Posted on 11/19/2005 11:34:03 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
At the onset of the twenty-first century, humanity stands on the verge of the most transforming and the most thrilling period in its history. It will be an era in which the very nature of what it means to be human will be both enriched and challenged, as our species breaks the shackles of its genetic legacy and achieves inconceivable heights of intelligence, material progress, and longevity.
For over three decades, the great inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil has been one of the most respected and provocative advocates of the role of technology in our future. In his classic The Age of Spiritual Machines, he presented the daring argument that with the ever-accelerating rate of technological change, computers would rival the full range of human intelligence at its best. Now, in The Singularity Is Near, he examines the next step in this inexorable evolutionary process: the union of human and machine, in which the knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our own creations.
That merging is the essence of the Singularity, an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today—the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity. In this new world, there will be no clear distinction between human and machine, real reality and virtual reality. We will be able to assume different bodies and take on a range of personae at will. In practical terms, human aging and illness will be reversed; pollution will be stopped; world hunger and poverty will be solved. Nanotechnology will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes and will ultimately turn even death into a soluble problem.
While the social and philosophical ramifications of these changes will be profound, and the threats they pose considerable, The Singularity Is Near maintains a radically optimistic view of the future course of human development. As such, it offers a view of the coming age that is both a dramatic culmination of centuries of technological ingenuity and a genuinely inspiring vision of our ultimate destiny.
inquest: Which is why they shouldn't try to play the part.
Momaw Nadon: Is it wrong to want to rid the world of disease and hunger? Is it wrong to want to put an end to human suffering? Is it wrong to want to live forever (or as long as we want to?
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting any of these things. Playing God in order to achieve them, on the other hand, is another matter.
King Prout: ah. so you ARE against medicine, high-efficiency food production, labor-saving technology, and any means of extending life. On religious grounds. In other words: A Luddite. very good: nice to know where an opponent stands.
inquest: Ah, so you CAN'T read. Good: nice to know when I don't even have to waste time with an opponent.
Before I bother to parse your posts in this subset of this thread, I will flatly state that I can read very well, and that the evidence provided above fully supports that assertion.
Fine by me if you want to write sentences like the one above that contradict themselves.
"I think it a point very certain, that
tho' the sober belief of good and bad spirits
is an essential part of every good Christian's faith,
yet imaginary communications with them, have been the
spring both of the worst corruptions of religion, and
the greatest perversions of justice. How many
miserable creatures have been hang'd or burnt as witches
and wizzards in other countries, and former ages?"
"An Historical Essay Concerning Witchcraft" 1720 by Francis Hutchinson, 1661-1739
to recapitulate:
Momaw Nadon: First, I must say that humans or sentient robots will never be God.
inquest: Which is why they shouldn't try to play the part.
Momaw Nadon: Is it wrong to want to rid the world of disease and hunger? Is it wrong to want to put an end to human suffering? Is it wrong to want to live forever (or as long as we want to?
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting any of these things. Playing God in order to achieve them, on the other hand, is another matter.
King Prout: ah. so you ARE against medicine, high-efficiency food production, labor-saving technology, and any means of extending life. On religious grounds. In other words: A Luddite. very good: nice to know where an opponent stands.
inquest: Ah, so you CAN'T read. Good: nice to know when I don't even have to waste time with an opponent.
so:
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting any of these things. Playing God in order to achieve them, on the other hand, is another matter.
-becomes-
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of disease and hunger, to put an end to human suffering, or to live forever (or as long as we want to). Playing God in order to achieve ridding the world of disease and hunger, putting an end to human suffering, or living forever (or as long as we want to), on the other hand, is another matter.
-becomes-
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of disease and hunger, to put an end to human suffering, or to live forever (or as long as we want to). Playing God in order to achieve ridding the world of disease and hunger, putting an end to human suffering, or living forever (or as long as we want to), on the other hand, is NOT "nothing wrong".
-becomes-
inquest: There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of disease and hunger, to put an end to human suffering, or to live forever (or as long as we want to). Playing God in order to achieve ridding the world of disease and hunger, putting an end to human suffering, or living forever (or as long as we want to), on the other hand, is wrong.
So...
As you have not yet defined what you consider "playing God", and are posting your opposition on a thread concerning technological modification of natural systems and limitations, the operational assumption a reader must make is that you consider doing ANYTHING which contravenes God's will (as expressed Biblically or in the natural order) in pursuit of the abovementioned objectives is wrong.
As this category of human endeavor includes medicine (particularly: gene-therapy, gene surgery, cybernetic prostheses, pharmacology, antibiotics, innoculation and vaccination, and corrective surgery, among others), cultivation and animal husbandry (particularly: genetic engineering of plants and animals, more conventional breeding programs, land-clearing, and strain-controlled cropping, among others), any and all environment control and labor-saving devices (covering technology all the way from powered closed environments through metallurgy and ceramics and other manufactured-materials technologies all the way down to the humble wedge, lever, and hammerstone), and -now- all artificial means of life-extension (from so-called "medical immortality" to such mundane things as CPR), the only conclusion which can be drawn from what you have posted is that you are a raving Luddite.
Now, had you instead said something along the lines of the following:
"Given the fact of human inability to comprehend more than the slightest and most proximal and obvious parts of the webs of causation and effect, for every human decision there shall always be more unintended consequences than intended or foreseen consequences. It would thus be unwise to widely implement, willy-nilly, technological innovations which fundamentally alter the basic factors of human life without pausing for serious consideration of the balance of net worth versus possible risks and overall importance of benefits versus losses."
I would not have taken you to task. I agree with such a sentiment.
However... you did NOT make such a statement. You instead harped on superstitious dread.
Actually, I did. If you're going to jump into an exchange making wild comments, it might help to at least follow it back a few posts first.
you call THAT a definition?
moving from nomadic life to agricultural life fits that bill... do you call that "playing God"?
Uh, not quite. I'm pretty sure what the writer was saying is this: The "nature of what it means to be human", despite whatver variation in experience there's been over the centuries and over the globe, has always had some fundamental commonality of meaning - and that meaning's about to be radically changed.
Honestly, I don't know what it is you're trying to prove here. You largely don't even disagree with what I'm saying. Apparently you just have some sort of problem with the way I'm saying it. It's kind of a bizarre hangup.
the only way to "change what it means to be human" in a manner which is distinctly different from the way technological innovation has always "changed what it means to be human" would be to substantially alter the human mind.
not the memory capacity, not the calculation speed, not the auxiliary assets: the mind itself.
The human mind is a mix of personality, reason, emotion, learned habit, and instinct. All hype aside, I don't see technology making any impact on any of the above any time in the forseeable future - with the faint possibility that technology will be used to either temprarily or permanently bypass the limbic system. Some might think that desirable. I suspect the unintended consequences would prove fatal to the modified organism.
All those things are already the target of mind-altering drugs (Ritalin, for example). If electronic modification starts to move in on those areas (first for the purpose of repairing damage or dealing with "psychological conditions"), that would only move us further down that road.
Also, if electronic modifications of the brain start to connect people into some kind of collective consciousness, would that also not alter the fundamental nature of being human?
Ritalin et alia add no capabilities - they are essentially (usually reversable) chemical lobotomies.
I don't like the way they are being used - in a state-sanctioned attempt to alter what it means to be a normal boy.
you have a point here.
I don't see how adding capabilities will alter the human mind, but I certainly admit that crippling it (via chemicals or electronics) surely can.
I don't believe "shared thoughts" will ever work. If it does, and if it leads to dilution of individuality, then this also will be a substantive alteration in the human mind.
point there, as well.
but that part really seems to be pure hype.
I suppose that depends on whom you talk to. I've talked people who've said they were given it as kids, and it made them very focused and attentive, and able and willing to learn what they were being taught. It doesn't just sedate them.
I don't believe "shared thoughts" will ever work.
One thing that's already been developed is the ability to use thoughts to control the movement of a cursor on a screen (via EEG technology, mostly), and progress is being made on more complicated operations. And if thoughts can be used to electronically influence the outside world, how long before the reverse can be true? How long before some form of stimulation can directly engender thoughts within a person's mind?
using thoughts and using re-routed motor nerve impulses or electro-encephalographic modulations are not the same thing.
there will have to be one hella MODEM for two brains to be able to directly communicate as if they were one brain with one united conscious synthesis.
As it seems quite possible that a substantially different MODEM would be required for each such link, I don't see tech cracking this nut.
any lesser communication would be nothing more or less than a novel source of stimulus or data for the mind to integrate into the individual conscious synthesis.
In very basic terms, evil.
Satan will someday mislead humans into believing "the lie".
I believe that "lie" will be the same as was in the Garden of Eden. That we, humans, can be like God. It is a very tempting proposition.
We were created to be creative. I have no problem with man demonstrating this capacity. I only have a problem with man thinking and believing that he CAN be like God.
That way lies the danger.
Hey! Hey! I used to have a Moog.
Cool. He makes a great synth. Amazing how far we've come since the 70's.
I'm an atheist, and this is my question:
What if we create something we cannot get rid of?
And you have absolutely nothing to back that up except your own bare assertions.
OK, I'll pose the question to you:
What, if anything, can stop exponential technological advances which will lead to the Singularity?
We [humans], can already fly, cure diseases and do many things that ancient people would consider "godlike".
At what point do we cross the threshold from being human to being "like God"?
I will also add this from my post #67:
First, I must say that humans or sentient robots will never be God. God is infinite perfection. The most we can do is advance ourselves to previously unimaginable heights. We can never be infinitely perfect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.