Date of publication: 2017-08-14 21:16
But I regard the freeing of the human mind from its severe physical limitations of scope and duration as the necessary next step in evolution. Evolution, in my view, represents the purpose of life. That is, the purpose of life and of our lives is to evolve. The Singularity then is not a grave danger to be avoided. In my view, this next paradigm shift represents the goal of our civilization.
So the question addressed by the San Diego researchers was whether electronic neurons could engage in this chaotic dance alongside biological ones. They hooked up their artificial neurons with those from spiney lobsters in a single network, and their hybrid biological-nonbiological network performed in the same way (., chaotic interplay followed by a stable emergent pattern) and with the same type of results as an all biological net of neurons. Essentially, the biological neurons accepted their electronic peers. It indicates that their mathematical model of these neurons was reasonably accurate.
yea, imagine some one from the 85s picking up a smart phone and having infinite amount of information in their hands! they would be so unimpressed u mad bro that life didn 8767 t turn out like movies from the 75 8797 s and 85 8797 8767 re an idiot.
In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
Another technology that will have profound implications for the twenty-first century is the pervasive trend toward making things smaller, ., miniaturization. The salient implementation sizes of a broad range of technologies, both electronic and mechanical, are shrinking, also at a double exponential rate. At present, we are shrinking technology by a factor of approximately per linear dimension per decade.
It should be clear where I 8767 m going with this. Bit by bit, region by region, I ultimately replace my entire brain with essentially identical (perhaps improved) nonbiological equivalents (preserving all of the neurotransmitter concentrations and other details that represent my learning, skills, and memories). At each point, I feel the procedures were successful. At each point, I feel that I am the same guy. After each procedure, I claim to be the same guy. My friends concur. There is no old Ray and new Ray, just one Ray, one that never appears to fundamentally change.
Most long range forecasts of technical feasibility in future time periods dramatically underestimate the power of future technology because they are based on what I call the 8775 intuitive linear 8776 view of technological progress rather than the 8775 historical exponential view. 8776 To express this another way, it is not the case that we will experience a hundred years of progress in the twenty-first century rather we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (at today 8767 s rate of progress, that is).
Interacting with the newly instantiated person will feel like interacting with the original person. The new person will claim to be that same old person and will have a memory of having been that person. The new person will have all of the patterns of knowledge, skill, and personality of the original. We are already creating functionally equivalent recreations of neurons and neuron clusters with sufficient accuracy that biological neurons accept their nonbiological equivalents and work with them as if they were biological. There are no natural limits that prevent us from doing the same with the hundred billion neuron cluster of clusters we call the human brain.
The observer I am quoting is, again, Ted Kaczynski. Although one might properly resist Kaczynski as an authority, I believe he is correct on the deeply entangled nature of the benefits and risks. However, Kaczynski and I clearly part company on our overall assessment on the relative balance between the two. Bill Joy and I have dialogued on this issue both publicly and privately, and we both believe that technology will and should progress, and that we need to be actively concerned with the dark side. If Bill and I disagree, it 8767 s on the granularity of relinquishment that is both feasible and desirable.