BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Coming Technological Singularity (a must read)
Shawn
post Feb 20, 2003, 11:44 AM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



         The Coming Technological Singularity:
         How to Survive in the Post-Human Era

              by Vernor Vinge
         

              Abstract
 
    Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive?  These questions are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented.

_What is The Singularity?_

 The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
o There may be developed computers that are "awake" and   superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much   controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a   machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little   doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly   thereafter.)
o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake   up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users   may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
o Biological science may provide means to improve natural   human intellect.

 The first three possibilities depend in large part on  improvements in computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years.  (Charles Platt [20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

 What are the consequences of this event? When greater-than-human intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid. In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not involve the creation of still more intelligent entities -- on a still-shorter time scale. The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary past: Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no faster than natural selection can do its work -- the world acts as its own simulator in the case of natural selection. We humans have the ability to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads; we can solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural selection. Now, by creating the means to execute those simulations at much higher speeds, we are entering a regime as radically different from our human past as we humans are from the lower animals.

 From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that before were thought might only happen in "a million years" (if ever) will likely happen in the next century. (In [5], Greg Bear paints a picture of the major changes happening in a matter of hours.)

 I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.  In the 1950s there were very few who saw it: Stan Ulam [28] paraphrased John von Neumann as saying:

 One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of   technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the   appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the   history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them,   could not continue.

 Von Neumann even uses the term singularity, though it appears he is thinking of normal progress, not the creation of superhuman intellect. (For me, the superhumanity is the essence of the Singularity. Without that we would get a glut of technical riches, never properly absorbed (see [25]).)

 In the 1960s there was recognition of some of the implications of superhuman intelligence. I. J. Good wrote [11]:

 Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine   that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any   any man however clever.  Since the design of machines is one of   these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could   design even better machines; there would then unquestionably   be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man   would be left far behind.  Thus the first ultraintelligent   machine is the _last_ invention that man need ever make,    provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to   keep it under control.
 ...
 It is more probable than not that, within the twentieth century,   an ultraintelligent machine will be built and that it will be   the last invention that man need make.

 Good has captured the essence of the runaway, but does not pursue its most disturbing consequences. Any intelligent machine of the sort he describes would not be humankind's "tool" -- any more than humans are the tools of rabbits or robins or chimpanzees.

 Through the '60s and '70s and '80s, recognition of the cataclysm spread [29] [1] [31] [5]. Perhaps it was the science-fiction writers who felt the first concrete impact.  After all, the "hard" science-fiction writers are the ones who try to write specific stories about all that technology may do for us.  More and more, these writers felt an opaque wall across the future. Once, they could put such fantasies millions of years in the future [24].  Now they saw that their most diligent extrapolations resulted in the unknowable ... soon. Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human domain. Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.

 What about the '90s and the '00s and the '10s, as we slide toward the edge? How will the approach of the Singularity spread across the human world view? For a while yet, the general critics of machine sapience will have good press. After all, till we have hardware as powerful as a human brain it is probably foolish to think we'll be able to create human equivalent (or greater) intelligence. (There is the far-fetched possibility that we could make a human equivalent out of less powerful hardware, if we were willing to give up speed, if we were willing to settle for an artificial being who was literally slow [30]. But it's much more likely that devising the software will be a tricky process, involving lots of false starts and experimentation. If so, then the arrival of self-aware machines will not happen till after the development of hardware that is substantially more powerful than humans' natural equipment.)

 But as time passes, we should see more symptoms. The dilemma felt by science fiction writers will be perceived in other creative endeavors.  (I have heard thoughtful comic book writers worry about how to have spectacular effects when everything visible can be produced by the technologically commonplace.) We will see automation replacing higher and higher level jobs. We have tools right now (symbolic math programs, cad/cam) that release us from most low-level drudgery. Or put another way: The work that is truly productive is the domain of a steadily smaller and more elite fraction of humanity. In the coming of the Singularity, we are seeing the predictions of _true_ technological unemployment finally come true.

 Another symptom of progress toward the Singularity: ideas themselves should spread ever faster, and even the most radical will quickly become commonplace.  When I began writing science fiction in the middle '60s, it seemed very easy to find ideas that took decades to percolate into the cultural consciousness; now the lead time seems more like eighteen months. (Of course, this could just be me losing my imagination as I get old, but I see the effect in others too.) Like the shock in a compressible flow, the Singularity moves closer as we accelerate through the critical speed.

 And what of the arrival of the Singularity itself? What can be  said of its actual appearance? Since it involves an intellectual runaway, it will probably occur faster than any technical revolution seen so far.  The precipitating event will likely be unexpected -- perhaps even to the researchers involved. ("But all our previous models were catatonic! We were just tweaking some parameters....") If networking is widespread enough (into ubiquitous embedded systems), it may seem as if our artifacts as a whole had suddenly wakened.

 And what happens a month or two (or a day or two) after that? I  have only analogies to point to: The rise of humankind. We will be in the Post-Human era. And for all my rampant technological optimism, sometimes I think I'd be more comfortable if I were regarding these transcendental events from one thousand years remove ... instead of twenty.


_Can the Singularity be Avoided?_

 Well, maybe it won't happen at all: Sometimes I try to imagine the symptoms that we should expect to see if the Singularity is not to develop.  There are the widely respected arguments of Penrose [19] and Searle [22] against the practicality of machine sapience.  In August of 1992, Thinking Machines Corporation held a workshop to investigate the question "How We Will Build a Machine that Thinks" [27]. As you might guess from the workshop's title, the participants were not especially supportive of the arguments against machine intelligence. In fact, there was general agreement that minds can exist on nonbiological substrates and that algorithms are of central importance to the existence of minds.  However, there was much debate about the raw hardware power that is present in organic brains. A minority felt that the largest 1992 computers were within three orders of magnitude of the power of the human brain.  The majority of the participants agreed with Moravec's estimate [17] that we are ten to forty years away from hardware parity. And yet there was another minority who pointed to [7] [21], and conjectured that the computational competence of single neurons may be far higher than generally believed. If so, our present computer hardware might be as much as _ten_ orders of magnitude short of the equipment we carry around in our heads. If this is true (or for that matter, if the Penrose or Searle critique is valid), we might never see a Singularity. Instead, in the early '00s we would find our hardware performance curves beginning to level off -- this because of our inability to automate the design work needed to support further hardware improvements. We'd end up with some _very_ powerful hardware, but without the ability to push it further. Commercial digital signal processing might be awesome, giving an analog appearance even to digital operations, but nothing would ever "wake up" and there would never be the intellectual runaway which is the essence of the Singularity. It would likely be seen as a golden age ... and it would also be an end of progress. This is very like the future predicted by Gunther Stent.  In fact, on page 137 of [25], Stent explicitly cites the development of transhuman intelligence as a sufficient condition to break his projections.

 But if the technological Singularity can happen, it will. Even  if all the governments of the world were to understand the "threat" and be in deadly fear of it, progress toward the goal would continue. In fiction, there have been stories of laws passed forbidding the construction of "a machine in the likeness of the human mind" [13]. In fact, the competitive advantage -- economic, military, even artistic -- of every advance in automation is so compelling that passing laws, or having customs, that forbid such things merely assures that someone else will get them first.

 Eric Drexler [8] has provided spectacular insights about how far technical improvement may go. He agrees that superhuman intelligences will be available in the near future -- and that such entities pose a threat to the human status quo. But Drexler argues that we can confine such transhuman devices so that their results can be examined and used safely.  This is I. J. Good's ultraintelligent machine, with a dose of caution. I argue that confinement is intrinsically impractical. For the case of physical confinement: Imagine yourself locked in your home with only limited data access to the outside, to your masters. If those masters thought at a rate -- say -- one million times slower than you, there is little doubt that over a period of years (your time) you could come up with "helpful advice" that would incidentally set you free. (I call this "fast thinking" form of superintelligence "weak superhumanity". Such a "weakly superhuman" entity would probably burn out in a few weeks of outside time. "Strong superhumanity" would be more than cranking up the clock speed on a human-equivalent mind.  It's hard to say precisely what "strong superhumanity" would be like, but the difference appears to be profound. Imagine running a dog mind at very high speed. Would a thousand years of doggy living add up to any human insight? (Now if the dog mind were cleverly rewired and _then_ run at high speed, we might see something different....) Many speculations about superintelligence seem to be based on the weakly superhuman model. I believe that our best guesses about the post-Singularity world can be obtained by thinking on the nature of strong superhumanity. I will return to this point later in the paper.)

 Another approach to confinement is to build _rules_ into the mind of the created superhuman entity (for example, Asimov's Laws [3]). I think that any rules strict enough to be effective would also produce a device whose ability was clearly inferior to the unfettered versions (and so human competition would favor the development of the those more dangerous models).  Still, the Asimov dream is a wonderful one: Imagine a willing slave, who has 1000 times your capabilities in every way. Imagine a creature who could satisfy your every safe wish (whatever that means) and still have 99.9% of its time free for other activities. There would be a new universe we never really understood, but filled with benevolent gods (though one of _my_ wishes might be to become one of them).

 If the Singularity can not be prevented or confined, just how bad could the Post-Human era be? Well ... pretty bad. The physical extinction of the human race is one possibility. (Or as Eric Drexler put it of nanotechnology: Given all that such technology can do, perhaps governments would simply decide that they no longer need citizens!). Yet physical extinction may not be the scariest possibility.  Again, analogies: Think of the different ways we relate to animals. Some of the crude physical abuses are implausible, yet.... In a Post-Human world there would still be plenty of niches where human equivalent automation would be desirable: embedded systems in autonomous devices, self-aware daemons in the lower functioning of larger sentients. (A strongly superhuman intelligence would likely be a Society of Mind [16] with some very competent components.) Some of these human equivalents might be used for nothing more than digital signal processing. They would be more like whales than humans. Others might be very human-like, yet with a one-sidedness, a _dedication_ that would put them in a mental hospital in our era.  Though none of these creatures might be flesh-and-blood humans, they might be the closest things in the new enviroment to what we call human now. (I. J. Good had something to say about this, though at this late date the advice may be moot: Good [12] proposed a "Meta-Golden Rule", which might be paraphrased as "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."  It's a wonderful, paradoxical idea (and most of my friends don't believe it) since the game-theoretic payoff is so hard to articulate. Yet if we were able to follow it, in some sense that might say something about the plausibility of such kindness in this universe.)

 I have argued above that we cannot prevent the Singularity, that its coming is an inevitable consequence of the humans' natural competitiveness and the possibilities inherent in technology.  And yet ... we are the initiators. Even the largest avalanche is triggered by small things. We have the freedom to establish initial conditions, make things happen in ways that are less inimical than others. Of course (as with starting avalanches), it may not be clear what the right guiding nudge really is:


_Other Paths to the Singularity: Intelligence Amplification_

 When people speak of creating superhumanly intelligent beings,  they are usually imagining an AI project. But as I noted at the beginning of this paper, there are other paths to superhumanity. Computer networks and human-computer interfaces seem more mundane than AI, and yet they could lead to the Singularity. I call this contrasting approach Intelligence Amplification (IA). IA is something that is proceeding very naturally, in most cases not even recognized by its developers for what it is. But every time our ability to access information and to communicate it to others is improved, in some sense we have achieved an increase over natural intelligence. Even now, the team of a PhD human and good computer workstation (even an off-net workstation!) could probably max any written intelligence test in existence.

 And it's very likely that IA is a much easier road to the  achievement of superhumanity than pure AI. In humans, the hardest development problems have already been solved. Building up from within ourselves ought to be easier than figuring out first what we really are and then building machines that are all of that. And there is at least conjectural precedent for this approach.  Cairns-Smith [6] has speculated that biological life may have begun as an adjunct to still more primitive life based on crystalline growth.  Lynn Margulis (in [15] and elsewhere) has made strong arguments that mutualism is a great driving force in evolution.

 Note that I am not proposing that AI research be ignored or less funded. What goes on with AI will often have applications in IA, and vice versa.  I am suggesting that we recognize that in network and interface research there is something as profound (and potential wild) as Artificial Intelligence. With that insight, we may see projects that are not as directly applicable as conventional interface and network design work, but which serve to advance us toward the Singularity along the IA path.

 Here are some possible projects that take on special  significance, given the IA point of view:
o Human/computer team automation: Take problems that are normally   considered for purely machine solution (like hill-climbing   problems), and design programs and interfaces that take a   advantage of humans' intuition and available computer hardware.   Considering all the bizarreness of higher dimensional   hill-climbing problems (and the neat algorithms that have been   devised for their solution), there could be some very interesting   displays and control tools provided to the human team member.
o Develop human/computer symbiosis in art: Combine the graphic   generation capability of modern machines and the esthetic   sensibility of humans. Of course, there has been an enormous   amount of research in designing computer aids for artists, as   labor saving tools.  I'm suggesting that we explicitly aim for a   greater merging of competence, that we explicitly recognize the   cooperative approach that is possible. Karl Sims [23] has done   wonderful work in this direction.
o Allow human/computer teams at chess tournaments. We already   have programs that can play better than almost all humans. But   how much work has been done on how this power could be used by a   human, to get something even better? If such teams were allowed   in at least some chess tournaments, it could have the positive   effect on IA research that allowing computers in tournaments had   for the corresponding niche in AI.
o Develop interfaces that allow computer and network access without   requiring the human to be tied to one spot, sitting in front of a   computer. (This is an aspect of IA that fits so well with known   economic advantages that lots of effort is already being spent on   it.)
o Develop more symmetrical decision support systems. A popular   research/product area in recent years has been decision support   systems. This is a form of IA, but may be too focussed on   systems that are oracular. As much as the program giving the user   information, there must be the idea of the user giving the   program guidance.
o Use local area nets to make human teams that really work (ie,   are more effective than their component members). This is   generally the area of "groupware", already a very popular   commercial pursuit. The change in viewpoint here would be to   regard the group activity as a combination organism. In one   sense, this suggestion might be regarded as the goal of inventing   a "Rules of Order" for such combination operations. For instance,   group focus might be more easily maintained than in classical   meetings. Expertise of individual human members could be isolated   from ego issues such that the contribution of different members   is focussed on the team project. And of course shared data bases   could be used much more conveniently than in conventional   committee operations. (Note that this suggestion is aimed at team   operations rather than political meetings. In a political   setting, the automation described above would simply enforce the   power of the persons making the rules!)
o Exploit the worldwide Internet as a combination human/machine   tool. Of all the items on the list, progress in this is   proceeding the fastest and may run us into the Singularity before   anything else. The power and influence of even the present-day   Internet is vastly underestimated. For instance, I think our   contemporary computer systems would break under the weight of   their own complexity if it weren't for the edge that the USENET   "group mind" gives the system administration and support people!   The very anarchy of the worldwide net development is evidence of   its potential. As connectivity and bandwidth and archive size and   computer speed all increase, we are seeing something like Lynn   Margulis' [15] vision of the biosphere as data processor   recapitulated, but at a million times greater speed and with   millions of humanly intelligent agents (ourselves).

 The above examples illustrate research that can be done within  the context of contemporary computer science departments. There are other paradigms. For example, much of the work in Artificial Intelligence and neural nets would benefit from a closer connection with biological life. Instead of simply trying to model and understand biological life with computers, research could be directed toward the creation of composite systems that rely on biological life for guidance or for the providing features we don't understand well enough yet to implement in hardware. A long-time dream of science-fiction has been direct brain to computer interfaces [2] [29]. In fact, there is concrete work that can be done (and is being done) in this area: o Limb prosthetics is a topic of direct commercial applicability.   Nerve to silicon transducers can be made [14].  This is an   exciting, near-term step toward direct communication. o Direct links into brains seem feasible, if the bit rate is   low: given human learning flexibility, the actual brain neuron   targets might not have to be precisely selected.  Even 100 bits   per second would be of great use to stroke victims who would   otherwise be confined to menu-driven interfaces. o Plugging in to the optic trunk has the potential for bandwidths   of 1 Mbit/second or so. But for this, we need to know the   fine-scale architecture of vision, and we need to place an   enormous web of electrodes with exquisite precision.  If we want   our high bandwidth connection to be _in addition_ to what paths   are already present in the brain, the problem becomes vastly more   intractable. Just sticking a grid of high-bandwidth receivers   into a brain certainly won't do it.  But suppose that the   high-bandwidth grid were present while the brain structure was   actually setting up, as the embryo develops.  That suggests: o Animal embryo experiments. I wouldn't expect any IA success   in the first years of such research, but giving developing brains   access to complex simulated neural structures might be very   interesting to the people who study how the embryonic brain   develops.  In the long run, such experiments might produce   animals with additional sense paths and interesting intellectual   abilities.
 
 Originally, I had hoped that this discussion of IA would yield  some clearly safer approaches to the Singularity. (After all, IA allows our participation in a kind of transcendance.) Alas, looking back over these IA proposals, about all I am sure of is that they should be considered, that they may give us more options. But as for safety ...  well, some of the suggestions are a little scarey on their face. One of my informal reviewers pointed out that IA for individual humans creates a rather sinister elite. We humans have millions of years of evolutionary baggage that makes us regard competition in a deadly light. Much of that deadliness may not be necessary in today's world, one where losers take on the winners' tricks and are coopted into the winners' enterprises. A creature that was built _de novo_ might possibly be a much more benign entity than one with a kernel based on fang and talon. And even the egalitarian view of an Internet that wakes up along with all mankind can be viewed as a nightmare [26].

 The problem is not simply that the Singularity represents the  passing of humankind from center stage, but that it contradicts our most deeply held notions of being. I think a closer look at the notion of strong superhumanity can show why that is.


_Strong Superhumanity and the Best We Can Ask for_

 Suppose we could tailor the Singularity. Suppose we could attain our most extravagant hopes. What then would we ask for: That humans themselves would become their own successors, that whatever injustice occurs would be tempered by our knowledge of our roots. For those who remained unaltered, the goal would be benign treatment (perhaps even giving the stay-behinds the appearance of being masters of godlike slaves).  It could be a golden age that also involved progress (overleaping Stent's barrier). Immortality (or at least a lifetime as long as we can make the universe survive [10] [4]) would be achievable.  

 But in this brightest and kindest world, the philosophical  problems themselves become intimidating. A mind that stays at the same capacity cannot live forever; after a few thousand years it would look more like a repeating tape loop than a person.  (The most chilling picture I have seen of this is in [18].)  To live indefinitely long, the mind itself must grow ... and when it becomes great enough, and looks back ... what fellow-feeling can it have with the soul that it was originally?  Certainly the later being would be everything the original was, but so much vastly more. And so even for the individual, the Cairns-Smith or Lynn Margulis notion of new life growing incrementally out of the old must still be valid.

 This "problem" about immortality comes up in much more direct ways.  The notion of ego and self-awareness has been the bedrock of the hardheaded rationalism of the last few centuries. Yet now the notion of self-awareness is under attack from the Artificial Intelligence people ("self-awareness and other delusions"). Intelligence Amplification undercuts our concept of ego from another direction.  The post-Singularity world will involve extremely high-bandwidth networking. A central feature of strongly superhuman entities will likely be their ability to communicate at variable bandwidths, including ones far higher than speech or written messages. What happens when pieces of ego can be copied and merged, when the size of a selfawareness can grow or shrink to fit the nature of the problems under consideration?  These are essential features of strong superhumanity and the Singularity. Thinking about them, one begins to feel how essentially strange and different the Post-Human era will be -- _no matter how cleverly and benignly it is brought to be_.

 From one angle, the vision fits many of our happiest dreams: a time unending, where we can truly know one another and understand the deepest mysteries.  From another angle, it's a lot like the worst- case scenario I imagined earlier in this paper.

 Which is the valid viewpoint? In fact, I think the new era is simply too different to fit into the classical frame of good and evil. That frame is based on the idea of isolated, immutable minds connected by tenuous, low-bandwith links. But the post-Singularity world _does_ fit with the larger tradition of change and cooperation that started long ago (perhaps even before the rise of biological life). I think there _are_ notions of ethics that would apply in such an era. Research into IA and high-bandwidth communications should improve this understanding.  I see just the glimmerings of this now [32]. There is Good's Meta-Golden Rule; perhaps there are rules for distinguishing self from others on the basis of bandwidth of connection. And while mind and self will be vastly more labile than in the past, much of what we value (knowledge, memory, thought) need never be lost. I think Freeman Dyson has it right when he says [9]: "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Mar 26, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2090
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
From: Wigan, UK
Member No.: 385



I found this to be an interesting piece of science fiction - cum future reality.

I am left with a couple of simple questions which don't seem to be addressed by Vernor Vinge.

What size battery will this singularity (or its cause) need, and who will be stupid enough to keep fitting new ones?

Any body any ideas?

Best regards, Bill.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post Apr 28, 2003, 10:24 AM
Post #3


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 26, 2003
Member No.: 461



I could only read about one third of this before quitting.

Let us use an analogy to demonstrate what caused my eyes to glaze.

This is akin to being told that the way to win a race is by strengthening and excersizing your left leg so that it is the most powerful leg in the world.  No mention is made of the right leg.  It will make the people that do this run in circles.  Let each leg represent a hemisphere in the brain.

We are far more than technocrats capable of building wonderful machines.  We, as a group, have not yet seen what is necessary to copy in order to create a higher level consciousness/intelligence.  Science is only one leg of the stable platform that we must sping from.

The Singularity, (Jung's Self, my neoSelf, the Gnostic's Adam Kadmon, the Christian's Christ, Rumi's Shams,  the Toltecs' man of knowledge, King Arthur's Holy Grail, etc.),  will not be constructed in this fashion, it is only one piller under the foundation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 28, 2003, 01:50 PM
Post #4


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hello Synchronox,

thank you for your feedback over the above post.   I think you're right that we're far more than technocrats capable of building wonderful machines, but I don't think the Singularity is an exclusively technological affair.  It's not just about building better machines.  The conversation from John von Neumann illustrates this point, the one that centered on the ever accelerating progress of   technology and "changes in the mode of human life", which gives the   appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which "human affairs, as we know them, could not continue".   The parts in quotes are my emphasis; to emphasize that the Singularity is not just limited to technological change, but will be an utter transformation of humanity, the likes of which we cannot fully conceive because it is beyond our mental abilities.  Technology will be largely responsible, however, for bringing about the Singularity, but the effects of the Singularity will certainly not be limited to the technological, but will change everything, absolutely everything.  

I'm curious if you could elaborate on the other pillars, besides science and tech, that you think will be important for supporting, or bringing about, the Singularity.

take care,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post Apr 28, 2003, 09:19 PM
Post #5


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 26, 2003
Member No.: 461



Hi Shawn,   I'm so glad you are interested.  This is lonely work for me and I enjoy camraderie in the Work. (Alchemists capitalized their field of endeavor.  No claim that I am an Alchemist at this time, Laughter).
The Work of course is to reach a higher level of consciousness.   For the last twenty three years I have pursued just this.  I 'retired' at age forty three and then took this up full time.  By this age I decided my life was so unproductive and not satisfying that I had to go back to what I really wanted to be when I was a kid-a brain surgeon-still unforfilled-but I substituted this work as a very satisfactory and better exchange.  By this age (43) I had been named man of the year by the largest scientific computer company of the time,  had helped start and run a very large scientific company from the day it opened its doors that still exists and is successful.  I was 27 at the time.   i had founded and run my own scientific oriented computer company and I was a very unhappy guy because I had been trained to be the focus of a dynasty.  to emulate a very successful and well known grandfather.  I also had all the standard addictions which come along with the territory.  And then I had a 'cosmic experience'  similar to the ones described by Bucke written in 1906 called "Cosmic Consciousness".  Further elaborated by Maslow in his poorly chosen phrase "self actualized man" (only because it would conflict with the idea of the new aged actualized person).  Maslow, IQ >190, Brooklyn College (You have openly exposed much of yourself here, Shawn, this is in retaliation).
So, in response to your question, let us journey and pretend for the momment we have a life span of say ten thousand years.  We would see about four thousand years ago the beginnings of a patriarchy.  The pendulum had swung through a matriarchy, most of the temples back in this time period were dedicated to females, the last statue of the last goddess, Lillith,  was found dated to 1950 BCE.  For four thousand years last we have witnessed the dominance and rule of the left brained man and his technology pursuasion.  A terrific build up of science with a corresponding lack of growth in relationship, excepting a small aberrant period of the sixth century BCE where a world wide emergence of wisdom occurred (Budda, Lao tsu, Socrates et al).  My belief of this cause is the popularity of the information super highway of the time-; he silk road coupled with the Greeks extracting Egyptian knowledge.  A similar period starting in the 13th century CE with the transfer of information to Western Europe from the Arab world which caused the Rennaissance.
 We really need a burst of ethical growth to occur in order to handle the responsibility of controlling all this great technology.  This disipline is the domain of the right hemisphere.   The land of the visionary poet.
A pendulum effect.  First one hemisphere and then the other in dominance.  This is nature's way, slow, deliberate trial in a time shared program, one program at a time-the epitome of a seriel processor.  Very unconscious, dedicated to handing off information and life from one generation to the other with survival the driving element.    
Mirrored by the emergence of the ego about the same time which allowed the human to stand alone from his tribe for the first time.  An ego driven by the survival forces of Nature's game.  however a new program is seen in some single individuals that holds a vision of a different way, a different operating system that is not a time shared single processor but holds the possibility to be a true mutiprocessor with a much higher level of organization.   Run in a new archetectual structure that blends all the functions, 'versions, and hemispheres in a much different way.  We have all the equipment necessary to make this transformation, we just have to tune in and listen to the instructions.  This would be your Singularity. These visions if encountered today would fair better because we can assemble the tools to understand them now because of the great leaps of science.
This vision is first seen in dreams,  the bridge between the two hemispheres.  Dreams are images of underlying things-in-themselves using our terrific ability to imagine create.  Dreams that have been the product of a novel progamming set of instructions that give directions to our next evolutionary step, IMHO.  These instructions are first fragile and at have been given to the very superstitious  and are subject to misinterpretation by those who form these instructions into a religion and pray to a god instead of understanding them.   These instructions are at poresent in the wrong hands. They are very complex instructions, yet hold a very logical symmetry, written in metaphoric language driven by a program with an IQ of 10,000, to use the ancient Chinese number for infinity.  
Sorry i am not finished but am tired and go to sleep now.  This is the beginning of seeing the possibility of a Singularity that you speak to.
Best,
John
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 14, 2004, 11:22 AM
Post #6


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
Member No.: 2045



With equipment so sensitive that it can locate clusters of electrons, Cornell University and University of Tokyo physicists have -- sort of -- explained puzzling behavior in a much-studied high-temperature superconductor, perhaps leading to a better understanding of how such superconductors work.

It turns out that under certain conditions the electrons in the material pretty much ignore the atoms to which they are supposed to be attached, arranging themselves into a neat pattern that looks like a crystal lattice. The behavior occurs in a phase physicists have called a "pseudogap," but because the newly discovered arrangement looks like a checkerboard in scanning tunneling microscope (STM) images, J.C. Séamus Davis, Cornell professor of physics, calls the phenomenon a "checkerboard phase."

Davis, Hidenori Takagi, professor of physics at the University of Tokyo, and co-workers describe the observations in the Aug. 26, 2004, issue of the journal Nature. An article about the work also is scheduled to appear in the September issue of Physics Today.

"In at least one cuprate high-temperature superconducting material that phase is an electronic crystal," Davis reports. "We don't understand what we've found, but we have moved into unknown territory that everyone has wanted to explore. Many people have believed that to understand high-temperature superconductivity we have to look in this territory."

A superconductor is a material capable of conducting electricity with virtually no resistance. Modified crystals of copper oxide, known as cuprates, can become superconductors at temperatures up to about 150 Kelvin (-123 degrees Celsius or --253 degrees Fahrenheit) when they are doped with other atoms that create "holes" in the crystal structure where electrons would ordinarily be. These superconductors are widely used in industry, although there is still no clear explanation of how they work. Their superconducting behavior begins when about 10 percent of the electrons have been removed, but for over a decade physicists have been puzzled by what happens when somewhat fewer electrons are removed: The material conducts electricity, but just barely. In theory it shouldn't conduct at all.

Davis has now been able to observe this phase with a specially modified STM that measures, in effect, the quantum wave functions of the electrons in a sample.

The famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that we can never tell exactly where an electron is. Rather than thinking of electrons orbiting the nuclei of atoms like little planets, scientists today imagine "clouds" of electrons somewhere in the vicinity. An STM uses a needle so fine that its tip consists of just one atom, scanning across a small surface and measuring current flow between the surface and the tip. Conventional STMs scan with enough precision to image individual atoms. Davis has increased the scanning precision to a point where he can resolve details smaller than atoms. His new instrument, located in the basement of the Clark Hall of Science on the Cornell campus, is so sensitive that it has been built in a room mounted on heavy concrete pillars and isolated by air springs. For these experiments, it scans a sample and reads the probability that electrons are in certain locations, based on current flow through the STM tip.

Davis's team studied a copper oxide containing calcium and chlorine that was doped by replacing some of the calcium atoms with sodium to remove, in various samples, from 8 to 12 percent of the electrons. The material was cooled to about 100 milliKelvins, or a hundredth of a degree above absolute zero.

What they found was that the electrons in the sample arranged themselves in tiny squares, all in turn arranged in a neat checkerboard pattern. The same pattern was found at the highest level of doping tested, where the material begins to become superconducting. Whether or not it continues at higher levels remains to be seen, Davis says.

The discovery only leads to more questions. Theoretically, Davis says, this arrangement should not conduct electricity at all, because the electrons are locked into their crystal-like pattern. "It's always been a mystery, how do you get from an insulator through a tiny change to a superconductor," he notes. "Having empirical knowledge of what this phase is may help us to get from here to there."

The Nature paper is titled "Discovery of a 'Checkerboard' Electronic Crystal State in Lightly Hole-Doped Ca2-xNaxCuO2Cl2." Along with Davis and Takagi, co-authors include Cornell post-doctoral researchers Christian Lupien and Yuki Kohsaka; Dung-Hai Lee, University of California-Berkeley professor of physics; and Tetsuo Hanaguri of the RIKEN Institute in Japan. The cuprate material used in the experiments were prepared by Yuki Kohsaka at the University of Tokyo in collaboration with the scientists who developed it in 1995, Masaki Azuma and Mikio Takano of Kyoto University. Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

* Seamus Davis: http://www.physics.cornell.edu/profpages/Davis.htm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Oct 14, 2004, 03:57 PM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



"We really need a burst of ethical growth to occur in order to handle the responsibility of controlling all this great technology.  This disipline is the domain of the right hemisphere.   The land of the visionary poet."

This statement is uncanny for me. Since I retired as a full-time scientist due to illness I have become involved part-time in the develpment of a new applied sceince degree at a local educational institution and there is a big focus on ethics. Also, at the moment I spend a great deal of time on the poetry forum (I also moderate there and on science, as Shawn knows). What I am trying to do, I think, is to rationalise the science that I have learned (and still am) in a way, and to a depth that was not possible as a full-time scientist. By rationalise, I mean to attempt to put it in a context of an increasingly lawless and unethical world that, contrary to the facade of positive publicity (whether political or media driven), is antisocial and unsociable - two of the very attributes that make humans human. Now the scenarios that Shawn described to possibly assist the next big human evolutionary step MUST include a regulatory enhanced humanisation element, or we and possibly the superhumans are doomed. Ethics must rule stronger for a while. Technology cannot solely be used for self gratification at the expense of the welfare of others as happens now.

Hey Hey

ps If anyone knows how, can I be singularised as soon as possible as I don't think I'm going to last another 30 years!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Oct 14, 2004, 04:58 PM
Post #8


Unregistered









You are right about that! Nothing is more important than principles and ethics and with them anything is possible whereas without an improvement in them - we are doomed.

BTW - I hear the reason for my huge jump in book sales is that a review will be in the New Age Journal if anyone gets it I would love to see what the review says.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 15, 2004, 09:17 AM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Hey Hey, somehow I thought you were older than 30. I am sorry to hear that your illness struck you at such a young age.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lgking
post Feb 02, 2006, 03:00 PM
Post #10


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 192
Joined: Apr 25, 2004
From: Markham , Toronto GTA, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2154



QUOTE
name='Shawn' date='Feb 20, 11:44 AM' post='10115']
The Coming Technological Singularity:
How to Survive in the Post-Human Era
by Vernor Vinge
Abstract
==============000000000000000000000000000000000000============
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive? These questions are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented.

_What is The Singularity?_

The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth.

==============================================================================
In my humble opinion, I (Lindsay G. King) agree. I ask myself: What can I contribute to make this physically, mentally and spiritually helpful to nature and to all of us in it?
==============================================================

QUOTE
The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence.

There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):


o There may be developed computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)

o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.

o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.

o Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect.

The first three possibilities depend in large part on improvements in computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years.

(Charles Platt [20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

What are the consequences of this event?

When greater-than-human intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid. In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not involve the creation of still more intelligent entities -- on a still-shorter time scale.

The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary past: Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no faster than natural selection can do its work -- the world acts as its own simulator in the case of natural selection.

We humans have the ability to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads; we can solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural selection.

Now, by creating the means to execute those simulations at much higher speeds, we are entering a regime as radically different from our human past as we humans are from the lower animals.

From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that before were thought might only happen in "a million years" (if ever) will likely happen in the next century. (In [5], Greg Bear paints a picture of the major changes happening in a matter of hours.)

SINGULARITY

I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules.
====================0000000000000000000000================

And, there is more.


This post has been edited by lgking: Feb 02, 2006, 03:02 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Warren
post Feb 02, 2006, 08:07 PM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 19, 2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Member No.: 3792



I don't currently do any computer programming though I used to design rudimentary games having computer players (computer opponents that try to mimic actual people). Sometimes you can use the random-number generator if you wanted the opponent to get "creative", for example make a trade offer in Monopoly.

It is very hard to imagine going from this to a self-aware entity of any sort. I have tried to imagine how one would begin such an algorithm, with say an object to visualize in an array. Would testing points of the object at random be in effect self-awareness of the object? Somehow I don't think so.

I would think it would require a new machine architecture altogether, unlike the systems we have now that use a program counter to execute successive instructions. Is is possible? Seems like given long enough and with adequate tools we can do about anything. I see more like 50 to 100 years for the singularity though.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Feb 02, 2006, 11:04 PM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1704
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Warren @ Feb 02, 08:07 PM) *

I would think it would require a new machine architecture altogether, unlike the systems we have now that use a program counter to execute successive instructions. Is is possible? Seems like given long enough and with adequate tools we can do about anything. I see more like 50 to 100 years for the singularity though.


You're right. The mind/brain is not a computer that executes successive instructions. Is it just a neural network? I don't think so. Or at any rate, it's not like any neural network humans have constructed or conceived. In the end, we are forced to conclude that we don't know what the mind/brain is. It is a mystery, worthy of study in it's own right. Get to it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2014 - 07:53 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog