65 Comments

1. Simon Drake on March 15, 2008 at 14:50

   I think transhumanism is the only means by which we will get to the stars. Our frail bodies will never make it, unless we upload ourselves. And if we can upload ourselves, why aren’t we beaming bytes of ourselves out there now. Or maybe, we already are.

2. tacitus on March 15, 2008 at 15:05

   I have to agree that moving consciousness from your brain to another receptacle, whether natural or artificial is an act of copying, and not transfer. It would be of little comfort to me that a copy of me lives on when I, the original, am facing death.

   That is why I believe the first transhuman trait to be established will be that of extending life far beyond the century mark. Even amongst the most religious, the will to live on through pain and suffering is strong, despite the promise of paradise on the other side of death. And so once the appropriate medical breakthroughs occur, there will be little effort to prevent the treatments from becoming widely adopted.

   There may, of course, be major societal issues to be dealt with if a sizable percentage of the population suddenly has a lifespan of 200+ years, but assuming we overcome them without self-destructing, we will end up better equipped to survive the long trips between the stars.

3. Athena on March 15, 2008 at 15:48

   Paul,

   thank you for commenting on my essay. Its point was that the two worthwhile goals — making things better for humans on earth while retaining the dream of space exploration — are not mutually exclusive. Each can help the other remain grounded in reality and avoid solipsism.

   Like you, I remain hopeful that we will go to the stars, with biological/cultural changes that make it possible to bridge the mind-boggling distances and hazards. We are explorers at heart, as you say. Keeping that alive may be essential for us to thrive.

4. Adam on March 15, 2008 at 16:59

   Hi All

   I can only disagree with Athena on the copying angle – neurone by neurone replacement, felt to be indistinguishable from one’s normal consciousness, is subjectively NOT copying. Throughout childhood we gain and lose neurones all the time, yet we still feel like us – regardless of how alienating puberty might feel.

   But we have no evidence YET that replacement neurones will feel the same. That has to wait for future medical advances and, admittedly, until then there’s an argument for either position.

5. Athena on March 15, 2008 at 17:31

   Dear Adam, what I meant by neuron-by-neuron reconstruction is recreating someone’s brain, not replacing the neurons in the person’s original brain.

   As for our development, it is very true that we get born with the most neurons we’ll ever have, and then lose them over our lifespan. However, neuronal loss past a critical threshold creates a personality change and/or loss of self — stroke victims and sufferers of dementia are the heartbreaking proof.

6. Jay Lake on March 15, 2008 at 17:34

   In case anybody’s wondering about the mention of my rabid Amoricans, the story in question is here:

   http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030929/cleansing_fire.shtml

   Just sayin’…

7. baley on March 15, 2008 at 18:05

   I disagree that space exploration will have a negative impact on humans. Quite the opposite is true, if we don’t move to outer space we will be extinct sooner or later or in shorter time frames suffer from the overpopulations problems…

   There is no real reason why in the far future (100-200 years?) space colonies can be built and be totally independent from earth. There is not a technical reason not to do so. Besides we can’t maintain 9+ billions humans in the earth no matter how careful we are with administrating our resources. That’s in a sort of way very similar to the Asimov’s Robot trilogy political scenario.

   Besides once outside a gravity well it’s relatively easy to move around in the solar system and beyond.

   As to transhumanism, you’d need many breakthroughs to move all the neurons with their connections from one body. I believe our brains are simply made of an incredibly large mass of neurons, if that’s is true then technically it could be feasible.

8. Zen Blade on March 15, 2008 at 18:15

   Regarding the “transfer” versus “copy” angle. I mentioned in a previous post that I believe transfer can only occur via a biological-mechanical construct (although perhaps I used different language) into a new biological-mechanical body–this last part being aforementioned by our host, Paul.

   Regarding how the transfer would work, I think the model would be using the transfer apparatus to essentially replicate/replace the neurons and the synapses they form. Essentially, the consciousness (depending on what IT really is) is slowly transferred into a new environment by preserving part of its habitat, allowing it to begin to establish residence in the transfer apparatus, and then continuing the process until it has transfered fully…

   But, whether this would ever be practical depends on what we discover consciousness to really be.
   I am partial to the idea that our consciousness is very similar to a computer starting up and shutting down and restarting, etc… Computers can remember their previous state upon shutting down.

   And, from this perspective the transfer would be no different from sleep. Put the patient to sleep, start the transfer procedure, follow the consciousness moving–or alternatively, perhaps their needs to be a more active use of the consciousness to guarantee successful transfer and not merely copying…

   -Zen Blade

9. Tim on March 15, 2008 at 20:58

   I find this particular question interesting because it may contain it’s own answer. “Why travel to the stars when you can create an existence around your own star that becomes so computationally rich that any experience YOU MIGHT CHOOSE to have is within your grasp?”

   One can only choose experiences that you are aware exist. This particular question is similar to the fallacy that we can simulate the response of a drug on a biological system by some computer program and do not need animal models. We can simulate; or choose; only that which we are already aware of! The truly new cannot be simulated or chosen.

10. Adam on March 16, 2008 at 1:45

    Hi All

    Thanks Athena for the clarification. I would tentatively agree, especially in light of this provocative study on neurogenesis in the neocortex…

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/33/12219

    …in summary the researchers find:

    The two-pronged experimental approach clearly establishes (i) that there is little or no continuous production of new neurons for long-term addition to the human neocortex and (ii) that there are few if any new neurons produced and existing transiently in the adult human neocortex. Importantly, the results are quantitatively presented, and a maximum limit to the amount of production of the new neurons can be established from the data presented. The data show that virtually all neurons (i.e., >99%) of the adult human neocortex are generated before the time of birth of the individual, exactly as suggested by Rakic (5), and the inescapable conclusion is that our neocortical neurons, the cell type that mediates much of our cognition, are produced prenatally and retained for our entire lifespan.

    …from their conclusion. Interesting approach too, by using uptake of radioactive tracers and presence of radionuclides (C14) in the original tissue, they’ve pretty much shown that after initial development the neocortex is utterly fixed. There is only a decline, as Athena notes. In a real sense we are our neurons, when all else is in continual flux.

    I am sympathetic with Zen Blade’s understanding of consciousness as something regenerated from previously stored neural states, but I am currently non-dogmatic on the actual substrate of consciousness awaiting better experimental data.

11. James M. Essig on March 16, 2008 at 7:32

    Hi Folks;

    Outstanding discussion thread.

    It has been experimentally shown that the half life of protons must be atleast 10 EXP 32 years, and according to some G.U.Ts, the half-life of atleast 10 EXP 36 years. These theories that predict such a long half life for the proton predict that it can eventually decay into a positron and a neutral pion wherein the neutral pion would decay into two gamma rays. In the off case chance that protons are completely stable from decay, they would live forever all though they obviously can be destroyed such as in particle accellerator collisions, nuclear reactions, Fermi-Dirac pair annihilation ect.. Assuming such long or infinite life times for the proton, certain major elements within the composition of the human body last in theory forever or at least a very very long time.

    Now suppose that a huge space ark, very high gamma capable fusion runway craft, a matter antimatter rocket powered craft, a positronium run way powered extremely high gamma factor capable craft, some type of improved interstellar ramjet craft, or any other craft that perpetually accellerates by extracting real mattergy particles or energy from the ambient interstellar and intergalactic mediums could be built. Based on the 10 EXP 36 year half-life of protons, we should at least within this universe according to its laws, be able have enough protons within the ambient ship board environment to extend the human ship board lifetimes of the human bodies to atleast 10 EXP 36 years with respect to the ships reference frame.

    As the protons decayed within the human body or ships constituent atomic nuclei, they could be replaced by simply eating food, drinking water, or breathing air and the transmutted nuclei of the ship could be replaced by other atoms of the type that experienced decay from radioactivity or through proton decay itself by nanotechnology means or other means. These additional atoms could be collected from the ambient intergalactic medium, ambient interstellar medium, or they could be fabricated via nucleo-synthesis wherein new protons themselves might ultimately be produced within ship based proton creators such as accellerators. Thus, the lifetime of the ship with respect to the ships reference frame as well as the associated lifetime of the human body is essentially, if not completely forever.

    The launching of such Forever Ships, perhaps forever accellerating ships with eternal human bodies/beings on board might be conducted for purely spiritual and religious faith based reasons just because we could but also to expand mankinds presence for ever over eternal distances in space and in time to give our race truely cosmic signifiance. Such an endeaver almost reminds me of one of many potential facets or aspects of the religious faith based dogmas of the Final Ressurection of the Dead and the eternal existence of the human body.

    On such Forever Ships, the human body could be maintained in good if not perfect natural physiological health by medical intervention such as nanotech means, etc.. No doubt, extreme care would need to be taken so that the spiritual/moral development of the crew is maintained as well as their psychological and psychiatric stability. Adequate plans would need to be developed to treat persons who might develope mental disorders that could endanger the mission in the most gentle and effective ways such as through neurological re-conditioning of the brain, mind control technology such as might be achieved by selective altering of the chemical makeup of the brain at the molecular level, and trans-cranial magnetic stimulation etc. in order to maintain crew cohesion and comradary over the eternal time span of the ships travel.

    The same technolgies could be applied to inable an aspect of any eternal physical existence of human bodies back here at home and in any other locations colonized by humanity within the universe.

    Note that even though the human body as such would technically not be indestructable, in fact it would be as destructable as our soft flesh and bones right here on Earth, the human body could in theory be maintained in perfect viral natural health potentially forever and this includes the central nervous system including the mind/brain as a non-limiting aspect.

    If the human brain could be made to exist in perfect health in a perfectly healthy human body, think of how far our intellects, our emotional health and ability to feel and experience emotional consciousness, our social and spiritual development etc., might progress. Such longevity would enable GOD knows how many experiences to be stored within our brains. If we as space heads could develope one or even 10 blogs aday on Tau Zero, or remember and permenently learn three physics or engineering formulas per day on average, in 10 EXP 36 years we would have remembered and mastered so many formulas such that if the formulas where written on average, three per page with in one kilogram massed 300 paged books, then the number of books required to contain such formulas would have the total mass of about one million solar masses. WOW!

    No doubt that if the universe is open and forever expanding, then in some expansion scenarios, the recessional velocity of the space craft or huge traveling space worlds accellerating through space with respect to Earth would have in theory, an ultimate bounding limit of recessional velocity from their point of origin of infinite velocity, essentially an infinite number of lightyears per second, due to the space time expansion of the universe. This would hold up even if we never learned how to travel at C or faster than C and thus were limited to translational velocity through space-time in an inertial manner to values less than but approaching C ever more closely.

    Prolonging the lifetime of the natural human body as such would alleviate many ethical concerns about uploading human consciousness, gradually morphing the human body or parts thereof into non-organic constituency, etc.

    Thanks;

    Jim

12. david on March 16, 2008 at 8:21

    When/if humans are ever uploaded into a computer I would expect that they would not exist within the computer separate from other software that would allow them to simulate the real world to some extent. They no more than us would deal with the bits and bytes of a computer. Rather, just as most of us when dealing with computers deal with higher level languages and use software that translates our commands into machine instructions, an uploaded person would have software that would translate the machine world into something they can understand.

    This software would probably create a simulated physical world where the person can walk to move to different part of memory and have a simulated world to meet their physiological needs. To them, with this interface, things might not seem so different than existing out here in the real world. There might actually be no way to tell the difference. They would use eyes to read, but those eyes rather than being biological would just be computer instructions.

    Sadly, an uploaded person would be just a copy.

    Should we avoid disaster then in a few hundred years I would expect there to be many branches to the human family. The possibilities are endless, from robotic humans built on a millimeter scale ideal for interstellar flight, to humans adapted in some form to exist within the upper atmosphere of the sun, to us living here on earth with relatively few changes.

13. dad2059 on March 16, 2008 at 9:43

    I have soured on the Technological Singularity idea for a while because some of its adherents attach an almost cult-like religious ‘we await our AI Saviors’ flavor to it. That said, recent advances in nanotech, DNA sequencing, creation of artificial DNA, quantum computing and the growing Google-plex ‘cloud computing’ Internet superstructure have given me pause and made me think, “This thing could really happen.”

    A Singularity could have the potential to create such diversity among not only in technology, but in biology that would rival the Cambrian Explosion. No one government, corporation or any entity of draconian authority could have any hope of all of containing it.

    We could have whole groups uploading into polis’ ala Greg Egan, genetically altering themselves to survive on the surface of the Moon or Mars, breath the atmosphere and swim in the lakes of Titan, and yes, groups of people with minimal alteration that have been living in hollowed out asteroids for generations packing up and leaving the Solar System forever.

    This could be the natural consequence of evolutionary Intelligence, repeated for eons.

14. Christopher L. Bennett on March 16, 2008 at 9:46

    I tend to be on Athena’s side of the debate here… I’ve thought of the gradual-replacement-of-neurons idea, but I’m not convinced it’s feasible or even desirable. I don’t accept that electronics are automatically superior to biology; if anything, they may prove to be more limited in some ways. It might be simpler and more practical to find ways to improve on our existing biological nature rather than trying to take something totally unbiological and make it function like biology. The ability to repair and regenerate a biological brain indefinitely might be easier to achieve than the ability to transform it into a computer. After all, we’re already learning more about stem cells and nerve regeneration every day. I’m not at all convinced that biological life can’t be made to continue indefinitely.

    I think that any given thing will always be more successful being what it is than trying to be something else. I believe computer consciousness is possible, but I believe it would be something distinct and alien from biological consciousness. We should let AIs be AIs and let BIs (biological intelligences, to coin an initialism) remain BIs.

    I have to say, although transhumanist fiction like Greg Egan’s is intellectually intriguing, it leaves me rather cold. It’s hard to care about the experiences of AIs that only imagine themselves to be human in a time when the entire human species is extinct. What is there to relate to? I’m fond of AI characters, but I prefer it when they have living people (of any species) to connect and interact with, when they’re part of a culture that includes actual human beings. These AI characters that consider themselves human when they’re not and dismiss real humans like me as nothing more than a passing fad? I just find them obnoxious and self-deluded.

15. george scaglione on March 16, 2008 at 11:34

    everybody above…wow what a subject we have come up with here!!! a very heavy subject indeed. but not one that i think will or can happen anytime in the near future at all !! i’m still rooting for more “old fashioned” concepts like landing astronauts on mars and then going on past that to the larger moons of jupiter and saturn etc. no offense people i am always the first one to want to hear new ideas but this one to say the least did not catch me the right way! anyway all the best and meaning no disrespect,i am sure i am talking to a group of very bright people. george ps baley – good point!

16. kurt9 on March 16, 2008 at 12:56

    I little history of transhumanism for you: Transhumanism is actually an outgrowth of the old L-5 Society. For those of you new to these ideas, the L-5 Society was founded in the mid 70’s to promote Gerard O’neill’s ideas of building orbital space colonies using Lunar and asteroidal materials. By the late 70’s, virtually every forward thinking individual in the U.S. was an L-5 member. They expected to kick the whole thing off with government finance (NASA), then build solar power satellites to generate profits to pay for the whole thing. L-5 society was quasi-liberal in nature in that many of the early founders were of a distinctly liberal mindset (for example, Stewart Brand put up the money for the first space development conference in 1974).

    The Reagan revolution killed the L-5 concept. It did so because the deregulation of the energy industries resulted in lower prices which, in turn, killed the economic prospect of space-based solar power. Also, free markets caught on with the L-5 Society in the late 70’s, which resulted in them successfully preventing ratification of the “Moon” treaty by the U.S. in 1979. This was the peak of the L-5 Society space movement.

    During the mid to late 80’s, I was involved in both L-5 society space stuff as well as Alcor cryonics (I have always been interested in life extension and space colonization and view them as being synergistic). The back drop to all of this was libertarianism. It was during this time that Eric Drexler began promoting his concept of nanotechnology and formed the Foresight Institute. The Foresight Institute was to the late 80’s to mid 90’s like the L-5 Society was to the 70’s. All of the forward thinking people in the U.S. became members of this. The cryonics, life extension, and nanotech people especially were very libertarian. The space people somewhat less so.

    Some friends and I had these parties during the late 80’s where the L-5 space people, the Alcor people, nanotech people, and assorted libertarians would party, drink wine, and discuss all kinds of funky ideas. This was the milieu that gave birth to transhumanism. Transhumanism is an outgrowth of the space movement, something most of you here seem to not recognize. For mostly careers reason (and living as expat in Asia for 10 years), I left this milieu in 1990, never to rejoin it.

    A entertaining and reasonably accurate account of all of this is Ed Regis’s “Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition”, which was published in 1990. At the time I left the milieu in 1990, our vision of the future was essentially the L-5 scenario souped up with nanotechnology manufacturing and radical life extension. All very physical in nature. This is the vision of the future that I continue to subscribe to. Most present-day transhumanists describe this as “quaint” and “old-fashioned”. I consider their ideas to be fantasy.

    All of the AI, virtual reality, uploading, and singularity ideas emerged in the 90’s long after I had left the milieu (I was living in Japan at the time).
    It was sometime around ’98 or ’99 at a Foresight conference that a consensus was reached that space development was irrelevant because a technological singularity was likely to occur before significant space activity happened. This is the reason why present-day transhumanists disregard space development.

    The problem I have with pet scenario of the present-day transhumanists is that I think much of their technology speculations are fantasy, especially the part of “mind uploading” or whatever else you choose to call it. I’m still not convinced that “dry” nanotech is possible. although “wet” nanotech is clearly possible and is inevitable (a good SF description of “wet” nanotech is John Varley’s Geia trilogy, published about 25 years ago).

17. Administrator on March 16, 2008 at 13:25

    Re dad2059’s comment: “A Singularity could have the potential to create such diversity among not only in technology, but in biology that would rival the Cambrian Explosion.” I note Christopher Bennett’s related thought that biology may house the real breakthrough, and tend to agree with you both. My guess is that Christopher is right in thinking ‘computer consciousness’ (as per some kind of uploaded human persona) would be an utterly distinct, even alien awareness.

18. James M. Essig on March 16, 2008 at 13:30

    Hi George and other Folks;

    Good and very practical and insightful comments. I have learned a lot reading through the entire series of comments on this particular thread today.

    I think that when the CEV in up and running, CEV based modular large interplanetary ships can be launched in mass in the following decades to the Moon, to Mars, to the Asteriod belt, and to some or many of the moons orbiting the gas giant planets for cases where the radiation hazard posed by solar plasma based radiation within the ionisphere and magnetosphere of these gas giants would be minimal. Modular vehicles with adequate radiation shielding can probably attenuate greatly much of the radiation within these regions. Much of the solar wind plasma travels at only about 1,000 km/second at most. For protons, this corresponds to a particle kinetic energy of roughly about 10 KeV which is within the x-ray spectrum. No doubt, the luminosity of the solar wind is not trivial, but the readership can note that nuclear powered Naval submarines have reactors that produce gamma rays of energy on the rough order of magngitude of 10 MeV as well as similar and higher energy charged particles. In fact, a nuclear fission of U-235 produces on the rough order of 100 MeV of energy. The shielding within the confined space of the relatively compact nuclear propulsion units of the ship is more than adequate to leave the ship’s other crew and nuclear propulsion plant operators on board the ship plenty safe.

    Once we get the CEV worked out, we can begin manned exploration and off world colonization throughout the solar system in mass just as the pioneers, pilgrims, and explorers of the New World of the continents of North and South America did during the reniessance and colonial days of the New World. It seems neat that the shortest trips to Mars using CEV based platforms would take about 6 months and are on a rough order of magnitude, a simmilar amount of time to the 2 to 3 months often required for transatlantic sailing ship voyages to the New World from Europe. With a larger fuel to dry vehicle mass ratio, perhaps the journey to Mars using CEV based modular platforms could be reduced to 2 to 4 months.

    The developement of effeicint high Isp nuclear thermal rockets could be compared with the development of steam ships which reduced the trans-atlantic voyage time by a factor of 3 to 5. Further more, the development of nuclear powered ion rockets and nuclear fusion rockets might be compared to the development of modern commercial jet aircraft which have made travel throughout the Globe so economically feasible, ubiquitous, and practical that just about anyone can afford the ticket to fly anywhere on the planet. One week’s wage working part time at McDonalds can allow an employee to travel anywhere within the U.S. on a domestic flight.

    These examples of rather ordinary reactionary impulse based space propulsion systems I believe are poised to open up the whole solar system for manned travel, commerce, colonization, and exploration in the comming several decades, even out into the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. More capable systems will get us to our nearby stellar neighboors and then its onward out into the Milky Way Galaxy and hopefully beyond.

    This is the beginning of an eternal journey most greatly worthy of full and committed effort on the part of our governments, space programs, commercial entities, the private super rich individual investors, and even not for profit NGOs.

    As I always like to say in the visionary spirit of Tau Zero, “To The Stars”.

    Thanks;

    Jim

19. Administrator on March 16, 2008 at 13:30

    Recent conversation with friends offline has taken note of the idea of uploaded personalities as copies, the question then becoming: If you knew that you could upload your personality, but also understood that it would be a separate ‘copy’ of you that would live long after your death, would you do it? Faced with this question, I at first could see little reason to make the copy other than as some kind of historical artifact. But then I thought there is at least one thing I’m glad I’m working at, and that is advocacy for a human future in deep space, and I suppose if I somehow uploaded myself, that ‘copy’ would keep plugging away at the issue in some way or other. So my answer became yes, I’ll do the upload. Besides, historical artifacts are interesting in and of themselves. As a history buff, what I wouldn’t give to be able to converse with Edward the Confessor, or Lincoln, or Lao Tsu, even though I would ‘just’ be talking to a simulacrum.

20. Zen Blade on March 16, 2008 at 13:44

    I would definitely make the computer “copy”.
    The reason: It is essentially “me”. At the moment of its creation, it is “me”. It isn’t my specific consciousness, but it is a replicant copy that should know what I know and could serve a function.

    To me one of the main differences between biological and mechanical “brains”, would simply be the chance of failure/muddling of memories. There is little doubt to me that the fact that our memories are not perfect help to shape our actions and our choices. The ability to create a non-perfect recollection is important because it allows for idealism, which is predicated upon one’s ability to dissociate from reality, one’s ability to dream.

    Anyways, I am more probably more in the avenue of finding/creating nanotechnology that would allow for biological brains to continue living or be transferred into other biologically-based environments.

    And I agree, very cool discussion so far.

    -Zen Blade

21. Adam on March 16, 2008 at 14:57

    Hi Paul

    I’d have to agree with that one too, Paul. A simulacrum is better than nothing at all, albeit kind of limiting. But, after all, how many great thinkers are kept alive by their mental emulations in books? We still read Plato and Aristotle, don’t we? Well some of us…

22. Administrator on March 16, 2008 at 15:43

    That’s quite a good point, Adam. A book is indeed a kind of mental emulation, on a very specific and targeted scale. I’m also taken, amidst the richness of this ongoing discussion, with two recent points: Zen Blade’s comment on imperfect memory and its role in ideation (this would be the counter-balance to the helpful goal of preventing memory-wasting disease like Alzheimer’s), and kurt9’s backgrounder relating transhumanism and space-minded groups like the L-5 Society. This seems to give a certain historical weight to Athena’s original belief that transhumanism and space travel should be able to supplement each other.

23. Josh on March 16, 2008 at 17:08

    Hi all,
    A very interesting thread topic! Would I make a copy of ‘myself’? Well, that depends. I think that many of the enjoyments of life come from the body. For example, adrenaline sports and sex among others. Will the enjoyment I derive from these be replicated in an ultimate VR computer simulation of my brain? The brain operates in a delicate balance of many many different chemicals that aren’t generally considered part of the ‘mind’, but have a definite impact on brain function/performance. Just try working out a complex integral in your head when throwing yourself off a bridge held on by a piece of elastic! If you can do it, hats off! Personally, I can do one or the other, not both at the same time.
    So, although I can see the advantages of existing longer and having less distractions in order to do good intellectual work and play, it’s not for me. For me there are more downsides than upsides. Biological upgrades to my body/brain I’ll certainly consider.
    And another thing. Who says living longer will make us smarter? Certainly we’ll benefit from accumulated experience, and vastly extended study time but intelligence levels remain virtually unchanged from about year 20 onwards. If the complexity of the brain can be improved, making more connection between the neurons or having more neurons, and that improves intelligence, now thats a goal worth persuing. A fool for 100 years or a genius for 30?

24. Athena on March 16, 2008 at 19:01

    Yes, very neat thread! I did read Regis’ Mambo Chicken and concur with kurt9 and dad2059 that present-day transhumanism has a messianic flavor that differentiates it from its beginnings (talk of speciation!).

    Some of this tone comes from having a hazy knowledge of biology, from equating brain function with the latest flavor in software development. The vast majority of transhumanists are computer scientists. As I pointed out indirectly in my essay, each of the goals of transhumanism that are at all achievable will take as much time, money and effort to implement as launching long-range crewed space expeditions.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying to advance both disciplines — but we have to be clear-eyed (and clear-headed) about inherent limitations if we are to succeed.

25. philw1776 on March 16, 2008 at 19:37

    I remember the L5 halcyon days of the 70s and I’ve read Mambo Chicken. What some decades of observation and though have taught me is this…futurists are almost always WRONG. The latest cargo cult is transhumanism and uploads. If we’ve learned nothing else we’ve learned that genetic engineering, biology, software engineering and neuroscience is far, far more complicated than the technologicts have calimed. We cannot understand large software programs nor can our tools assist us competently. AI is always some number of Moore’s Law (sic) doublings away…

    Here’s some supporting analysis I wrote elsewhere…

    Expecteds touted by Futurists that didn’t happen…(Yet, in some cases)
    1. Household robots (circa 1970s)
    2. Space staions (robust ones, not Skylab IIs bereft of science)
    3. Lunar bases
    4. Manned expeditions to Mars (circa 1980s)
    5. CATS…Roton, et. al. (circa late 1990s) (orbitals, not Redstone IIs)
    6. AI (predicted every decade starting back in the 70s)
    7. THE cure for cancer
    8. Fusion power (20-25 years away since the 60s, now further away)
    9. Coming Ice Age (1970s hysteria)
    10. Population explosion/crash & depletion of resources (by 1980s/90s q.v. Paul Erlich)
    11. Electric cars (fuel cell expectations during 70s gas crisis)
    12. SETI results (read the enthusiastic prognostications from the 60s & 70s)
    13. Communications with Dolphins (remember Lilly et. al.?)

    Unexpecteds…
    1. Cell phone industry & pervasive acceptance
    2. Personal computers…every workplace desktop computers
    3. Internet for the masses & the WWW
    4. DNA analysis…criminal tracing applications
    5. MRI scans
    6. Exoplanet discoveries, esp Hot Jupiters totally unpredicted in Sagan et. al. computer ‘models’
    7. Dark Matter & especially Dark Energy (is it real?)
    8. Geysers on outer planets’ moons (Io’s geysers predicted shortly before encounter by a lone group of astronomers)

26. kurt9 on March 16, 2008 at 21:59

    To follow up on my earlier comments about Transhumanism and the future in general, some of it is real and some of it is fantasy. The biology part is real. The rate of development in biotechnology is described by “Carlson’s Curves”, which is the biotechnological equivalent of Moore’s Law. I expect the instrumentation to evolve such that the biotech equivalent of the PC will show up in the next decade which, in turn, will kick off a DIY bio-hacker culture similar to the computer hacker internet culture we have today. I believe that such decentralized DIY culture will result in many biomedical innovations (like curing aging – SENS style) that will obsolete the current medical industry, which is analogous to computers and IT in the mainframe era.

    All of the projections of transhumanism in this area I consider to be inevitable.

    Nanotech: One version of “wet” nanotech is called synthetic biology and I regard the development of this as inevitable as well. I am not convinced the “dry” version is possible. I think it unlikely, but I keep an open mind.

    The AI/uploading thing is fantasy to me. Most of the “transhumanists” today are from the computer IT word and have no knowledge or background of biology or chemistry. This is why I think they believe the way that they do.

    I short, I believe the future will be biological and be very physical. I actually do believe that we can cure aging and have indefinitely long, youthful lifespans. However, we will remain biological (with modest enhancement comparable to the replicants in “Blade Runner”) for a long, long time to come. I remain an advocate of space colonization (although I do not support government funded space projects).

    Although I consider myself to be a transhumanist, this is main difference between what I believe is possible and likely as compared to the rest of the transhumanist movement. I am a very physical kind of person.

    There are a few others who think as I do. Gregory Stock is one. Thomas Donaldson is another (he had inoperable brain cancer and is now in the dewer). I think Aubrey de Grey is one of us. There are a few of us scattered about the transhumanist community.

    I think the space stuff is looking quite positive. There are a fair number of launch company and space activity start-ups (8 that I know of). There are enough of these that there is reasonable chance that one or two of them will succeed. Government bureaucracy (aka NASA or the European space agency) cannot open up the new frontier. Only entrepreneurs taking risks with their own money and a competitive space industry can effectively open up the new frontier. This is the reason why even though I remain a proponent of space development, I oppose any and all government funded space projects. They cannot work for reasons why government programs in general do not work.

27. kurt9 on March 16, 2008 at 22:05

    As a transhumanist, I was disappointed in “Great Mambo Chicken”. The first 4 chapters were quite entertaining. However, I expected it to be the comedy satire about us in the same way that “It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand” (by Jerome Tucille) was for the libertarians. I thought Ed Regis took a too serious attitude in writing the book.

    Of course, Ed Regis believes in the possibility of “dry” nanotech, which I do not.

28. ljk on March 16, 2008 at 23:23

    The Ultimate Future of Artificial Life: Towards Artificial Cosmogenesis

    Authors: Clement Vidal

    (Submitted on 7 Mar 2008)

    Abstract: This philosophical paper tries to tackle the question of what could be the ultimate future of ALife from a cosmic viewpoint. We first argue that the natural direction of ALife is a simulation of an entire universe. Two new challenges naturally arise. The first is to simulate open-ended evolution at all levels in a single simulation; i.e. not only in biology, but also to link it up a level below (physical evolution) and a level above (cultural evolution). The second challenge is to probe what would happen if we would “replay the tape of the universe”.

    Assuming that intelligent life would indeed simulate an entire universe, this leads to two tentative hypotheses. Following the soft-ALife program, some authors argued that we could be in a simulation run by an intelligent entity. Following the hard/wet-ALife program, this would lead to an artificial cosmogenesis. This last direction is argued with a careful speculative philosophical approach, emphasizing the imperative to find a solution to the heat death problem.

    Comments: 5 pages. Paper submitted to the ALife XI conference (2008)

    Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

    Cite as: arXiv:0803.1087v1 [cs.AI]

    Submission history

    From: Cl\’ement Vidal [view email]

    [v1] Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:42:02 GMT (104kb)

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1087

29. James M. Essig on March 17, 2008 at 0:49

    Hi Folks;

    Regarding the complexity of the human brain, it now appears that RNA molecules may be just as important or more so for the development and biochemical guidance of the human brain formation than DNA is. The human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons and as many as 100,000 times as many synapses for each neuron. Moreover, there are dozens if not hundreds of major neurotransmitter compounds within the human brain and an even larger number of the different types of receptor sites. There are several different receptor sites for the neurotransmitter compound of dopamine alone.

    It is currently believed that memories may be chiefly stored in molecules within certain portions of individual neurons. Moreover, it is possible that conscious behavior and memories or certain fundamental aspects of such may depend on continuous patterns of molecular, electrochemical, and even low frequency electromagnetic fields generated by the brain and the interaction of such electromagnetic fields within the brain with various nuerons, groups of neurons, and anatomical structures and sub-structures within the brain. The result is a huge number of degrees of thermodynamic freedom within the human brain, of which we have only just begun to fatham.

    It is entirely interesting that major mental disorders which are now widely held to be brain deseases involving among other things, faulty neurotransmission system activity, neurological structural defects, etc., still defy rigorous understanding as to the physiological mechanisms underlying the cause and maintenence of these conditions. In fact, it is often the case that for mental disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, post tramatic stress disorder and the like, no abnormalities show up on brain scans of persons afflected with these conditions while in other cases, major deviations from normal brain functioning is clearly evident. To actually up load or duplicate a person’s psyche into another software storage medium is going to be quite some task since even the understanding of the grossly abnormal cognitive, perceptual, emotional, and social functioning associated with these severe mental disorders is far from complete and since treatment of such disorders even with the latest psychoactive drugs remains marginally effective in many individual cases at best. Just imagine trying to upload all of the fine individual memories, behavioral traits, mental schematas, the full individual patterns of personality spectrum traits, and the unconscious, subconscious, and conscious aspects of the individuals psyche into a software storage medium. And all of these psychic categories are just a very small subset of all of the psychodynamic aspects of humans which are each unique, even for genetically identical twins raised together from birth.

    The process of uploading the human psyche to a software storage medium or duplicating it may eventually be possible but it is going to take a very long time to figure out how to do such.

    It has even been suggested that inanimate matter, even fundamental particles in nature, may have some sort of consciousness to them. Such theories suggest that consciosness developes within the brain at least in part as a result of the collective aggregate of the individual consciousness aspects of inanimate matter and individual fundametal particles such as atomic nuclei, electrons, atoms as a whole, ions, quarks comprising the atomic nuclei etc.

    These speculations suggest that the aggregated effects of the individual consciousness may lead to qualitative amplification into the consciousness, feelings, thoughts, emotions, drives, memories, experiences, acts of volition, unconsciousness, subconsciousness and all of the other psychodynamic aspects of the human psyche. The morphing and modulation of such inanimate collective consciousness of fundamental particles aggregates may by effected by synergistic effects of the particles acting as a unity. Moreover, it may be the case that this consciousness gets imprinted on individual atoms, or molecules, in such a way that identical molecules in simmilar brain regions within different individuals may store completely different memories qualitatively and quantitatively. It might even be the case that physical quantum mechanical entanglement of the kind known under the umbrella concepts of the EPR paradox has an affect of modulating, morphing, distributing, and otherwise instilling the human psyche and all of its properties within the human brain.

    We are aware of some fundamental properties of nature at least at the level to which our particle physicists have probed including among others, gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the various known leptons, quarks, and bosons in all of their varieties, electric charge, mass, spin, charmedness, strangeness, flavor, color and all of the other fundamental aspects of quarks, etc. And these are just the beginning of the known and yet to be discovered primitive aspects of our physical universe.

    Could another all ubiquitous fundamental property imbue all particles, mass, energy, space and time in any of a large variety of forms such as some level of fundamental primitive primal consciousness? What I am proposing is not the same thing as the New Age movement cosmic consciousness or the Eastern religous tradition of pantheism or the belief that the universe or the cosmos is God. Instead, I am proposing that consciousness may be a fundamental property or aspect of every particle and perhaps every differential volumetic element of space-time within our universe. Perhaps even the properties of electric charge, mass, each of the four known forces, flavor, color, as global characteristics in the make up of our universe have their unique forms of fundamental, primal, primative consciousness aspects. If such is the case, could all of the above mentioned physcal entities and traits have other properties of the same class as consciousness but completely different or at least some what different from consciousness. Could an individual consciousness of particles and fields and differential space time volumetric elements have other properties associated with them or aspects just as say an electron posesses electric charge, spin, magnetic moment, and mass, or a quark posseses electric charge, color, flavor, spin, magnetic moment, mass.

    The point I am trying to make is that the ontological, existential, accidental, and practical observable aspects of the human psyche and the human brain hold many mysteries and so it will likely be a very very long time before we can figure how to download, upload, or copy a human psyche. However, I am by no means saying we should abandon such attempts. In fact, we need to be more aware of the current limitations of our knowledge of the human psyche and brain so that we can more effectively faciliate such downloading, up loading, or duplication of the human psyche. I believe that ultimately, there is a very good chance that our technology will one day allow us to do such. This will no doubt result in other methods for us to reach the stars and beyond.

    Note that I will have more to say on the concept of the possibility that particles and fields in raw inanimate matter posess a property called consciousness later this week.

    Thanks;

    Your Friend Jim

30. dad2059 on March 17, 2008 at 7:35

    A good source that catalogs the immense diversity life could take both artificially and biologically after a possible Singularity(s) would be M.Alan Kazlev’s Orion’s Arm science fiction world building project.

    Some of you are most probably aware of the site; http://www.orionsarm.com/

    Good stuff.

31. kurt9 on March 17, 2008 at 11:36

    The problem I have with uploading scenarios is that most of them fail to account for the complexity of neuro-chemistry and the dynamic nature of the neurons. The neurons in the brain are continually deleting old dendrites and growing new ones. It is these connections that form the basis of long-term memory storage. Also, there are several different mechanisms of memory storage and neuronal communications. The important facets of human memory is that it is chemical, not electronic, in nature and that it is based on dynamic mechanisms (growth and deletion of dendritic connections).

    None of the currently existing or proposed computer architectures is based on these characteristics. In addition, I think it very difficult to model these characteristics and processes using software. I believe that any potential AI will have to incorporate this mechanical dynamism in some form. It cannot be based on conventional solid state electronics with these features being simulated via software.

    This is my principle argument for why I believe sentient AI to be unrealizable in the near future (though not impossible).

    Thomas Donaldson wrote several articles on this same issue in his newsletter “Periastron” as well as making many comments about 8-10 years ago on the Cryonet newsgroup (archives are available at http://www.cryonet.org). I believe that Thomas is correct about much of this stuff.

32. george scaglione on March 17, 2008 at 11:55

    jim regarding your comments about the upcomming cev…you seem to have alot more hope for it than i currently do.although the things you mention in your posting will still…yes…come about in time in one way or another! my thought is that we need a whole new fleet of shuttles right now with which to begin a very ambitious program of building and exploring in space! but…as you may have noticed,we currently have big economic problems developing in this country,just look at bear sterns! and…this program we all want to see would be very expensive! so as for right now,this minute i don’t feel that i can be so certain! sorry to have to say so. thanks your friend george

33. James M. Essig on March 17, 2008 at 18:10

    Hi George;

    Thanks very much for the comments and candid critical review of my comments on the CEV.

    I once heard of a proposal to develope space shuttle solid rocket boosters that would thrust until they had a small but significant quantity of fuel left within wherein upon termination of the solid rocket boost phase of the shuttle, the solid rocket boosters would fly back to the Kennedy Space Center or wherever and land like a robotic airplane. The solid rocket boosters could thus be easily recovered, inspected, refueled and ready for the next luanch thus reducing the complexity of logistics for launch planning and preperation resulting in significantly reduced cost per launch.

    I can imagine that with modern materials, improvements in numerical modeling such as in computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis, and ithe knowledge gained through over 100 shuttle launches, we could design and build bigger, higher payload capacity, safer, more cost effective space shuttles with all components being resusable many times over and with much quicker mission turn around times. Such would definately facilitate space based construction of large interplanetary manned space craft and the very large fusion rocket powered space craft with optimized Isp as high as 3 milllion for manned excursions to any of the stars within a 12 light year radius of which there several that would be good candidates for manned missions.

    I like your new space shuttle ideas and hope that the manned space program will receive considerable increases in funding especially as competition from other technological powers heats up such as that of China, the EU, Japan, Russia and India. We need a real bold concrete plan to start reaching out beyond the Moon.

    Regarding my discusion of the possibility that particles and inanimate matter might have a primal primative type of consciousness, I have often wondered if any such consciousness qualities would have a composite nature analogous to the concept of hidden quantum mechanical variables. Perhaps any such consciousness subsists as accidentental properties in a yet more primitive level of consciousness of physical matter which is an accidental property that subsists in yet a more primative level of physical consciousness and who knows, perhaps on ward infinitum until one would reach the ultimate irreducable level or form of physical consciousness which would perhaps be associated with or be an aspect of the most primitive substantial form of physical material or physical entities.

    Perhaps a dualist view of physical matter as having a composite nature wherein consciousness and the physical non-conscious aspects of physical material would have some kind of ontological or substantial indepenent existence from each other but together would form a compound substance in much the same way that the union of the human body and the human soul according to the Scholastic Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas forms a compound substance while the soul remains united to the body in this life but wherein the existence of the human soul is intrinsically independent of the human body even in this life all though the operations of some of its accidental aspects or features such as the falculties memory, will, intellect, emotion etc, are extrinsically dependent on matter or the body for their operation in this life but which operate independently of the body in the next life.

    As I conjectured about in my previous posting on this subject, perhaps there are other principles associated with physical matter that are of the same class as consciousness but which are very different of mildly different qualitatively from consciousness as such. Perhaps any such other principles within this would be class subsist as accidents within a more primative set of principles which subsist as accidents in yet a more primative set of principles and so on down to the ultimate substantial created principles that underwrite the existence of the dependent series of accidents.

    The concept that the existence of what we observe to be matter and energy and space and time that much of contemporary physics and philosophy holds as irreducable principles by such conceptual framworks embodied in the so-called conservation laws of mattergy, momentum, electric charge and the like might actually need to be modified seems to becomming more appropriate as we develope theories such as those of the Higgs Field as the origin of mass and mass-based inertia, and the formation of all of the observed negative and positive mattergy within our universe from perhaps a miniscule quantity of mattery wherein the dynamic relation of the growth of space time and the quantity of both the positive and negative energy resulted from the boot strapping of space time and the vaste quantities, perhaps even infinite quantities, of both positive and negative energy into existence from very little or perhaps almost no previous net quantity of space time and energy, the positive and negative energy within our universe nearly completely cancelling each other out.

    As we probe the sub-nuclear realm, it is appearing more likely that there may be additional nuclear forces perhaps even pointing to a composite structure to particles that were once and still are mainly considered to be fundamental with no sub-components such as the quarks, the leptons, and perhaps even the force mediating bosons of the photon, gluons, weak forces bosons, and the graviton and the Higgs Bosons. Perhaps an analogous sub structure will be found within any existent super symmetric mattergy particles such as the squarks, sleptons, photino, Higgsinos, gravitino, gluinos, and the weak force boson super-symmetric counterparts. The point I am trying to make is that if the currently observable non-conscious physical aspects of physical material currently thought to be irreducable turn out to be accidental, only meta-stable, and/or composite, perhaps the same could be said of any first level conscious principles of physical material.

    Note that I will have yet more to say regarding conscious principles of physical material within a few days. I belabor the concept of such conscious principles because the brain is very much still a great mystery and holds many secrets. We need to be open minded to potentially paradymn changing concepts when attempting to come to grips with this greatly mysterious thing we call human and presumably ETI consciousness and the associated entities we refer to as psyches or personalities. Any such information obtained will at the very least help us determine how to keep our mind/brains healthy, happy, and strong, for extended or expanded human lifetimes as a result of medical intervention and may even lead us to the ability to upload our psyche or at least copy it to an appropriate medium to facilitate interstellar, intergalactic, and even cosmic scale space travel over extreme durations with respect to the space crafts’ reference frame.

    Thanks;

    Your Friend Jim

34. Zen Blade on March 17, 2008 at 20:37

    With regard to Kurt’s comment and the brain,

    “They” are beginning to model interactions, and there is a consortium(?) –I believe in japan– attempting to build a dynamic simulation of part or all of the brain. I forget if it was in last week’s nature or science, but I remember seeing the article somewhere.

    Regarding a mechanical situation, I could imagine a situation in which you could have dynamic circuits or memory or whatever the appropriate term would be. You must remember that many of the synapses are reinforced by use, and atrophy as a result of little or no usage. I don’t know enough about the current research, but to me the biggest question is what constitutes “frequent” usage, and what is not… This property could vary from one part of the brain to the next, or it could be dependent upon other factors that are not known.

    Regarding a mechanical equivalent, I think something involving capacitance (?)—it’s been a while since I’ve had physics– might work. I say this because a lot of neurobiology is actually very similar to electricity. I’m forgetting all my basic neurobiology, but the architecture of neurons (which is different in some species–squids I believe are a model organism for this) is essentially an architecture that maximizes electrical signaling. Mammals developed one way to get around this, but arthropoda (I believe) didn’t develop this advanced way, and as such went as far as they could using a less effective mechanism.

    Membrane potentials…. if you aren’t familar with the biophysics, take a read.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_potential

    I think there must be some computer scientists or electrical engineer-types out there that, if they’ve studied neurobiology, could come up with some pretty solid models of how to create a mechanical brain/ganglia, at least a very rough approximation.

    BUT, I don’t think this necessitates the creation of some super intelligence or the occurance of the Singularity.

35. Adam on March 18, 2008 at 8:26

    Hi kurt9

    Neuronal plasticity will be tricky to model anything like true to life it’s true. Proper brain emulations will perhaps need micromechanical components and/or modifiable virtual network nodes – things proposed for other purposes already. Like you I am sceptical that emulations will be able to take many short-cuts and still produce sentience. I personally suspect the role of electromagnetism, the brain’s overall field, has been neglected to the detriment of our modelling. I think it will prove to be key to the generation of consciousness because it’s the only component of the living brain system which seems a natural solution to the “binding problem” (how individual neuronal events become a unitary experience.) Being electromagnetic the fields merge and act as one, unlike the particulate chemical events and digital signalling events. Electromagnetic fields play a role in development, healing and cellular processes, so it’s not such a stretch conceptually that they also play a role in generating consciousness. What’s yet to be proven is that the brain’s EM field is more than an “epiphenomenon”, but transcranical magnetic stimulation can produce dramatic changes in conscious experience, so the brain system as a whole seems sensitive to localised fields.

    To make artificial consciousness the trick will be making the system sensitive to its own fields. Feedback loops might be hard to avoid.

    And what of other electromagnetically sensitive lifeforms? Could organised systems of dusty plasma be conscious? Consider all the intense electrical fields generated in dust-devils on Mars, for example – what if this meant the dust-devils were alive and conscious? How could we ever know?

    I’m not saying anything new on this forum in this regard, and I always find these mind-body arguments kind of frustrating because we have so little data still. Imaging is improving and in vivo neuroanatomical analyses are showing us finer grained pictures of the neural correlates of consciousness, but we’re yet to get a real grasp of it because there is no scientific THEORY of consciousness, just a lot of philosophical posturing and posing. I have my prejudices, and I await the latest ideas from people like Christof Koch and others, and I dream about what might yet be possible, and what might not. I’m happy being (currently) flesh and blood, and even if uploading does prove possible and desirable I would still rather be flesh and blood, at least most of the time. And if it isn’t possible to upload, then I can hope for some clever medical advances in the next 50 years of average lifespan I have left, so I have a few more decades of arguing over these same issues – hopefully with more data.

36. James M. Essig on March 18, 2008 at 10:45

    Hi Adam;

    Those are very interesting comments regarding the possible essential coupling of electromagentic fields to the anatomical, neurological, chemical, and electrochemical activity of the brain as the cause of consciousness.

    Regarding the strong influence that artificially generated magnetic fields can have on the brain, it is interesting to note just how strong an influence our current transcranial magnetic stimulation techniques can have on the brain. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is showing great effectiveness in many cases of alleviating the symptoms of major depression, clinical depression, and bipolar disorder as well as other affective disorders, even in cases where psychoactive medications such as antidepressents and mood stabilizers, electroconvulsive or shock therapy, and psychotherapy have proved ineffective. I have even read of research that the activity of prayer by devout test subjects can be all but completely disrupted if not completely so by exposing certain parts of the brains of these test subjects to transcranial magnetic fields. The fact that this cherished aspect of prayer in contemplative life can be disrupted shows just how strong the coupling of electrodynamic fields to our dailly routine psychic activities is.

    I really agree with you regarding the seemingly extreme importance of electromagnetic fields to the phenomenon of consciousness. This field of study I think is going to eventually yeild great insight into at least the practical study of human consciousness and ways to medically intervene to increase the quality of life and health of our conscious psyches which will pay off in terms of maintianiing crew compatability, stability, and healthy psychological functioning over long duration interstellar flights to other star systems. I believe this to be the case even if it proves impossible to uplaod or copy human personalities to other storage medium.

    Thanks very much for the interesting comments.

    Regards;

    Jim

37. Edg Duveyoung on March 18, 2008 at 11:39

    Wow! — you’re all so sure about glixificness!

    I’m excited, cuz, now, thanks to everyone here, I’m feeling so cuddly-wuddly smooshy wooshy and just ever so safe with, gosh-a-rooney, so many ways for me to hope for immortality and for humanity to explore the entirety of creation!

    Glixificness — it’s what’s for breakfast, eh? How effortlessly so many here have imagined the ways to manipulate, extenuate, amplify, hard wire and eternalize it.

    In case you missed it, I’m awed that so many experts, here at a hard science e-corkboard where all terms are as exactly defined as, say, “hard drive,” can take glixificness — a hitherto unknown-to-serious-science in the least “dynamic?” or “entity?” or “identity?” or “emergence?” or “secret ingredient?” — and, you know, adroitly play with it like a toddler with silly putty. I never knew glixificness could be jammed into so many e-architectures, liquid silicon based neo-biologicals, and protonic party fests!

    In all the posts on this thread, I didn’t see one concern for defining “consciousness,” so I won’t bother defining glixificness — I am certain all of you intuit the meanings of glixificness, since you’ve all done so “consciousness” — I’m so happy that our intuitions have somehow guaranteed definitional standardization in all the nervous systems processing these posts for all the words used herein.

    As if.

    I’ve studied “consciousness,” in my own way, and nope, it wasn’t scientific, but it sure got me down the road to conclusionville, and I’m here to tell ya, “consciousness” is an elephant so huge that all the blind men are merely interpreting its toenails and are far from even beginning the debate about its snaky trunk, or tree-like legs, or wall-like sides, or rope-like tail.

    Okay, enough with the smacking of you good natured folks — jes havin’ fun.

    I’ll spell it out for you: it’s about identity.

    Go kick some guy’s fender on his new car, and you’ll get a lesson on what identity is. To him you’re going to be kicking HIM not his fender, right? Tell a mother her kid is ugly — might as well say her butt looks big, right?

    This thread is about identity, but no one proposed the least way to “handle it” such that it could be duplicated, transferred, or amplified.

    Yeah, machines can be imagined with the visual acuity of an eagle and a polar bear’s ability to smell and the tasting ability of a shark and the ears of a bat and the touch of a gecko and a HAL brain to control all that dataflow, but we’d all be standing next to this “perfect robot” and saying, “Er, anyone want to get inside this?…and, you know, never come out?”

    In all of science fiction and in all of the beautiful imaginations of those here who are trying to scan the hard-facts-only future, I seldom have been convinced that there was an author or scientist who was understanding “consciousness” with anything but, well, a childlike grasp of what “it” is.

    Oh, I know I’m being smug and offensive here. We all think we know what consciousness is, but, sorry, I offer that you assume and assert instead of KNOW.

    In all the universities there’s hardly a wisp of a nuance of a syllabus about the nature of consciousness, because technology is only now becoming subtle enough to monitor internal states of the brain.

    But, to use one’s mind as the research tool to examine consciousness, well, hmmmm, that’s all ooga-booga, right?, and so we leave such research up to the true believers of religions and philosophies, but yet, here, and everywhere, folks in white coats are going around using the word “consciousness” like they’d, you know, thought about for more than, say, five WHOLE minutes. In fact, they use it like they’re pretending that they’d been in ashrams and monasteries for decades, and were exploring the inner sanctums of thought like einsteinians.

    I’ve studied formally, got me a wholebunchallota acumen and factoidilizationing, some meanass skills, and a string of successes, and not once, NOT ONCE did I achieve anything without deeply considering, deeply focusing, deeply studying that which I intended to use in my life. And in every single instance, and this is true for everyone on the planet, I found out that what I put my attention on revealed itself with surprising, astounding, unexpected qualities, dynamics and substance.

    I’ve studied consciousness — it blew me away with surprises. It blows EVERYONE who studies it away.

    I’m tellin’ ya: consciousness will never be put into a jar. Anything, ANYTHING else can be put into a jar, but not soul, not sentience, not spirit, not identity.

    Oh, don’t get me wrong. Some software will eventually be able to fool anyone and pass every Turing test of consciousness, but there will never be “a person” inside the software that is enjoying whatever magnificence and delight and entertainment and empowerment the robot-brain is processing. There can even be software that creates an “ego sub-process” that dutifully records the robot’s experiences and can talk meaningfully about the robot’s desires, plans, and even the robot’s beliefs, but every human on Earth will see such a “creature” as empty, soulless, with every light in the house on and nobody home. We might vote for a robot for president, but we won’t be happy if our sister marries one.

    The identity behind our thoughts, that which receives our thoughts, that which is the audience of all the bombasticalissitudiosity of human experience, is consciousness that is prior to experience. Consciousness first, then experiences can be registered.

    “Consciousness” is the subtlest concept that human minds have ever had to wrestle with. You can lop of the arms and legs of a person, and they’ll still say, “I’m here, but now less endowed to get around.” Take away the five senses, and the person still says, “I’m here, but now even less able to ‘know the world,’ but I’m still here.” Take away the brain’s various processing centers by surgery, and after each operation, as long as the person can still somehow speak, the message will be, “I’m still here.”

    I watched my father’s personality erode down to a loss of almost everything. His deepest most meaningful memories, gone, his intents now asleep forever, his personality pared down to “being here now.” Yet, never once did I feel that HE WASN’T THERE. Whatever he had left to experience, HE WAS FULLY THERE TO EXPERIENCE IT. He may have only been experiencing a foggy hardly operating disjointed illogical hallucinating delusional semi-comatose state, but HE WAS THERE. When he died, I said goodbye to him not his life’s actions or his abilities or his relationships. The loss of all that he ever was was insignificant to the loss of his “sentience within.” Death is about the ending of awareness — not the ending of experiences. We can live without experiences, but our awareness, our consciousness our deepest identity is primal and absolute.

    Because consciousness is not a thing, it cannot be cleaved, burnt, evolved, eroded, or changed….only the experiences it is attending can change, grow, end.

    This is spiritual talk folks. Gotta admit that the next time you project a future where consciousness is thought to be a ping-pongable entity just because there’s a dictionary definition of it. Steven Pinker and Douglas Hofstadter be damned!

    I’m just sayin’!

    Edg

38. Administrator on March 18, 2008 at 13:28

    Edg’s point is well taken in this context. We have no widely agreed upon conception of what consciousness really is.

39. Zen Blade on March 18, 2008 at 15:22

    Perhaps his point could have been a little more… concise?

40. James M. Essig on March 18, 2008 at 16:24

    Hi Paul and Edg;

    Very interesting and insightful comments! We really do not know what consciousness is.

    Not to promote religious dogma or faith based views on this website, for this is not the place for such, however, I thought that I would share my perhaps dated outmoded Platonic views of the human soul which I believe even modern Catholic Theologians have gotten away from.

    Basically, I tend to view the human soul as a spiritual, naturally immortal, incorruptable per addens and perse, simple, spatially non-extended, substantial principle or essense which exist perse, free, and rational entity which survives bodily death although I believe that it depends on God’s sustaining might for its existence as does every other first created or primitive principles. The soul, I hold, is that principle of individuality that gives us our ontological identity. Furthermore, I hold that the heart, intellect, and will are falculties of the soul and are more toward its accidental form rather than the essence of the soul itself.

    I tend to believe that consciousness as we have it in this life is chiefly a manifestation of the brain but also involves the whole human person as a unity between body and soul. Thus, I hold that the consciousness or personality or psych is not identical to the immaterial soul and niether is it identical to the brain or purely based on the brain. I feel that this reality makes human and ETI consciousness all the more mysterious even from the ontological, philosophical and theological point of view.

    In essense, there seems to me to be some sort of ungraspable uncontainble sublimity to it that just can’t be bottled, contained, or explained away. This mysterious thing we called or label consciousness and sentient identity has defied theological, philosophical, scientific, and faith based analysis from antiquity. Even if we are able to transfer our consciousness to another storage medium, that still does not destroy the mystery of consciousness or its transcenence and sublimity any more than say my transference of my human body from my economical Toyota Corolla to my Mothers fancy 2007 Toyota Camry with a 286 horse power V-6 engine. My body still has its geometric integrety, degree of health, mass, and security regardless of whether I drive my car or my mothers much more expensive and fashionable car. I make this analogy to the transference of the human consciousness from human body to a machine if such proves possible and it may well be possible one day. The human consciousness will in either case still remain mysterious and sublimely intangable.

    The human consciousness somehow seems to retain its integrity of individuality through sleep, brain damage as Edg so wisely pointed out, mental illness, Alhzeimers desease, general anesthesia, the most horrific child abuse, and even through the horrors of sudden unexpected severe trauma such as experienced by the survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima who were far enough away from the blast hypocenter not to be vaporized or reduced to a char but who nonetheless were close enough to receive nearly fatal burns, experience the blinding light, and horrible blast pressure and tremendous roar in an utterly shocking experience that they had no way of preparing for or imagining. Despite each of these severe forms of suffering, the conscious I is not corrupted despite feelings of utter hopelessness, dispair, and mental usurpation. In fact, the conscious I’s individual integrity makes the suffering all the more real and experienced.

    What is this principle, entity, or thing that we call consciousness that seems to have immutable properties at some level even when it is damaged and tramatized by the above kind of events? This is a great mystery which we still have not understood. As one who believes in the existence in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, and the state of grace and lack thereof, I am keenly aware that not even these realities or states can erase or destroy the I in the consciousness. This I retains its exact immutable identity regardless of the human outcomes as such. This I, it seems to me, is what makes us all fundamentally morally equal for all eternity in Gods eyes. Regardless of our eternal destiny, we remained loved by God as his children because God sees our dignity in our I.

    I would not normally make comments on my religious beliefs and will do so rarely with great great discretion here at Tau Zero becuase this is a serious scientific forum and not a sounding board for individual personal beliefs, but I thought that a discussion of consciousness as such might inspire the reader with a sense of his or her dignity even in the case that human consciousness ever proves to be transferable to a machine. There will, I believe, still always be that ever mysterious, sublime, intangable consciousness or irriducable I in either case.

    We can all feel secure and remain so even as we learn more about how to minipulate, embody, transfere or otherwise effect the human consciousness. There will always be profound mystery and intregue here.

    Thanks;

    Jim

41. Ron S on March 18, 2008 at 16:33

    Sure you can ‘learn’ something about human consciousness by poking the brain with EM radiation, chemicals, hallucinigens, and even by tapping the containment vessel with a hammer – it all hurts. So, yes, you can affect consciousness by assaulting the mechanism. Just be careful before jumping to the conclusion that you’ve learned something profound about it.

    We can learn from the brain, we hope, something about what consciousness is – we have no other specimens to study. Certainly we know very little at present.

    There is no reason to suppose that how the brain functions and gives rise to consciousness is terribly fundamental. After all, an Airbus 380 doesn’t much look like a sparrow and a camera doesn’t look much like an eye, except in certain fundamental aspects that leverage some underlying physics. An AI need not operate within a mechanism that bears much resemblance to a brain.

    If you do want to create a new brain-like intelligence we already have a pretty reliable mechanism available – jump into bed with a member of the opposite sex.

42. Adam on March 19, 2008 at 3:08

    Hi Ron

    All good points. Perhaps consciousness is what atomic interactions look like from the inside? No one can say as yet (though I remain hopeful.) Anyone telling you different is pitching something at you – philosophy, religion, whatever. When I get my artificial neuronal plug-in I’ll tell you all if it feels the same.

43. Zen Blade on March 19, 2008 at 10:51

    I disagree with the whole “atomic” or “EM”-based consciousness. The simple reason for this is that we have other organisms on this planet.

    As we learn more about the brain, what becomes clear is that our brain is NOT that distinct form other animals. Yes, we have differences between mammals and other less-developed (from a neuronal perspective) organisms, but we many of the same structures present in our system.
    For example, knee-jerk reflexes are well documented in other organisms and the pathways are understood. Some of the differences begin with the wiring of our nervous system through certain parts of the brain that appear to have the ability to override natural responses. [don’t remember the specifics]

    I had a neurobiology professor who once said that there are ever fewer and fewer parts of the brain that we have yet to explore… so far, we haven’t found that piece wherein that makes us different from the rest of the animals.

    I’m a biochemist, and I look at problems from a biochemical perspective. I think our consciousness may have properties that would be considered electromagnetic, and it undoubtedly is reliant upon electrical currents, but I don’t think these currents drive or initiate the consciousness. I think the consciousness is driven by biochemical interaction(s).–granted, some of these interactions are driven by biophysical properties, but the actual interactions are biochemical in nature. [note: I am simply stating that the resultant consciousness is utterly dependent on biochemical interactions… I could see how these interactions could “cause EM stuff” that could constitute a consciousness.

    For example, we have a better understanding of the Circadian Rhythm and the pathway associated with this cycle:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm#The_biological_clock
    It would not be too difficult to imagine that consciousness could function in a very similar fashion—My personal inclination is that consciousness can ebb into and out of life/existence/activation similar to a computer that can be turned off, restarted, etc… and still function as if nothing had ever happened.

    Another line of thought for consciousness would be how does one distinguish thought from language? And is consciousness simply the manifestation of language? And are we simply evolved in such a manner that we wish to communicate with as many individuals (human or animal or otherwise) as we possible can.

    Edg is right that there needs to be a definition. Why not have a new thread at some point discussing “what is… consciousness”

    Hopefully I have some coherence in what I wrote above.
    :)

    -Zen Blade

44. James M. Essig on March 19, 2008 at 14:43

    Hi Adam, Zen Blade, Ron S, Paul, Edg Duveyoung, George, kurt9, dad2059, ljk, philw1776, Athena, Josh, Christopher L. Bennett, David, Tim, baley, Jay Lake, tacitus;

    I address all of you by name, perhaps in a little idiosynchratic manner, not as an intention to patronize, but to commend the outstanding high level of thought that has gone into the commentary in this thread.

    Even though I have made some spiritualistic comments in my previous few postings on this thread, I might be completely wrong in my approach and am open minded to all other viewpoints regarding the nature of human and ETI consciousness. In fact, in our mortal nature, perhaps there is really nothing that is immutable or indestructable about us, even in terms of what could be called be some as our souls. We have progressed in technology, according to the Late Great Pope John Paul II, such that we now have the ability to minipulate human life at its most fundamental levels, a technology that can be used for great good or for unspeakable evil that can cause us to lose our dignity as human beings.

    However, I have hope that we can learn to improve human cognitive functioning, the health of our psyches, and perhaps extend our lives on Earth indefinately by medical intervention and one day perhaps by giving ourselves new, more durable bodies of some sort or at least parts thereof. This may play a role in promoting human space flight into the Milky Way Galaxy and beyond. If we live up to a million years or more, than high gamma factor inertial travel through space throughout the Milky Way becomes much more politically exceptable and meaningful to the average person. If we can learn to live forever by medical enhancement, tissue replacement, etc., the whole wide cosmos becomes targetable for human exploration, colonization, utilization.

    The book “Comming of Age in the Milky Way” is a great visionary work discussing among other concepts, the venturing of mankind out from our cradle and into the Milky Way. For those who have not read this book, I recommend it as a good read.

    Thanks;

    Jim

45. kurt9 on March 20, 2008 at 15:21

    Andy,

    No, I don’t believe that electromagnetism is that central to cognition. I think this is a big red herring thats bandied about by the “new age” crowd and is very distracting. I believe that chemistry or, more specifically, self-assembly chemistry is the basis of both biology and cognition. If electromagnetism plays a role in biology, it is a secondary effect of the placement and movement of ions, which is still based on principles of chemistry and molecular biology.

    The reason why I am critical of the “upload/emulation” crowd is because of
    their failure to appreciate the organizational complexity of molecular biology as well as its inherent dynamic nature. I do believe we will someday make sentient A.I., But I think it is a good 40-50 years off and that, when constructed, that it will be based on self-organized chemistry (like “wet” nanotech or synthetic biology) and will, conceptually speaking, more resemble current biological systems rather than current semiconductor technology.

    I think that self-assembly chemistry will be the next step in semiconductor fabrication, once the thin-film deposition and etching technology reaches its limits. It is much more likely that our computers in 2040 will be wet and squishy than for our A.I.s to be hard and dry.

    I also think that the development of sentient A.I. will be much less significant than the A.I. singularity people think. I do not believe that the I.Q. level of researchers is the rate limiting step in innovation. These factors are more financial and organizational in nature. Also consider that experiments have to be done in the real world, which is limited by the rate at which physical phenomena occur and is measured. I do not see how increased IQ can accelerate this process. The main benefit of A.I.s with human I.Q. equivalent of, say, 500-1000 might be in better conceptualization and the creation and testing of better simulations. However, models only get you so far. The real world experiments still have to be performed and this cannot be accelerated, no matter the I.Q. of the researcher, either human or A.I. This is an additional reason why the development of sentient A.I. will not lead to a singularity take off. A very good novel that depicts a nanotech-based society with A.I.s, but is still a human-dominated society is in Greg Bear’s “Moving Mars”, especially its description of Earth society. I think our future will be similar to this depiction.

    As I posted previously, all of the A.I./uploading/virtual reality stuff came about in the 90’s, long after I had left the milieu to live as a gaijin in Japan. I have never bought into it. I still do not buy into “Drexlerian” nanotech.

    I’m a late 80’s transhumanist. I am very physical, believe that future technological developments lie in biology and “wet” nanotech, and hope for some kind of physics breakthrough that will take us to the stars. Without the physics breakthrough, our future is the biotech/immortalist version of the old O-Neill scenario. Call it the L-5 scenario on biotech steroids.

    Most transhumanists consider this to be quite old-fashioned and quaint. I maintain it is doable (unlike their fantasies) and still represents a very positive future for us.

46. ljk on March 20, 2008 at 16:00

    What if you can run very detailed and complex simulations
    in very fast times, as computers can do – and will only get
    better at? Then you may not be limited by the so-called real
    world in what can be learned and at what speed.

47. Adam on March 20, 2008 at 19:32

    Hi Larry

    Number crunching can only get you so far – that’s the limits of mathematics. And without experimental data to constrain theory and modelling what’s the point? It’s no longer science, but is instead Art. Laudable, profound, but probably not very useful.

48. Zen Blade on March 20, 2008 at 22:05

    I’m with Kurt9,

    Not on every point, but I agree that many of the singularity-based take offs are really quite fantastic and not particularly scientific. Any future prediction can easily miss its mark. I remember being promised flying cars by now… one problem is there really isn’t any demand for flying cars. It’s a fantastic prediction, but we just don’t need them and I don’t see them happening in my lifetime.

    The expansion of knowledge in the biomedical/life sciences has been nothing short of absolute SINGULARITY over the past 10-20 years. If you want to talk about a singularity, that’s where it is. 20 years ago, had I told you that we would figure out that RNA quite likely controlls a large portion of the development of organisms and the differentiation of stem cells, you’d probably first ask me what stem cells are. Then you would say, “RNA? You mean like mRNA?” And my response would be “No, much much much smaller RNA molecules”…

    I checked out the OrionsArm website. I was just floored. No doubt, great thoughts, great projection, but I don’t see it as a likely future. It’s just too outrageous, it demands that we ignore all of human nature. There is no reason to believe that what drives an individual today will fundamentally be altered in 10 or 100 years. My impression may be incorrect, but my impression was that OrionsArm makes a few assumptions that run counter to human nature. The big one being that virtually everyone will cast aside ambition or an industrial nature and just become couch potatoes.

    I’m glad sites like OrionsArm exist, I think they are very useful, but I don’t feel comfortable with people accepting or promoting the enslavement/extinction of man as a result of our creating a god(s).

    -Zen Blade

49. James M. Essig on March 21, 2008 at 1:25

    Hi Folks;

    Al Turing proved that there is literally no purely rational, logical, thought algorithim that any human, and by colloray, any ETI, mind can perform that cannot be duplicated, simulated, or performed by a digital computer based on the reduction of all logical boolean algebra based algorithms to digital or flow chart based logic.

    The development of computers and their ever progressing evolution, along with the collective and individual efforts of all of us here at Tau Zero, the developments in string theory, big bang theory, QED, QCD, Special and General Relativity, Blackhole thermodynamics, Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, Gauge Transformations, G.U.T.s, T.O.E.s, p-brane theory, Quantum Gravity Theories, Holographic Imformation Theory, Supersymmetry, CDM, HDM, and Dark Energy theories of the Universe, and even the simulation of the birth and evolution of our entire universe on supercomputers should give all of us a sense of dignity of what it means to be human. However, in an age where us space heads are often insulted by folks telling us we should stick only to Earth based things like feeding the homeless, curing cancer and the common cold etc which are also nobel things in and of themselves., we must persevere in our endeavors. The colonization of our universe and beyond iI believe, from a personal faith based perspective, is the ultimate in Pro-Life activities. Those countless beautiful young babies and beautiful woman and handsome men, families, future scientists, engineers, doctors, laborers, lawyers, policemen, military personell, politicians, clergy men and women, sociologists and psychologists, business men, entreprenuers, etc., who will be born in the following eons will be proud of our efforts. Since we won’t be here by then, ultimately, they are what Tau Zero is all about.

    Thanks;

    Jim

50. Adam on March 21, 2008 at 5:12

    kurt9

    What do you think drives molecular self-assembly? String? It’s all electromagnetic interaction – how else do viruses self-assemble out of proteins? Or just about any other biomolecular assembly process you can name is driven by the surface charges presented by molecules as they writhe and flex, tossed about by Brownian motion, but coming together and holding together via electromagnetic connections. Just recently they’ve discovered that similar stretches of DNA seek each other out via their like surface charges, across significant distances within cells.

    As for New Age crap, well it’s crap, but that doesn’t stop electromagnetism from playing a role at all levels of biology, even in development and behaviour, perhaps even consciousness. What other physical process gives such a ready answer to the binding problem? If not the Brain’s EM field, then what? What other voodoo do you want to invoke? Calling it “self-assembly” is hand-waving as badly as explaining the sleep-inducing power of ether via “sophorific qualities”.

    So molecules self-assemble… how? Via surface charge structures that act like a recognition system, then hold together electromagnetically when they find a correct lock. Incorrect holds are easily broken by a thermally noisy environment, releasing the molecules for another try. Inside cells it’s incredibly crowded – think of a mosh-pit at a rock concert kind of crowded. Continual close contact, with molecules feeling each other for a strong attraction. Outside such cramped conditions and things slow down, limited by diffusion, thus why the complicated business of life happens in cells.

    So neuronal impulses self-organise to produce a perceptual gestalt… how? Via their combined EM fields producing an information-rich EM structure that is still a unitary entity. A continually changing and evolving, but singular entity. I can’t give you the full details, that’s all experimental work waiting to happen, but it’s a reasonable hypothesis. Admittedly it’s still a hypothesis and not yet a well supported theory, but it’s a more accessible concept to experiment than immaterial entities. Or “self-assembly” hand-wavium.