The Singularity
 

Nubblies needs a dedicated Singularity thread.

Some time ago on Nubblies, I responded to a post about Ray Kurzweil (I think it was Repug) in the vein of "Yeah, interesting stuff, but I think he's way too optimistic, though". I had done some minimal research at the time, but with hindsight I see that I basically just wanted to sound smart. I hadn't done enough research in order to properly justify an opinion on the matter.

The point is, I have changed my mind. I have progressively been gaining much interest in the Singularity, and am currently reading Kurzweil's book The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence and I am realizing more and more that this is probably going to happen eventually (If it already hasn't happened.)


The thing about the Singularity is that it's not just an "interest" right now -- as far as I'm concerned, it's a priority. It was a line from the Singularity Wikipedia article.


The Singularity is defined differently depending on the source, but overall it seems to revolve around the basic idea of:

Humans create machines that have gained sentience and are more intelligent than their creators. That is to say, a complex organization of matter that we call "biology" has produced a separate complex organization of matter which we call "technology", and the latter is more efficient at data processing and analysis.


By all accounts, at some point during the Singularity...events will no longer be able to be predicted in real time. Beyond this future potentiality, we have machines several orders of magnitude more intelligent than the smartest human being who ever lived creating machine who will create more intelligent machines, and on and on, because -- why not?

Is it possible?
Is it eventual?
Can we stop it?
Should we?
Will we be prepared?
Can we?

Lesswrong.org is a website dedicated to human rationality, thus integral to future AI development. I have been reading it whenever I get to chance to try to catch up to the regularly-posting members, but a lot of it is currently over my head.

The site was founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who has no formal education and is currently a researcher for Machine Intelligence Research Institute, formerly the Singularity Institute.

It is a great website for anyone who is interested in analyzing themselves and attempting to correct any cognitive biases that they may have. Obviously, there are limits here.



Here are a few articles I recommend to get started on:

Generalizing From One Example - Less Wrong

Think Like Reality - Less Wrong

The map is not the territory - Lesswrongwiki

Does the concept of a human soul conflict with the singularity?

It depends on the definition of the soul, really. Different religions and spiritual movements have different definitions on what the soul is and how it relates to how we are "supposed" to live our lives.

It also depends on which aspect of the Singularity we are talking about. For example, when it comes to creating new "consciousness" (if that is possible, and there are many who believe it is not), are we creating a soul? Or will they be "missing" something? (An important question to answer first would be whether or not animals have souls? What about animal clones?)

On the issue of transferring human consciousness into machines, things get a bit trickier. For those of you who are fans of Star Trek: TNG, you'll remember that Riker accidentally clones himself in the transporter, in effect creating two Rikers. Is the original Riker's soul now divided, copied, or did it ever exist in the first place? Could a soul potentially transfer the body (or machine) it inhabits?

Do souls have a preference for biology?


That's what is so fascinating to me about the entire concept. From a philosophical standpoint, there are so many incredibly interesting rabbit-holes and each one leads to a new question of ethics, morality, and human responsibility.

Coincidentally, I saw a related post earlier today: IEET Audience Split on Personal Identity

Also related: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...n-of-the-self2

Is it possible?
yes
Is it eventual?
no, because someone could stop it
Can we stop it?
yes, one of the simplest methods would be to commit mass suicide/murder. nuke earth.
Should we?
no
Will we be prepared?
you have to define prepared
Can we?
wat?

The singularity is already happening. Humans are being integrated by technology. It's a manifestation of us, not a separate thing.

What do you mean by events will no longer be able to be predicted in real time?

Future of the human race not good enough?
Glad to see you found Less Wrong and IEET.
Yeah, it's going to take me a long time to become comfortable with the transhumanist vocabulary, hopefully Nubblies can help.

I think there is a difference between integrating with technology and Kurzweil's Singularity, interested in what you mean by manifestation instead of seperate, you were tweeter friends with Michael Anissimov for a while right? how did you find him?

I don't think this can happen, binding problem/hard problem of conciousness may mean that the best we can get is a Philosophical zombie - Lesswrongwiki

Link dump,
The Biointelligence Explosion
The Reproductive Revolution: selection pressure in a Post-Darwinian World
Supersentience


You Might Never Upload Your Brain Into a Computer

And the mother site:
The Hedonistic Imperative

Edit : more dumps, Adam Ford interviews a lot of the transhumanists
Adam Ford - YouTube
Colin Hales - Being & Consciousness is a good talk, I want to know more about AGI/AI

Was pretty high when I said that Dent so not sure what I meant but I think I just mean that technology is us not a separate thing to be feared but a thing we control.

Also, not sure about Anissimov. I'm not following him so I've unfollowed him if I ever was but don't remember ever following him.

Yeah i'm getting confused.
(edit : it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Ptolemy that i'm thinking of.)
I don't think a Paperclip maximizer is a likely scenario.
superhappiness, superlongevity and superintelligence are the goals, but is it via mind uploading AI or biological?

Agree with both of your points. Technically speaking (heh), the Singularity seems to have begun the first time a human being used a tool (technology). The Singularity is just one possible outcome of the use of technology, but if biological life is common throughout the universe, then it seems like it would be an eventual step that any evolving species would gravitate towards; Technology could just be a general side-effect of biological life. I suppose there could be species that evolved to be Luddites, though.

UB, I agree that technology is a manifestation of biology. People tend to forget that human beings are not separate from nature, we are nature. Joe Rogan makes this point often. Some look at humanity akin to a tumorous abberration (even though tumors are also natural) that is doing the "wrong things". Technology is no more unnatural than mud hives, nests, dams, etc. One complex organization of matter is using "less complex" organizations of matter to propogate its own survival. So it goes.




Technology appears to be the "child" of the collective species of humanity in a lot of ways. Right now, it's just a lot of objects we have created. If we organize matter in a way to simulate or surpass human consciousness, one might look at technology as an aging and dying father might look on his youthful, strong child -- who he can "live through" beyond his own passing. Interesting to think about, in any case.


I'm not quite sure I fully understand it either, which is why it creeps me out so much, but in a good, Twilight Zone sort of way. The statement, if it means what I think it does, is fundamentally beyond most human comprehension. Statistics, as humans know the concept of Statistics, might cease to work in the benefit of humanity. New beings will be then be able to collect, analyze, and understand the consequences of variables we can't even fathom.

If one accepts a human being as an organic structure that has the ability to process information from its external environment, using various sensory abilities from evolved organs, one must admit that there are very real limitations to human sensory perception (from which we define and 'understand' all things). It is why we have always invented machines -- machines capable of doing things more efficiently than humans or for doing things that we cannot. Try to think of how different your every day reality would be if humanity had an extra sense --- if you could see ultraviolet or infrared spectrums.

If we are able to create computers capable of thinking, reasoning, (aka data interpretation) far better than humans, what will those machines end up doing? When events are happening too fast for the human brain to keep track of (think of what happens if you miss a day on Reddit or your favorite website), what will become of "us"? The mystery is really what excites me.

This is where transhumanism comes in -- becoming the technology rather than keeping separate, defined lines. Implementing biology with technology might just be the "destiny" of human species.

We might be the Borg.

It can always improve. I know what you meant.

Just watched this. I'm pretty new to the concept of the binding problem and consciousness in general -- my interest in consciousness, right now, is much more from a psychological point of view --- namely, that it appears every human being experiences a subjectively different reality from the Absolute Reality (if such a thing exists) as well as from the Other, and how their experience of being the protagonist/"hero" of their particular story affects the quality of their own lives and the lives of those they interact with. The fact that most people think that they "should" be the "winner" is an extremely interesting subject to me, having suffered from that mindset most of my life.

How do you, personally, interpret the Binding problem? Can you sum it up so I can become more familiar with the idea?

David said something very interesting in that clip, I had to watch it again to make sure -- did he say that he finds the concept of the Quantum Mind a likely solution to the problem of the coherency of consciousness? If so, that sounds very familiar to some of the concepts I've discovered studying Eastern philosophy.

You got me.
Joe Rogan did an episode on transhumanism a few months back

Last post for the evening: Is your signature a Ship of Theseus reference? Could you see that concept being applied to transhumanism, or is that how you mean for it to be interpreted?

no

http://i.imgur.com/YWapryd.jpg
?

And the most depressing concept in the Universe award goes to..
Quantum Ethics? Suffering In The Multiverse


:rageokay:

pretty much
Neurathian bootstrap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
why isn't repug joining in?

.

Not sure. Probably not aware.

A Christian Transhumanist Association: moving forward | TURING CHURCH
Lol.. created in His image!

At first glance, I don't see a problem with that. One could say it is humanity's destiny to achieve godhood anyways.

It's good to see Christians getting into transhumanism, It will be interesting if they get set up properly.
I haven't came across a religious person spouting "destiny to achieve godhood" before, and I think there is a conflict, one is a death cult.

Two edit : three quotes from here, i'll read the book sometime.
Conflict Between Traditional Religion and Transhumanism ? At Any Cost...

March of science: The 21st century will be the age of genetics - Editorials - Voices - The Independent

:whysoangry:

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz...ous-130208.pdf

Schwitzgebel
February 8, 2013
USA Consciousness, p.
If Materialism Is True, the United
States Is Probably Conscious

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Didn't check Dent's last post, lol.

The Truth, The Way, The Life

lol

How To Live In A Simulation*

The Simulation Argument and the future of suffering: objections to The Hedonistic Imperative
we're probably not living in a simulation*
:)

You better fuckin donate or the basilisk is gonna get ya

Roko's basilisk is a proposition that says an all-powerful artificial intelligence from the future may retroactively punish those who did not assist in bringing about its existence. It resembles a futurist version of Pascal's wager
Roko's basilisk - RationalWiki

Roko’s Basilisk: The most terrifying thought experiment of all time.

lol. Alexander Kruel - Eliezer Yudkowsky’s narcissistic tendencies

Yudkowsky opened my eyes to some new ways of thinking/looking at things, but I think you've read much more of his material than I have.

Interesting idea. What if the AI goes the opposite direction?

I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pretty well done. i laughed at the forcing supplements down her mouth part.

also she hit the spacebar when it asked her to upload her consciousness into the computer and in my book that's a cancel.

If you're an open individualist you'd be that too, assuming mind uploading works.
If you're empty then it doesn't matter, closed's should gaf
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Ontological Qualia: The Future of Personal Identity | Qualia Computing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

can't we just, like, go beyond labels, man?

If you don't think mind uploading works you get a label, there are many reasons you might think mind uploading can't work and each of them gets a label

catch 'em all

open ur ice cold heart

The Labels We Take On: How They Limit Our Potential

What happens when you mix rationalists and vegans together? You get tears.

Roko's Basilisk made a few effective altruists I know cry themselves to sleep at night.
FC I see you follow a few of these people, what do you think of them?

Dorian Electra has made a music career for herself, way too woke for me these days but I really like her older stuff, liked her before she got famous!

There's a lady called Valentina Valentino on one of the social medias and she gets like 60 views and I can't understand why she's not big already.