain.
The age of neural implants is also well under way. We have brain
implants based on “neuromorphic” modeling (i.e., reverse-engineering
of the human brain and nervous system) for a rapidly growing list
of brain regions. A friend of mine who became deaf while an adult
can now engage in telephone conversations again because of his cochlear
implant, a device that interfaces directly with the auditory nervous
system. He plans to replace it with a new model with a thousand
levels of frequency discrimination, which will enable him to hear
music once again. He laments that he has had the same melodies
playing in his head for the past 15 years and is looking forward
to hearing some new tunes. A future generation of cochlear implants
now on the drawing board will provide levels of frequency discrimination
that go significantly beyond that of “normal” hearing.
Researchers at MIT and Harvard are developing neural implants to
replace damaged retinas. There are brain implants for Parkinson’s
patients that communicate directly with the ventral posterior nucleus
and subthalmic nucleus regions of the brain to reverse the most
devastating symptoms of this disease. An implant for people with
cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis communicates with the ventral
lateral thalamus and has been effective in controlling tremors.
“Rather than treat the brain like soup, adding chemicals that enhance
or suppress certain neurotransmitters,” says Rick Trosch, an American
physician helping to pioneer these therapies, “we’re now treating
it like circuitry.”
A variety of techniques are being developed to provide the communications
bridge between the wet analog world of biological information processing
and digital electronics. Researchers at Germany’s Max Planck Institute
have developed noninvasive devices that can communicate with neurons
in both directions. They demonstrated their “neuron transistor”
by controlling the movements of a living leech from a personal computer.
Similar technology has been used to reconnect leech neurons and
to coax them to perform simple logical and arithmetic problems.
Scientists are now experimenting with a new design called “quantum
dots,” which uses tiny crystals of semiconductor material to connect
electronic devices with neurons.
These developments provide the promise of reconnecting broken neural
pathways for people with nerve damage and spinal cord injuries.
It has long been thought that recreating these pathways would only
be feasible for recently injured patients because nerves gradually
deteriorate when unused. A recent discovery, however, shows the
feasibility of a neuroprosthetic system for patients with long-standing
spinal cord injuries. Researchers at the University of Utah asked
a group of long-term quadriplegic patients to move their limbs in
a variety of ways and then observed the response of their brains,
using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Although the neural pathways
to their limbs had been inactive for many years, the pattern of
their brain activity when attempting to move their limbs was very
close to that observed in non-disabled persons.
We will, therefore, be able to place sensors in the brain of a
paralyzed person (e.g., Christopher Reeve) that will be programmed
to recognize the brain patterns associated with intended movements
and then stimulate the appropriate sequence of muscle movements.
For those patients whose muscles no longer function, there are already
designs for “nanoelectromechanical” systems (NEMS) that can expand
and contract to replace damaged muscles and that can be activated
by either real or artificial nerves.
We Are Becoming Cyborgs
We are rapidly growing more intimate with our technology. Computers
started out as large remote machines in air-conditioned rooms tended
by white-coated technicians. Subsequently they moved onto our desks,
then under our arms, and now in our pockets. Soon, we’ll routinely
put them inside our bodies and brains. Ultimately we will become
more nonbiological than biological.
The compelling benefits in overcoming profound diseases and disabilities
will keep these technologies on a rapid course, but medical applications
represent only the early adoption phase. As the technologies become
established, there will be no barriers to using them for the expansion
of human potential. In my view, expanding our potential is precisely
the primary distinction of our species.
Moreover, all of the underlying technologies are accelerating.
The power of computation has grown at a double exponential rate
for all of the past century, and will continue to do so well into
this century through the power of three-dimensional computing.
Communication bandwidths and the pace of brain reverse-engineering
are also quickening. Meanwhile, according to my models, the size
of technology is shrinking at a rate of 5.6 per linear dimension
per decade, which will make nanotechnology ubiquitous during the
2020s.
By the end of this decade, computing will disappear as a separate
technology that we need to carry with us. We’ll routinely have
high-resolution images encompassing the entire visual field written
directly to our retinas from our eyeglasses and contact lenses (the
Department of Defense is already using technology along these lines
from Microvision, a company based in Bothell, Washington). We’ll
have very-high-speed wireless connection to the Internet at all
times. The electronics for all of this will be embedded in our
clothing. Circa 2010, these very personal computers will enable
us to meet with each other in full-immersion, visual-auditory, virtual-reality
environments as well as augment our vision with location- and time-specific
information at all times.
By 2030, electronics will utilize molecule-sized circuits, the
reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed,
and bioMEMS will have evolved into bioNEMS (biological nanoelectromechanical
systems). It will be routine to have billions of nanobots (nano-scale
robots) coursing through the capillaries of our brains, communicating
with each other (over a wireless local area network), as well as
with our biological neurons and with the Internet. One application
will be to provide full-immersion virtual reality that encompasses
all of our senses. When we want to enter a virtual-reality environment,
the nanobots will replace the signals from our real senses with
the signals that our brain would receive if we were actually in
the virtual environment.
We will have a panoply of virtual environments to choose from,
including earthly worlds that we are familiar with, as well as those
with no earthly counterpart. We will be able to go to these virtual
places and have any kind of interaction with other real (as well
as simulated) people, ranging from business negotiations to sensual
encounters. In virtual reality, we won’t be restricted to a single
personality, since we will be able to change our appearance and
become other people.
Experience Beamers
“Experience beamers” will beam their entire flow of sensory experiences
as well as the neurological correlates of their emotional reactions
out on the Web just as people today beam their bedroom images from
their web cams. A popular pastime will be to plug in to someone
else’s sensory-emotional beam and experience what it’s like to be
someone else, à la the plot concept of the movie “Being John Malkovich.”
There will also be a vast selection of archived experiences to choose
from. The design of virtual environments and the creation of archived
full-immersion experiences will become new art forms.
The most important application of circa-2030 nanobots will be to
literally expand our minds. We’re limited today to a mere hundred
trillion interneuronal connections; we will be able to augment these
by adding virtual connections via nanobot communication. This will
provide us with the opportunity to vastly expand our pattern recognition
abilities, memories, and overall thinking capacity as well as directly
interface with powerful forms of nonbiological intelligence.
It’s important to note that once nonbiological intelligence gets
a foothold in our brains (a threshold we’ve already passed), it
will grow exponentially, as is the accelerating nature of information-based
technologies. A one-inch cube of nanotube circuitry (which is already
working at smaller scales in laboratories) will be at least a million
times more powerful than the human brain. By 2040, the nonbiological
portion of our intelligence will be far more powerful than the biological
portion. It will, however, still be part of the human-machine civilization,
having been derived from human intelligence, i.e., created by humans
(or machines created by humans) and based at least in part on the
reverse-engineering of the human nervous system.
Stephen Hawking recently commented in the German magazine Focus
that computer intelligence will surpass that of humans within a
few decades. He advocated that we “develop as quickly as possible
technologies that make possible a direct connection between brain
and computer, so that artificial brains contribute to human intelligence
rather than opposing it.” Hawking can take comfort that the development
program he is recommending is well under way.
© 2003 Ray Kurzweil.
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: hormonal feedback to brain
|
|
 |
|
Ray said:
"These substances (to the extent that we still need them) will be delivered via nanobots, controlled by
intelligent biofeedback systems to maintain and balance required levels,
just as our "natural" systems do today (for example, the control of insulin
levels by the pancreatic Islet cells). Since we are eliminating most of our
biological organs, many of these substances may no longer be needed,
and will be replaced by other resources that are required by the
nanorobotic systems. "
if the nanobots deliver the requited feedback, then I suppose they could fool the brain into
thinking that the original organ was still there. But I dont' agree that many of these substances
would not be needed, because the brain would still be expecting them. If the metabolic,
homeostatic, and immune functions of the body are replaced by artificial ones, then the
artificial systems will either have to totally emulate the organs for the brain, or else the brain
itself would have to be redesigned to work with those artificial systems. In which case, would
it still be a "human" brain ?
That is the question that I have with respect to the idea that our minds could be uploaded
into computers. A large part of our mind is built upon the brain's control of homeostatis of
our body's functions. How can our mind exist without our body ? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: individuality is a natural right
|
|
|
|
Um, this is just wrong on so many levels, I feel I must respond...but where to start?
Okay, first let me say that there are a whole lot of folks that I just would not care to "swarm" with. Just because they are all homogonized into one great "god-nexus" consciousness does not at all indicate to me that such an existance would be harmonious. I don't buy into the underlying assumption.
Then there is the idea that such a swarm consciousness could possibly be "hierarchical". This would indicate that some of the swarm must be different or separate from the rest and also that this "other" part has some greater significance than the rest. Well, I can't speak for the rest, but that would certainly dis-harmonize me. Oh wait, there is no "me"...me is us. Or we are me. Whatever, it'd still piss me off.
And finally, and perhaps most insulting is the bullshit elitist assumption that if one were to choose to retain individuality, that one must then "become isolated and useless".
Oops, you failed to recognize something important here; Gods are useless. To have the ultimate power to do anything, essentially removes any value from that which you have done. If one can create or destroy universes on a whim, is doing so "useful"? Not at all. This god-nexus swarm homogeny which you describe would, in fact, be useless.
If there were such an orgy of mind-melding, choosing to not share, or choosing to share on some limited level would be equally as valid as choosing to "lose onself in the greater nexus".
However, orgies are interesting...would you mind if I just watch? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: absolute individuality is a lonely death
|
|
|
|
The body system has central motivators and desires. It is "the will to power".
Shrike, your arguments against this "god-nexus" 'swarm' show that you wish to avoid being dominated or iritated. You live in a town or city, and are surrounded by people. You have a job, you specialize and form a unit in society. We are already a national swarm.
Hrmm - old thread.
Anyway, your "analysis" of me is pretty far off-base - which is understandable seeing as how your underlying assumptions are so far off-base. I have lived in towns and cities, but I don't do so as often as I live out of them. I do specialize in some areas, but I also generalize in many many others. I sometimes form a unit in society, but only occasionally. I prefer to solo.
As for my arguments "showing" what you claim, you are wrong. I was illustrating the absurdity of the idea that a homogenous swarm would be hierarchical.
My personally wishing to avoid being dominated or irritated - even if it were true, which it may or may not be depending on the moment - is irrelevant. What is relevant is that "someone" definately would be dominated or irritated if taking part of that situation which was described in the post to which I replied.
Allow me to put it in other terms: Are some parts of a god more godly than others? My position in the post you quoted, was that the concept of some parts of the god, being higher, better, superior (pick one) - is ridiculous.
Unity would be easier if ignorance was gone. Inhancing the mind and body would naturally reduce ignorance. 'Anger/hate' can be reduced or reprogrammed and they were originally meant for the human to defend his food/teritory. Evolution is oxymoronic, and it took billions of years to ever get anywere, and now technology can start a new form of evolution that is more sociable and friendly.
Unity -might- be easier if ignorance was gone. It's a pretty assumption, but I see no basis of fact from which to draw that conclusion. In fact, I think that the opposite can easily be argued - and backed up by fact. It seems to me that historically, people are far easier to unite - and control - when they are kept ignorant. Religeon is one obvious example of this phenomena.
As for technology starting a new form of evolution, I think that's wrong. Evolution is a process of keeping what works and discarding what doesn't. This is a fundamentally different process than man using technology to re-invent himself.
Evolution is not based upon planning, engineering is. If man uses technology to achieve homo superior, then that is -not- evolution, that is engineering.
One reason why I don't frequent Kurzweil's forums, is that they have such a very high noise to signal ratio. For every well thought out post and defensible opinion, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of posts full of wild flights of fancy and arguments which have no basis.
In the future, if replying to a post of mine, please spare me any psycho-babble and try to focus on the actual text of my statements. I do make a serious effort to think through what I say before I type it -at least show me the courtesy of actually thinking about what I've said - a courtesy which I have obviously extended to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: hormonal feedback to brain
|
|
|
|
I detect an either/or assumption here. Currently we are isolated within a single, fragile meat body. The future envisioned by Ray, Natasha, myself, and others along these lines involves an EXPANSION of choices for incarnation.
Yes, but the word 'incarnation' says it right there. There is no mind/body split so there is no non-physical mind to escape the physicality of the 'body'. When your are dealing with virtual worlds, or consciousness for that matter, we are dealing with the realm of representation. Representation ALWAYS requires a physical/causal substrate from which to be an emergent property. In the realm of representation it makes no difference whether you are traveling through the simulated 'space' or whether the 'space' is 'traveling' through you. The 'space' of representation is an abstract one. It is not limited by the causality of the real world. Therein lies its representational power and its allure.
Why would it be necessary in most cases for the detailed pattern of the mind to physically travel around the world when the experience itself (being a much simpler data-set)is much more easily transfered? Experience is what links us to the 'external' world. It is also the common bond that unites us.
Of course we will initially start this process (we have already) by extending our senses and by adopting virtual personas. If we can escape the confines of our brains, we can "roam around" in any number of physical bodies of any kind by downloading or linking, or in any number of virtual bodies.
Though I completely agree with you, there is a critical distinction to be made. There is a mind/body dualism inherent in your language (I suspect that is why you used quotes around "roam around"). The mind cannot 'escape the confines of the brain'. There is no deus ex machina. No meat/mind split. No ghost trapped in the machine. The mind is an emergent phenomenon, entirely causally dependent on the physical substrate from which it emerges.
The brain/body may be HIGHLY upgraded (this is the 'escape' that you were probably talking about) to the point that the network pattern (wireless or wired) is highly manipulable, evolvable and transferable, but I suspect that when the pattern is copied to the computer for whatever purpose (backup, mind-upgrade simulation, etc.), there will be no need to ever destroy the original evolving physically instantiated data-set.
If we have a constant connection to the global matrix then we already would be part of the global computer and yet we would still retain our individuality and mobility. We wouldn't be physically stuck in some imobile data-storage facility somewhere. This individual freedom gives us the ability to be our own local-system administrators, a freedom I would never relinquish.
To attain the freedoms that you speak of, the MASSIVE upgrade of the physical substrate itself (brain/body/environment) will be enough to create the direct neural connection to the global/local networks. This direct connection is all that we really need to attain those freedoms through the ubiquitous giga-computers of tomorrow.
Far from forsaking a freely roaming body, we would escape the highly confined condition that we have today. I put down some thoughts on this for a conference in Germany in 1997:
Thank you for the info Max!
Regards,
subtillioN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
It is a possible and feasible - no doubt about.
But a small device, already indicated as Metabrain on the primo body design, may change the whole story, shall overturn the outcome.
Until you have a physical body, the paste of time is quite dictated by this body. Unless you don't want to boil the river you swim in, you must go quite slow. Maybe a million times slower, than the Metabrain permits you to.
Therefore, between the two swimming moves, you may want to go on a vacations - mentally.
To swim inside some virtual river, where the paste of time is much more suitable for your speedy Metabrain. The avatar body and the strong virtuality river are also - quite much better.
So, the best idea is, to dock your primo body to some computornium. Be cause you don't want to go back - ever. From the most pleasant strong virtuality, back to the physical reality? I think not. The exchange rate for the time may also be drastic. A year in the SV - or a minute in a reality, as we know.
Also, the energy you are spending for a minute of a "real swimming", may holds for billions of years, of swimming over there.
Body design 2 - may not be more, than a very short passage.
- Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
If we are going to remove or radically alter organs and other things in our body, wouldn't it then be necesary to alter the brain as well? If we fx remove the heart, shouldn't we then remove the connections between the heart and the brain. Will the brain adapt automatically to our "no heart-body"? Or will it still "think" that we
have a heart. My point is, that before we make radical changes to our body, I think we have to know and understand our brain alot better. And then about the heart again - What about the rush of your heart pumbing faster, and your blood flowing furisly around your veins, when you meet the girl/boy of your dreams...? I certanly don't wanna loose that feeling. Will we simulate that feeling instead? Guess one could do that - after all it's all in our heads (brain). But to simulate that feeling ACCURATELY, one have to know
the brain very very well. The feeling is probably a little bit different from person to person, so the simulation should be induvidually adjusted.
I don't think that these radical changes to our body will be made before we understand the brain fully - or almost fully. Each time we replace or alter something in our body, a corresponding place in the brain, have to be altered as well. Alot of feelings will have to be simulated, and I don't wanna exchange anything before those simulations are 100% accurate simulations of the real thing. When we can do that, I'm on :) And I think we will be able to do that eventually.
We might be able to replace many things in our body before we understand the brain well enough to actually do the replacement without the loss of some "feelings". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
Have any of you guys seen "Ghost In the Shell"?
Another interesting parallel is drawn in the
world of "Orion's Arm," so search for it if you
so desire. It's neat futuristic fiction that
futurecasts like Mr. Kurzweil, except much
farther into the future.
Now on to the 'mad' part of my response. >:- (
I'm not so much sickened by Kurzweil's article
as I am by some of your posts.
_I_ am a person. Individuality is not a cancer,
no matter what you bloody determinists want
to believe. Whenever anyone speaks they have
bias, conjecture, and assumption, so don't
pretend that you, the "holy elite scientists"
of the web can be objective.
I like the idea of 'expanding the possibility
of carnation', instead of limiting it to
some synthetic absolute. But to me, and I think
for long after this idea of "post-humanism"
fades away, the mere idea of cyborgization and
artificiality will disgust and deter real people
from desecrating their bodies.
I have an inkling from what I read of the posts
and Mr. Kurzweil's writings, but I think it's
my duty to ask the question.
Am I to assume there are NO Christian,
non-secular, even "spiritual" people among those
participating in these discussions? I can see
the future of all that we talk about here, and
it's gathering momentum, and I don't like it.
It scares me. It won't scare the people who
I'm talking about as much as shock, because to
them it will be a blindside on an idle Tuesday-
out of nowhere. I also have other objections
to this type of subject that I either cannot
remember right now, or remember, but will
release upon request.
Okay, the 'mad' part is done. ;)
I can see the utility of life-extension via
artificial methods, and non-invasive methods
of cyborgization (such as those analogous to
wearing a watch or contact lens). I even look
forward to something like that out of
Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama Revealed" when the
people 'sleep' for 3 whole days, and are
completely restored to their physical 'state'
they were the previous year- thereby 'immortal'.
However-- I would still be aversed to it.
Take all you need in, and then when it's done,
take it out- that would be my compunction.
Also, I would like to call to attention, from a
nickelodeon (60's) I once viewed where the people
died, and had their bodies replaced with robots
and at the end the scientist eschewed them to
a back room where he administered the "final
upgrade" which allowed their immortal bodies
to reproduce, that Mr. Kurzweil didn't mention
the EVEN FURTHER separation from physical
sexuality that the upgrade from human
reproduction 1.0 would bring. The problem as I
see it: it seems an unecessary step
(keeping in line with his line of thought,
stepping aside from my aversion to the
blasphemous technology) to be born in a test
tube, artificial womb, or even fleshly womb,
if then only to be upgraded sequentially
until full upgrade is allowable at the end of
puberty.
Tell me what you think of this:
If instead the whole of the upgrade can be
transmitted to the child (such as a third
method of transmission: DNA, ribosomal DNA, and
then the nanorobot & related instructions),
thus removing outside intervention altogether.
Of course, there would be necesary checks and
safeguards to make sure no errors are made
whatsoever in transcription of this third
method.
Thanks for listening, and please don't be
harsh, as I am new to this thread and
site.
-James |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think of this:
If instead the whole of the upgrade can be
transmitted to the child (such as a third
method of transmission: DNA, ribosomal DNA, and
then the nanorobot & related instructions),
thus removing outside intervention altogether.
Of course, there would be necesary checks and
safeguards to make sure no errors are made
whatsoever in transcription of this third
method.
...
Oh yes, before I forget.
So, am I to believe, /:setAI, and several
others from the thread, that your
deterministic view of the future for humans
is likened much to that of the Borg, from
Star Trek? Except perhaps even morso
'advanced' in the realm of conformity?
"Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated."
hehehe
Wow - I think James pretty much said it all :)! Let me just summarize here some things:
In my opinion, it would be too hard to "upgrade the DNA". That would require of us a complete knowledge of how the DNA defines the development of a fetus into a human. But that would be very hard to understand because of the extremely high degree of non-linearity of the process. This is what will really prevent us from actually "reverse engineering" the brain.
However, this approach is the most promising in the long run (several centuries), if we want to create a Borg-like civilization.
However, in the short run we can still do something useful. Something like extending our senses seems very real even right now. I am sure that next generation Air Force pilots would be able to respond much faster to various combat situations because the computer-generated visual signals (from the Combat Center's server) could be transmited directly into the "upgraded" retina without originally coming from the eyes. I also see it in an extended application of the area of neural cryptography (see one of the recent papers by Adi Shamir) which would be quite important for national and Internet security. Helping disabled people is also very important.
However, not all of these changes can be made on adult people. Here is why:
It is a well known fact that babies when born see things upside down and have to adapt their whole motor response to the environment. The whole process stops only when the body reaches puberty. It is also well known that if you artificially cover the eyes of a newborn and leave it like that until he reaches puberty, he will stay blind forever. All that exemplifies a very deep process that's going on inside our brains during childhood. This means the brain's neural netorks are in a "training mode" during this time and are very sensitive to any sensory input. More precisely, they are in the process of defining actually what *is* sensory input and starting to build their higher structures of thought. In my opinion, this is exactly the right time to "upgrade" those structures.
It must be noted, however, that removing any organs is a highly risky idea. The problem is, again, the non-linearity of it all. Removing an organ may affect another part of the body. Unfortuantely, I don't have a lot of information about this, but even from what I know the idea sounds suicidal. So if we want to go along this route we might as well just find a way of upgrading our DNA (which James already noted).
Oh yeah, and last: if we want to become linked to the Internet thru our brains (Not to mention making IPv6 and SSL work in the brain!), what about the possibility of someone hacking us? Imagine yourself in an official setting when suddenly you start getting an orgasm :)! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
james4trek - Am I to assume there are NO Christian, non-secular, even "spiritual" people among those participating in these discussions? I can see the future of all that we talk about here, and it's gathering momentum, and I don't like it. It scares me. It won't scare the people who I'm talking about as much as shock, because to them it will be a blindside on an idle Tuesday- out of nowhere.
I'm willing to bet a few Romans felt the same way.
Is the singularity a religion? absolutly..one that will become much like every other religion and completely different at the same time.
religion is the following of ideas. those ideas are shared between its members and believed to their very "soul", much like a collective.
if you look above religion and see it as a collective and not "the word of god", you will see that they all start, live, then die, replaced by the next religion. chistianity will die, replaced by the next (islam? who knows 8)...). just as the egyptians and other "pagan" religions. It will die for the same reasons, its impracticalities. the fundamentals will not change. and they never have. but the details will fit the time in which they are presant.
your deterministic view of the future for humans is likened much to that of the Borg, from Star Trek? Except perhaps even morso
'advanced' in the realm of conformity?
the collective portrayed by star trek is unfortunatly one of the strongest representations of a humaniod distributed consciousness the general pubic has ever seen. It is also one that is so incomplete and illogical that I believe that it is an imposible future that should not be used as a reference. Here's why:
1. heavy cybernetic implantation - this plays on the fears of an industrialisation mind set, the idea that the body is augmented and added to for better abilities with mechanical and electrical robotic parts. with the advances in nanotechnology and miniturization in general, such "bulky" implants would be ineffecient and error prone for "assimilation" techniques, and any other real world function for that matter. Plus, such implants are inherintly ugly. this would be a dead stop in a world previously obsessed with physicall image such as our own world. It created the image that was needed for plot. It did its job but it should not be a basis for a close posibility.
2. no emotion - emotion is touchy subject in itself here at kurzweilAI, but its role in human society cannot be removed. It SHOULD not be removed, even if we discover we can and still live without it.
If a collective starts with experiences of individuals, then the ideas and emotions of those individuals would be incorporated into the collective (equally?). So would every mind added to the collective from there on, each adding what makes them different from others. Humans are much too diverse for their emotions to disappear in such a way. if their emotions and thoughts are not added to the collective, then it is no longer a collective. in taking over the body, it would get rid of whatever mind lived there before, one mind, no input from the previous mind. No one with any self preservation would allow that to happen to them. their mind would cese to exist and the body would be just a shell to manipulate. Its much more effecient and logical to kill the person and recycle them for their minerals. any information that may be usefull would probably be easily removed before liquification.
3. "Resistance is futile." resistance is a fundamental of nuture. its called friction. its hardly futile for any object, living or artificial. Assimilation is futile, if an advanced being of collective intellegence followed any logic, it would be very conscious of the cost of energy consuption. the energy lost in trapping alive and assimilating a non-standard physical object and maintaining that bodies particular needs would be far higher than extracting needed resources directly from that body to grow standard "drones".
with "expanding the possibility of carnation", you also expand the diversity within a speices. there will be some that join together to form a collective. There will be others that augment themselves but stay quite individualistic. there probably be a vast gradient of people between the two. and more than likely there will be a number of people who deside to remain "human". there are 6 (7?) billion people on this planet now and none of them are the same. they will(should) all be given the opertunity to choose their future and it is garanteed they will not all choose the same path.
We will have to expect variations of all of these. And, as it should be now, we will have to respect the individuals' path, though it may be contrary to our own. If any of you consider yourselves intellegent, please never loose sight of that.
how/when/why did other speices split along their evolution? would the singularity be a point when the human speices spilts? would we be able to coexist with our other forms? not imposible since other creatures still coexist with each other now.
and how will all these advances effect the other creatures that live on this planet? or the planet(environment) for that matter?
think of the posibilities. for they are all posible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Related Memes?
|
|
|
|
I don't think you understand fully the intimate descriptions and implications and what most call "technobabble" that the Star Trek shows have made for the Borg. However, this isn't a Star Trek
forum, and even I don't often read the books on
Star Trek (I'm sure there's people who know
even more about the borg than I do, if that's
possible).
Yet again, the singularity situations I think
are thought out (if not well), check out that
website called Orion's Arm. There's one that
is a comic or whatever. That's not it.
The one I'm talking about it says "space opera"
on the page as well. Hope that helps. Good
fiction on singularity, and points out the
immensely revolting things that I fear will
happen. Such as "upgrade of be denied immortality" , "destructive brain scans" , mass conformity to "AI Gods," which I think is particularly distateful for the site to use a capital 'G', since not one of the AI's is described to be able to 'talk' to God.
As for the guy who said religions will all die,
this is untrue. Science is a religion, and it
will never die- might change, but still. Science believes that nothing can be proven, only ratified and accepted- which is rubbish.
Once we get nano, fempto, atto, and pico technology capabilities, I am expecting we will discover abilities that will circumvent all these idiots who always think about the laws of thermodynamics as "proven," (quite hypocritical), we will be able to recycle energy into matter by recollecting it and recoursing it to higher frequencies and wavelengths. Engineers think (the new generation) that perfection CAN be found, and continuum modelling will eventually be extended into at least two other dimensions (such as with the computers that simulate object design), and then we will have EXTREMELY efficient and precise systems that are as impermiable as the Universe seems to us now.
Speaking of energy, I would like to know if anybody knows of Joseph Newman? Check out his Energy Machine, but don't let reputation make a bias for you. Supposedly it converts matter into energy electrically. I recently read an article from Google about a scientist thinking that the mass in matter gets converted to gravitational energy, trying to say also that time-space was involved. I'd also like to hear about any input on this subject. I think gravity must be a property of the universe (lowercase 'u') passing through hyperspace, you know, relativity, UNLESS they can find the higgs particle, i.e. the somewhat poorly named "god particle".
Thanks all, ... -James. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
Oh, and your comment/question on 'information'
being uploaded to the child at birth, ...
There was a movie, I forget the name, where
the Viking 2 kept coming back from Mars in
an 'invasion' of Martians who have all their
knowledge stored genetically/chemically. Also,
their reprogramming of the Viking 2 used
compression so advanced that it had more than
a century of information and names in it.
However, I think this would be redundant.
Moreover, philosophers, religious activists,
and probably parents would affirm that teaching
a child (not programming a child) with verbal
communication most of the time is better.
An unevaluated life is not worth living, etc...
Suffice it to say, the 'information' would
only be our DNA. The nanobots and subsidiary
secondary characteristics (perhaps programmed
similar to puberty) using the latest unit
of length (nano, fempto, pico, atto, etc) as
the most precise (though at that point the
whole human body seems a waste of energy to
perpetuate, to some) placing and fabrication of
these new technologies, would be simply bionic
additions...
Now, the END-result that Mr. Kurzweil is
describing, however tested, retested, and treekled
into mainstream it becomes, will in any event
lead to this 'singularity' of posthuman
nonsense. I think this will happen more
exponentially than gradually, but the future is
ours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0 - Artificial and Forever?
|
|
|
|
It’s hard to digest a lot of this because it’s almost an assumption based on these writings that technology (as a human platform) will be the next evolutionary path.
The first thing I question about collectives is motivation. How do you know that this is a desirable future? It’s so far from reality, unless you are basing this idea on studies of real-world models such as ant or termite colonies (which is the closest I can think of right now).
Why is this better path for the future? For me to take such an artificial path into the future, I would need to understand better what happens to me after death. There may be a real “collective” that you progress to, and by becoming confined to this artificial collective, you may forfeit the natural progression that billions of years have established. Creating this alternative future, seems a bit overzealous to me.
I see merit with many of the things talked about here, and I definitely see it as inevitable. I will be akin to the arms race as the first primitive “brain upgrades” occur, this will spark the next evolution as governments and economies rush to stay competitive with the “super thinkers” and the “super agile”. My question is though, if it is inevitable that we evolve in this manor (by our own hand), why would we CHOOSE to evolve with synthetic materials?
In a perfect scenario, we would understand intimately the biological machines that we are and evolve that platform keeping our dependency on machines a non-reality. Perhaps we do use nano-tech to alter our organs and DNA to support this vision, but to rid us of our biological selves and become slaves (or at least totally dependant) to technology seems a little shortsighted. To say that we will never understand DNA enough to achieve this seems farcical in light of the other technology futures discussed here.
Bottom line is that we are so new to this type of thinking. How long have we even considered altering our future in this way? I dare say our generation is the first to really consider plausible futures with humans being their own “God” and being the guiding hand to their own evolution. I am far from convinced that anyone of these “ultimate human destinations” is either real or desirable. Whether or not everyone “has a choice”, humans in general are very impressionable (think Branch Davidians) and easy to manipulate and there will NO DOUBT be those who jump on the “collective bandwagon”.
While I see extending our physical lives here as desirable, I have to question a permanent stay. At some point we will want to move on to the next step (whatever it may be). One of the best movie quotes ever I think was from the movie Contact (Sagan), where the religious character was questioning Jody Foster’s character about her quest and its implications on mankind. Not sure what the actual verbiage was but essentially he asked:
“Will all this make us happier?”
All these visions of the future are tainted by one bit of programming that is embedded in our DNA: Survival of our genes and their physical manifestation on this planet. Is it acceptable to say that we can dictate what is our ultimate future when our vision is clouded with this programming?
Perhaps we should engineer out this element so we can clearly see what is real and accept our existence in more Zen fashion. I feel this conversation is premature and most people who are predicting the ultimate destination on earth based on artificial technology will one day be discussed like those who thought the world was flat.
(FYI: I am not a religious person and my post should not be interpreted as such.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
Why do we even want to replace our body or minds? If we replace our minds with fscking machines, will we still be ourselves, will we even be 'alive'. What gives us our being, each person in this world is a complex newtork of cells that even if duplicated perfectly with all experiences, then destroyed; while creating an identical clone, the original would be dead. We would not contiue our lives in the clones body, just as our life could not be transfered to a hard disk. I think the goal here should be improving our immune systems through nanobots and such, and keeping our cells from dying off. If we are integrated too much or completley turned into machine-humans we will all be dead in the sense of no longer being a individual entity in the world, we would be in nothingness while the machines continue living a life based and influenced on our experiences and personalities. Again find a cure for death, not a replacment/enhancment of the human body turning us into machines, and still 'killing' us in the proccess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
The human consciousness is composed entirely of the experiences that particular person has endured. Your personality and all cognitive processes develop from your environment and the way your life has progressed, or at least that's the way I understand it. If all of our memories and experiences were stored in a computer brain, I believe we would still be ourselves, and passing huge amounts of collective information along to younger generations would allow for much faster progression in knowledge, assuming of course that the new "brains" would be able to create new connections and store massive amounts of new information. The concept of the collective existence reminds me of the "Buggers" from Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game,' in which a Hive Queen controls all of the members of her hive as if they were merely limbs. Having a collective consciousness seems to me to be merely the concept of someone who is afraid of the sci-fi direction scientic reality is taking. An afterlife, or collective consciousness after death as stated in a previous post appears to me as being a completely irrational, bordering on ludicrous thought. Cyborganization would be an incredibly useful process, as with longer lifespans, increased intelligenge, and overall healthier bodies (as if that wasn't enough) would allow us to explore beyond our current limitations. Most if not all of the ideas brought up by Kurzweil are feasible in the near future. This article has excited me greatly, because I can imagine only a very few of the possibilities these innovations would open up to mankind, yet I know there are many more that are just beyond my grasp.
Anyways, feel free to ignore anything stated in this paragraph as it is merely the opinion of a recently graduated high school kid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human Body Version 2.0
|
|
|
|
Stupid son of a...Sorry, it's 4:30 A.M., and I made yet another typo. In the previous post it should say ...'intelligence' of course, rather than our course. Wish there was an option to edit a previous post, triple posting should never happen. Again, I apologize.
I've read this post three times over, if there is something wrong with it that I missed, I am going to kill something. Do not feel uneasy, fine sir. Typoes are easy to see passed, dear lad.
If you created a back up copy of yourself before you logged onto the internet, and if you were killed, the backup copy would then be used to recreate you and you would loose only a few hours of your life [if you made a backup before you logged on].
Security could, infact, become super advanced. One fine idea is this: We would have direct-connect to our loved ones over the internet, but perhaps never use the internet for anything other then connecting to/sharing our security codes with only people that we already knew personally. This would be most cautious.
Cheers, old bean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
