Agreed. I met with Jonathan Weiner last night to explore his ideas on longevity. He is a pretty impressive writer (BEAK OF THE FINCH and TIME MEMORY AND LOVE) and has tackled a subject now that seems almost magical -- the prospect of radically extended human lives. he has done a lot of thinking about it not just technically but also in terms of ethics and social import. His new book on it is called LONG FOR THIS WORLD and I'm looking forward to getting into it when I get a moment. His ideas and description of the people who are working in this field reminded me of the debate on virtual brains and virtual humans, and the nature of the systems and technologies we are putting into place. The longevity field has picked up a lot of interest from a lot of people with very different perspectives. We are, Weiner said, expanding our life expectancies by about 5 hours per additional day that we live-- you read that right -- according to people who calculate life expectancies. I found this absolutely astonishing and, assuming it is correct, am still trying to figure out how to think about the implications of this. Of course, it is obvious that for each incremental amount of time an individual lives, his/her life expectancy increases -- and life expectancy table will clearly lay this out in numerical terms -- but this 5 hours/day seem spookily significant.
I think the two themes -- IT/human hybrids (if only on a functional systems level) and longevity are going to raise the ante significantly, and am still trying to wrap my brain about how the two domains interweave themselves. I've been resorting my library to cluster the books that may shed light on this and will do some rereading with these questions in mind. Tie this in with the debate whether our systems are serving us or whether we are serving them, and whether our identities are now so bound up with out systems that the distinction between the two is no longer so obvious, and we have a rich brew of speculations and issues to work our way through. Fascinating, eh? Cheers, Lawry On Aug 19, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Very belated... > > I meant below, the subject of the debate will have consequences... the debate > itself will likely disappear into the mists of most such "theological" > discussion ;-) > > M > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:27 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: People questioning the intelligence oftheglobal > communication network > > The debate itself is going to have consequences -- or the subject of the > debate -- artificial brains, robotics, etc? > > Cheers, > Lawry > > > On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> As per Keith's comments I think the debate has potentially world altering >> consequences but whether these consequences will develop is still a very >> open question. >> >> M >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence de >> Bivort >> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:38 AM >> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: People questioning the intelligence of >> theglobal communication network >> >> Interesting debate! I am going to guess that its resolution will lie >> entirely in the domain of linguistics and definition. Or maybe this is too >> simple? While it is intellectually interesting, is it a debate with >> practical consequence? >> >> Cheers, >> Lawry >> >> >> On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> From another list... (albeit of deep techno-enthusiasts... >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:53 AM >>> Subject: Re: People questioning the intelligence of the global >>> communication network >>> >>> Thanks, , >>> >>> I'd like to reiterate a point I made earlier on the list and make a small >>> update to the list in regards to smartphones. >>> >>> The point was, roughly, that should a global brain or accelerating >>> artificial intelligence be clearly visible and provable, or most >>> dramatically able to communicate with us, the stage is set for religious >>> feelings, the formation of churches, and other very significant worship >>> behavior of the new life form(s). >>> >>> Notably, the original article by Jaron Lanier is titled the First Church of >>> Robotics and the discussion you highlighted below revolves around proving >>> Global Brain ideas. Lanier is a vocal critic of these ideas and I disagree >>> with the attention he receives as a kind of new-world dreadlocked mystic of >>> technology. In this article, he writes (in regards to the behavior of >>> reposting content on Twitter): >>> >>> " That is, people perform machine-like activity, copying and relaying >>> information; the Internet, as a whole, is claimed to perform the creative >>> thinking, the problem solving, the connection making. This is a devaluation >>> of human thought." >>> >>> Basically, Lanier is a hardcore humanist who is in love with technology. >>> No matter that millions of humans around the world discover fascinating >>> things as a result of following other human activity on Twitter, largely >>> from reposting behavior. According to Lanier, Twitter is not intelligent >>> and the internet is soulless and possibly evil. I have to say, it kind of >>> creeps me out to hear someone stating that we should " keep our religious >>> ideas out of (the work of scientists and engineers)" and at the same time >>> profess a deep unshakable belief in the human soul, obviously a thing never >>> to be surpassed or obtained by a machine. >>> >>> What this article is about is the two sides that are apparent in Global >>> Brain and AI research today. One side believes that only humans can have >>> souls and computers can never be truly aware; the other believes that it's >>> not clear if souls exist or have a specific humanistic definition and that >>> perhaps intelligence/awareness is bigger than humans. Or you could say >>> those who believe that intelligence requires soul and those who don't. >>> >>> Nonetheless, should a "new mind" awaken in some measurable form, look out! >>> Will Lanier and his anthropocentric ilk call for it's summary execution as >>> an abomination and try to pull the plug? Will Kuzweil and his followers >>> raise it on high and try to plug in? >>> >>> UPDATE ON SMARTPHONES: >>> >>> The smartphone explosion is significant. "On the ground" as a consultant, >>> I have helped many fellow citizens upgrade from small form factor devices >>> and less touchscreen-oriented machines like Blackberries into the rapidly >>> expanding world of Androids and iPhones. People who obtain these new >>> smartphones immediately wonder, "what do I do with it now?" and start >>> searching for applications and asking me what applications they should be >>> installing. And, I believe, a new kind of emotional connection is born. >>> >>> Very recently, there has been quite a passionate drama played out in the >>> world of smartphone owners. People are realizing they can "jailbreak" >>> their iPhones and emerge from the Jobsian cleanroom to enter the free world >>> of the internet and install whatever they want. People are realizing that >>> some new Android phones (already a lot more liberated in regards to >>> applications) come with a special chip that prevents complete "root" >>> control of their device, but within two weeks of it's entrance into the >>> world, a very real digital hero emerged on forums and blogs who had >>> conquered the chip and granted Power to the People to be who they want to >>> be - and the primary force driving root control was the ability to turn the >>> Android device into an open WiFi hotspot, which the mobile network >>> providers want to stop. >>> >>> These are no longer phones, they are extension of ourselves, our desires, >>> our "souls" if you will. Lanier fears " we think of people more and more >>> as computers, just as we think of computers as people." I believe our new >>> small computer smartphone technologies are more than trusted friends or >>> separate simulacrums, they are part of us. Do you believe they are >>> draining or expanding our souls? If you believe in such a thing as a >>> soul... if not, perhaps replace "soul" with "intelligence." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
