Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

The Age of Spiritual Machines (warning: LONG topic!)

Archive: 34 posts


A warning going in: This is heavy-duty stuff. I'm posting it here because it's one of my favorite topics, and on the chance that there are others here that are into this line of thought as well, we can get a dialogue going. This isn't something I pull out willy-nilly obviously, so I hope it interests some people here.

Has anyone here read the books of Ray Kurzweil? Namely The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near. If not I highly recommend them, but I'm going to lay out the Cliff's Notes so to speak in this thread, so if you're interested in having your mind blown, please read on. If you're already familiar with Kurzweil, I'd love to open up a discussion about his vision of our wonderful future.

I'll start by giving something of a synopsis on his view.

Our technology is evolving at an exponential rate. Here's what an exponential function looks like, and in our case, the X axis is time, the Y axis is the power (or computational capacity) of our technology.

http://hotmath.com/images/gt/lessons/genericalg1/exponential_graph.gif

Moore's Law states that every two years, we can squeeze in twice the transistors on our computer's circuits by shrinking the transistors down. The trend has been accurate for half a century. Someday our transistors will be too small to shrink any further, at which point we'll expand to a new model to continue our exponential growth.

So let's look at that graph. On the far left we've got early technology. If you want to go really far back, you could call that the invention of the wheel. Or you could go back to the invention of the difference engine in the late 19th century, considered the first computer. Either way, our progress fits an exponential equation (that is, our technology tends to double given a certain time increment). Right now we fall at an interesting point on this graph - way off to the right, just before the line begins to skyrocket into a near-vertical. That near-vertical line is right around the corner. It's going to happen in our lifetimes.

What does this mean? What's it going to look like?

Kurzweil makes a case for exactly what that means, and no matter where you stand ideologically, religiously, morally - if he's even remotely accurate, it could be a mind-blowing, life-changing consideration. The decades ahead will challenge your view of what it means to be human.

The basic breakdown is this:
Genetics, Nanotechnology, and finally Robotics, or as he calls them, the "GNR" revolutions, are going to allow us to merge with our machines in more intimate ways as we go along. We can all look at this first decade of the 21st century and recognize what defines it. With the 90s, we tend to think of Kurt Cobain, of the grunge movement, the disaffected youths tearing down the empty "values" of the 80s "me" decade. But this decade is the decade of the iPod. The laptop. The ubiquitous cellphone. Regular joes everywhere are plugging machines into their skulls on a regular basis as they step out the door. If you live in a city, you live constantly bombarded by low frequency microwave radiation due to the massive presence of wifi. We're online half of our spare time and playing videogames the other half. Even our social lives are recorded on Facebook. In the palm of your hand you can hold the wealth of collected human knowledge, available at your fingertips at any time. Many people, when it comes time to exercise, do it with ipod accessories in their shoes and on treadmills that can measure their heartrate and calories burned. That's us NOW.

The future gets scary when you learn that all of these 3 techno-revolutions carry with them existential threats to our entire species, and in some cases, planet. With Genetics, it's a genetically-engineered, enhanced, powerful disease that could turn into a massive pandemic that spreads too fast to contain. It could wipe us out completely. With nanotechnology, it's conceivable that we're able to build self-replicating nanobots - that is, incredibly small, microscopic machines that can reassemble molecules and build copies of themselves out of almost any material. The threat here is that they become uncontrollable and turn the entire planet into a grey goo of nanobots. And then there's Robotics. We've seen The Matrix and Terminator and Wargames and 2001. I don't think I need to elaborate.

But if you're an optimist, and we do survive - Hell, so far we've survived Nuclear technology, one major technological revolution of modern times - than that's only the beginning of what some might see as a "threat" to humanity.

In the "best-case" scenario, we engineer our own evolution. We will genetically enginner our own children to be stronger and healthier (see the incredible movie Gattaca for the sociological implications of this). We will have unlimited access to any resource we could ever possibly need with the power of advanced nanotechnology. And we will eventually invent the final human invention - a computer that is smarter than us. When that happens, it's possible that the machines will surpass us at such a speed that before we can hope to catch up, they will be as gods to us.

The next step in our evolution is the complete merging with the machines. Nano-implants in our brains to enhance us further. The uploading of our "mental computers" into the machine.

Kurzweil lays out the concept that within a hundred years, we may be predominantly a machine civilization. Kurzweil can't WAIT to plug himself into his refrigerator. There's a camp of people who follow this line of thinking known as "trans-humanists", people who are ready to dive into the transition into becoming "post-human".

http://inventorspot.com/files/images/Transhumanist.jpg

In this viewpoint, the only humans left may be in one of two camps - the machine-human hybrids with advanced implants who will eventually upload - and "humanists" - the people who refuse - the last people standing.

http://imgur.com/jpYGq.jpg

While I wouldn't consider myself a steadfast humanist, I've got my own outlook. I don't believe I would wake up in the machine if I uploaded my brain. I look at this as ensuring I make myself - the person I am now - a part of humanity's future, whatever and wherever that may lay in the universe. A living tombstone. A simulated copy of myself. I kind of like the poetry in our demise along these lines - that we give birth to our final child, a machine god, and as it prepares to leave its nest of Earth, we put ourselves into it as we perish. What's left is a purely machine civilization that travels out into the cosmos, the organic part of humanity little more than a memory.

There's actually a mind-blowing thought experiment I'd like to get some people's thoughts on, but I'll get into that later. It basically has to do with "replacing" parts of the brain gradually, with surgical procedures, until the entire thing is replaced. The question is - if you die and the machine brain-replacement takes over, at what point do you die? It would appear to everyone else that you go on the same. Good old Thom. But perhaps you've died and your new brain is now only simulating its old self. But how? At what point does that happen?

So here's the conundrum - Right now science need not be concerned with the "soul" - we've got other fish to fry. But in the coming decades, the "soul" is going to be at the center of the major scientific questions. where is human consciousness?

Kurzweil believes it is the pattern of our accumulated selves - all of it stored in the expanding networks of our brains. And that in this sense we can live forever by preserving the patterns in technology when our bodies wither.

there's an entertaining illustration of what exponential growth means. What if I gave you a penny today, and two pennies tomorrow? I double it each day, so on the third day you get four pennies, and the next day you get eight. How much money would you have at the end of one month? One penny today, two pennies tomorrow.

At the end of one month you would have over 10 million dollars.

In terms of our technological growth, this century is the big one. Within decades, we're about to hit the 10-million-dollar mark.

Anyone ready to dive into the deep end on this one?
2009-08-25 08:13:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Interesting.
I never read Kurzweil's stuff, but I like reading this "new-agey" material.
With new-agey I mean unconventional/uncommon way of thinking.
Actually I think that we will reach the discontinuity point, the point where the equation stops to work or to behave until the previous point of misuration.
This could mean that the actual system brokes, or maybe that we have to start from a new 0 point, and it would be 1 shuttle today, 2 shuttles tomorrow...I mean we've got the tech but we can't progress at this exilarating accelerating speed that we have...we are losing momentum.

I also think that the new generations (including mine, over 30) that would have to take the legacy are not so well prepared.
2009-08-25 08:45:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


We can't become robots. Robots are evil.

I feel a Bioshock-type future coming on.
2009-08-25 08:46:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664


Wow, very interesting topic. I for one agree that our technology is growing very very fast, do I think it'll maintain it's speed? I don't think so, it almost seems like we're losing momentum (just like OmegaSlayer said) at this time.

I'd like to think that technology will be pretty freakin awesome during my lifetime, but I don't think we have enough technology to build something "smarter" then humans, for a while, I want to say I won't see something like that in my lifetime, but I can't look into the future that much, but as of right now. It doesn't seem like our technology is maintaining the speed it would need for something like that.

Just my two cents.
2009-08-25 08:58:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250


Kinda like Whaaaaale said but how could it really be possible for us to create something thats actually smarter than us? It just can't really be possible for the creation to be smarter than the creator. If we had been the ones to create it we should know the extent of what it could do right?2009-08-25 09:27:00

Author:
Shris
Posts: 126


I also think that technology must stop at certain points.
Let's take an example: flying cars.
There is a countless amount of cars accidents everyday, can you imagine 40 millions car flying on the US skies without any accident?
The accident on the Hudson some days ago says clearly no.
Imagine a drunken guy exploding his car on your building...
Sorry for being crude, but this is not the world of Back To The Future, this is the world of 9/11.

So, it doesn't matter that you can build flying car, it's a "model" that is completely wrong.
Sure someone will try it for money, but it won't go any further because it lacks common sense.
2009-08-25 09:29:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


That's what was so surprising to me about the reading. I read a lot of sci-fi. I've always had my own ideas about where the world will be in the future. Kurzweil came in and pulled the carpet out from underneath me, and made a shockingly believable case for it.

He defines this "moment", where the graph sort of runs away and becomes impossible to trace, as the singularity (not his word, Vernor Vinge's I believe, a scifi writer of all things). The point where our world experiences a sea change. He predicts it will happen in the 2060s.

As for this feeling of slowing down, I feel just the opposite - I feel like we're going so fast I can barely keep up. But then again, I'm always racing to learn the latest news in inventions, advancements, and profound discoveries. From the big (YouTube - From Universe to Multiverse. Are You Ready? (Dr. Michio Kaku)), to the small (electronic ink on magazine covers and videos within magazine pages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8211209.stm)). All around us, major things are either happening now, or on the verge of happening.

Kurzweil may be off on his 2060 estimate, but exponential growth in this field has been incredibly predictable for the last 50 years, and so far it suggests that we're well on track. Right now a supercomputer is being built that, when finished, will be capable of at least matching, possibly exceeding, the number of computations per second possible by the human brain. they've also been able to successfully demonstrate working, basic quantum computers. Years ago, there were people who thought this would NEVER be possible, and yet here we are.

This of course doesn't mean we'll have a computer that can pass the Turing Test (that is, a test of Artificial Intelligence - if a machine passes this test, it means we will not be able to distinguish it from a human). It's the software, not the hardware, that presents the biggest stepping stone. But it is astounding how far we've come in the field of AI in a remarkably short timeframe.

there are two types: Strong AI and weak AI. Weak AI is localized, specialized artificial intelligence. it's used today in smart cars, hospitals, security systems, and nearly every videogame on our shelves. Strong AI is the real prize - that's AI equal to or greater than human intelligence. Scientists and software engineers are out there all over the place, furiously working toward this goal. Neural-network based computing, modeled after our own brains, is now in use in AI research.

And ultimately, this thing, the strong AI, mankind's final invention, the computer who is smarter than him - this will be the last step on the road - the step off the road, so to speak, and into something new. This is why Kubrick imagined 2001 taking place as it did - It's only as Hal 9000 becomes conscious, exceeding his creators in intelligence, that mankind reaches his next evolution.


Let's take an example: flying cars.

As fun, yet impractical (but COOL) as flying cars would be, and as hard as some inventors out there are working toward them, don't expect them to replace cars. Practical flying cars replacing ground vehicles isn't in the cards for our future. The world of Moebius comics is, sadly, not to be.

It's inevitable that we'll eventually have a lunar base and send an expedition to Mars. Whether we'll get around to colonizing I can't say, but I can guarantee you we'll have a base on Mars before we replace wheeley cars with wingy ones.
2009-08-25 09:34:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Wow never thought about flying cars that way and is completely true.

Off-topic:
(Who ever named it a flying car anyway? Seems to be more along the lines of a more compact jet of sorts.)
2009-08-25 09:36:00

Author:
Shris
Posts: 126


Moore's Law is generally considered to be unsustainable, by both academics and industry. It's technically not even a law, either. Reading through your synopsis, this sounds like a lot of science fiction and popularised (although misplaced) technophobia (grey goo for example), given weight by the fact that the author is a known researcher.

I'm sure it is an interesting read - I'm all for speculation on stuff like this, it's fascinating. But I doubt it's anything to be taken too seriously. Predictions about the future of technology are rarely, if ever accurate, especially when made by informed academics
2009-08-25 09:44:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497


Moore's Law is generally considered to be unsustainable, by both academics and industry. It's technically not even a law, either. Reading through your synopsis, this sounds like a lot of science fiction and popularised (although misplaced) technophobia (grey goo for example), given weight by the fact that the author is a known researcher.

Regarding Moore's Law, that's all true. It isn't even used often in its original definition, it seems to be more about how fast newer technology becomes affordable now. In other words, how fast does the newest technology become affordable?

Technically speaking, it's IMPOSSIBLE for Moore's Law, as defined, to continue indefinitely. In this case, Moore's Law becomes a convenient synonym for the progress that we're used to seeing. It will hit a wall. It will die. Maybe we'll have a new favorite term by then.

But the point is that people don't stop progress. Stephen Hawking said, when asked about the end of Moore's Law: "What are the fundamental limitations to microelectronics? The speed of light and the atomic nature of matter." The suggestion is that we branch out from our current system and revolutionize the way we build chipsets. If people hit a wall, they either break it down or climb over it, that's our nature, it's one thing we're incredibly good at. The truth is, Moore's Law is a convenient term - when scrutinized, it won't hold out much longer. The man himself, for whom the term is coined, admits to that much in a heartbeat.

As for Grey goo and genetic pandemics and machine overlords, Kurzweil himself little more than glosses over them - he's fundamentally an optimist. His view of the future is bathed in golden light. I think it's the fact that each of the technological revolutions we're in the midst of are powerful forces that need to be respected. We have precedent for existential threat with Nuclear technology. There are buttons in the world today that, when pressed, will destroy most life on the planet. that's a pretty fantastical idea, but we've had sweaty, shaking, nervous fingers on those buttons in the past. And I'm not sure it really taught us anything, to be honest.

That said, grey goo is fine for remakes of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I think the more important question is the question of our changing humanity. We're already going to incredible lengths to prolong human life. I think a lot of us read about those doctors at Michael Jackson's hospital who were able to "resurrect" people who had been technically dead for something like 2 or 3 hours. We're out there already, on the edges of the map beside an inky scrawl: "here be dragons".
2009-08-25 10:01:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Maybe I'm back to be Jurassic, but when the Large Hadron Collider at Cern was on the verge of being used, I was quite sweaty and uneasy to say the least.
Some scientists were worried that a Black Hole reaction could happen...and no one was 100% sure about what was going to happen.

Here's the point...there's some people blinded by thirst of knowledge that would risk the entire planet just to learn something that could even be useless.
This is a problem, and yes, I would rather use a stone wheel and lead a harder life than put to rest the humanity, that is guilty of a lot of atrocities, but doesn't deserve complete extinction.

Obsession always leads to ruin...we have to cope with what we have and evolve accordingly to our surroundings.
This is the lessons we have to learn since until today, humankind has led a life comparable to the one of sentient, highly adaptive viruses.
2009-08-25 10:16:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


Maybe I'm back to be Jurassic, but when the Large Hadron Collider at Cern was on the verge of being used, I was quite sweaty and uneasy to say the least.
Some scientists were worried that a Black Hole reaction could happen...and no one was 100% sure about what was going to happen.

Here's the point...there's some people blinded by thirst of knowledge that would risk the entire planet just to learn something that could even be useless.
This is a problem, and yes, I would rather use a stone wheel and lead a harder life than put to rest the humanity, that is guilty of a lot of atrocities, but doesn't deserve complete extinction.

Obsession always leads to ruin...we have to cope with what we have and evolve accordingly to our surroundings.
This is the lessons we have to learn since until today, humankind has led a life comparable to the one of sentient, highly aaptive viruses.

While I think the LHC is definitely NOT something to be afraid of - scientists have stated strongly that there will be absolutely no earth-swallowing black hole (a "miniature black hole" would instantaneously dissipate) - there's a lot of wisdom in what you say. I don't think it's a stretch at all to compare people with viruses, the way we consume everything around us until it's gone, and then say "aw crap, we gotta be better people!" ...and then proceed to consume the next nearby thing.

In fact, this leads me right back to Kurzweil. This is a guy who has a pretty egocentric view of humanity's place in the universe, or at least the galaxy. He makes the case that we are possibly the only INTELLIGENT alien life out there. A single anomaly. This worldview has led him to some... disturbing... conclusions?

Namely, the logical conclusion at the end of his vision of our future. In it, we become a supremely intelligent machine civilization, capable of transforming any matter into what you could call "god matter". That is, the ultimate possible capacity for computation. Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor, calculates a theoretical "perfect" computation - that is, the ultimate limit to nanocomputing. It's 5 x 10^50 computations per second per kilogram. That is, every kilogram of what I'm calling "God Matter" would contain roughly the equivalent of the working brains of 5 billion trillion human civilizations, and that's a conservative estimate.

In Kurzweil's logical conclusion, our machine civilization would begin to transform all matter into this "god matter", because we would no longer be able to progress anymore once we hit Planck's constant and turn our machines into "God Matter". So what do you do then? you branch out. You get more matter. He imagines a future in which the entire solar system is absorbed into our ultimate computer. And when the solar system is assimilated, we branch out and continue our feast of the galaxy.

This is clearly not remotely reasonable, but there are two things here:
1. It's more of a thought experiment, following a line to its end, then anything resembling a to-do program.
2. I wouldn't for a SECOND put it past humanity and its far-reaching machine incarnation to go through with it. If we could, would we assimilate the universe and everything in it, like a virus with the power of God?

Hell yes we would! In this universe, WE'RE the bad guys! You know what that means?? It means they'll probably remake The Day the Earth Stood Still AGAIN!
2009-08-25 10:35:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


@Teebonesy: Well that's certainly a bonus with regards to the positive outlook. As you say, technophobia is great for science fiction, but it has the potential to be used as a tool to manipulate the masses, which is why it bothers me. The people at the forefront of technology research aren't (for the most part) mad scientists with plans to take over the world, or reckless psychos. As speculative thought experiments it's great as well.

And I'm sure as we hit the peak of moore's law with semiconductor-based technology the research into carbon nanotubes and whatever else they're cooking up will neatly sidestep it. And then of course we'll have a technology in it's infancy, that can only get better and cheaper so Moore's Law may just continue with a slight sideways blip.

@Omegaslayer: The LHC is a hell of a lot safer than the Tabloid media would have you believe (much like everything else in the world is a hell of a lot safer than the tabloid media would have you believe ). Actually I'd go as far as disregarding anything technology-related I read in mainstream media - the information you get is rarely accurate and complete.

"According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein?s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC." source (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html)
2009-08-25 10:39:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497


Wise words all around - it definitely doesn't do us any good to be untrusting of advances. Count on this - as long as scientists put a foot in new territory, there will be someone, somewhere, decrying it and screaming no and picketing. At which point, teeming masses of people who don't understand the technology, or can't understand it, will simply become worried and eventually join the ranks of scared.

Instead we need to, as the old British WWII poster says: Keep calm and carry on. Keep your head, and if something worries you, learn everything you can about it so you know if you SHOULD be worried or not. But we shouldn't halt progress because of it. Here's the plan: Progress, progress, progress, and then look behind us and realize we've destroyed everything, but by then it's too late so screw it, let's play some videogames.

Anyone read or see Contact? I think it's one of the best science fiction stories available to us. This concern people have for the unknown is one of the themes at the heart of that book (and movie). The LHC was kind of a testing-ground for the public and especially the media. I really hope mainstream media learns how to properly educate the public about new technology and not grip onto the same old sensationalism handles when they become uncomfortable with it.
2009-08-25 10:59:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Woah...I'm really putting my brain to strain in this thread, since following something this heavy in a tongue that is not yours is HARD.
Anyway I'm enjoying this...

What concerns me, like Teebonesy said, is that kind of ego that blinds people, and that makes them unaware of consequences.
What's the turning everything into "God matter"?
Is that life?
Is life progress at every cost? Or is life enjoying a good laugh, the love of people close to you, a day in the park, a beer with your friends?

We got into another interesting thread: "What's mankind purpose on Earth?"
2009-08-25 11:34:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


Woah...I'm really putting my brain to strain in this thread, since following something this heavy in a tongue that is not yours is HARD. Heh I can imagine!



I really hope mainstream media learns how to properly educate the public about new technology and not grip onto the same old sensationalism handles when they become uncomfortable with it.

The mainstream media's MO is not to educate or inform, it is to make money. Sensationalism and fear sells. Technofear is just a natural progression from this. Joe public is largely ignorant of the true implications of technology, and so it is easy to capitalise on the fear of the unknown. Another good example was the collision between the nuclear submarines a while back. Compare the analysis from the Sun to that on The Register and it's unsuprising that the public fears technology.

This is a little off topic I know, but it does relate to the issues with radical shifts in technology. We've accepted devices we can hold and touch and press buttons on, it's physical and understandable, if only at a basic level. But considering how people misunderstand and fear anything that goes into their bodies (GM crops are unhealthy, organic food will improve your health, etc.), i think the widespread acceptance of devices that don't need to be operated using our hands will be a fair way off.
2009-08-25 13:08:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497


Cool to see someone has the same ideas as me (the whole soul thing, if I understood it correctly at least ).

As far as technology and stuff go I tend to have a very 'neutral' feeling for it all.

If robotics can truly enhance you and make you 'better' than me, that is to say that your new species of cyborg can survive longer/ more reliably, then it seems logical that they should be the new dominant race.


On the soul thing and the meaning of life I'll just explain my view and you can just tell me if that's what this blokey is also thinking:

I will go through actions, if my surroundings change then my boundaries for actions I take will change. It would be possible to replicate me in my entirety if you had enough time by recording my actions.

Therefore if a 'soul' is 'you' then it can simply be a sheet of paper of 1's and 0's dictating actions that I commit and environments where those actions will be changed. It is sometimes called one's 'moral code'.

(Unfortunately the English language limits me slightly in explaining this )

So then if I am simply an organic carrying out actions that have been 'written' into me then it seems to me that if I weren't alive I the actions my body carries out are just simply no longer controlled by that set organic mind.

So then from my view I just view myself as a mass and I am for the time being a 'human'; when I die the mass of my body will be eaten and work its way through a cycle and could become a new animal or I could be split amongst a multitude of animals as my body becomes food.

I could be the energy that lets life live a little longer, I could be absorbed by roots in a tree and if this world is destroyed and if the universe collapses then all 'I' will be is a new matter or energy. 'I' don't exist in the way that we normally think of existence (or rather how I was originally taught).

It's probably a little bit unclear in some bits but hopefully you get the gist of it.

So that main 'idea' is why I don't see any problem with manipulating genetics, adding machinery to your body or whatever; in the end you are simply mass and you have been given self awareness just for this moment in the form of what people call 'you'.
2009-08-25 13:18:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


Sherm, life and death are the two most common things in the world, and should be really preserved as they are.
Would it be right if everyone, once genetically or robotically modified would live 250 years?
The world is already on the verge of explosion with nearly 9 billions of people, imagine if even a 10% of people would live 250 years and reproduce...it's not sustainable.
I don't fear technology, I fear autodestruction, and mankind is already on this road.
2009-08-25 13:27:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


But none of that matters, we are just hold those values of survival so high because of what we are. That's my logic.

As a human I think death is bad and I think survival is good. As a collection of mass being put through motions by the intelligence that is my brain I realise that anything that happens doesn't 'matter', existence is a value that is assigned it is not something that is 'universal'.

If people alter themselves to survive then they want either self preservation or they want to use the pre-made asset that is a human body and alter it in an attempt to create a more efficient life form; if they don't then they think that the transition to improved survival extinguishes their own survival and so is not a worth action to commit to since preservation of 'the human race' is the top priority.
2009-08-25 13:51:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


I like to see this thread with this kind of discourse going on.

Teebonesy, thank for you posting the Michio Kaku interview. It's relevant to another discussion in another thread, so I'm going to direct some people over here.

However, there's one thing I wanted to bring up...



In this viewpoint, the only humans left may be in one of two camps - the machine-human hybrids with advanced implants who will eventually upload - and "humanists" - the people who refuse - the last people standing.

The language here I found a bit eyebrow raising - as "humanist" is already a term that's taken for something else.

It's a bit like defining a group people who refuse to accept a technology and naming them "Democrats" or "Hindu".
2009-08-25 15:51:00

Author:
Jagrevi
Posts: 1154


I like to see this thread with this kind of discourse going on.

Teebonesy, thank for you posting the Michio Kaku interview. It's relevant to another discussion in another thread, so I'm going to direct some people over here.

However, there's one thing I wanted to bring up...



The language here I found a bit eyebrow raising - as "humanist" is already a term that's taken for something else.

It's a bit like defining a group people who refuse to accept a technology and naming them "Democrats" or "Hindu".

Kurzweil actually addresses this issue of terminology. He's decided to go with "humanism", and I believe lays out a bit of the differences between his humanist and the humanist of today, which has more concern with how people are treated in the world by the powers that be than whether or not we stick cogs in our hearts.

I think it's a fitting term, as I doubt any person who fits into that group would not deny themselves its accuracy.


This is a little off topic I know, but it does relate to the issues with radical shifts in technology. We've accepted devices we can hold and touch and press buttons on, it's physical and understandable, if only at a basic level. But considering how people misunderstand and fear anything that goes into their bodies (GM crops are unhealthy, organic food will improve your health, etc.), i think the widespread acceptance of devices that don't need to be operated using our hands will be a fair way off.

I'm really glad you brought that up! I think this is where Kurzweil departs from the real world. This guy's so optimistic he's actually painted a picture of the world where, when you're done living your biological life, you upload your mind to a computer which is essentially "heaven" - a simulation of anything you want. A Matrix for yourself, which you control, if that's what you wish. It's easy for him to sit where he is and say "Why wouldn't ANYONE want this? To live forever in a real, tangible, quantifiable heaven? therefore, let's assume everyone wants it." (note that he doesn't actually say this).

But in my experience, anytime I talk about dual-analog controllers being dinosaurs, I get people angry, nobody wants to change their favorite controllers for anything in the world.

Talk about GM (genetically modified) crops as you mentioned, and test tube meat and I honestly think the MAJORITY of people you talk to are going to be disturbed and grossed out by the very concept.

So now we've got to transition to a place where we all have nanobots swarming in our bloodstream, keeping us healthy, where our lungs are practically obsolete, with transplants in our brain to allow us to think faster? And from there to a computer-backup of our entire selves?

I'm with you. People are going to kick and scream. it's not going to be as easy as Kurzweil imagines. Which brings me to:


If robotics can truly enhance you and make you 'better' than me, that is to say that your new species of cyborg can survive longer/ more reliably, then it seems logical that they should be the new dominant race.

Gattaca's a great movie that explores this very question. It makes sense - If you split the population into two - the "enhanced" population and the "natural" population - you've got a clear divide in power. Early on, it will be the same old rich-poor divide, as only the very rich will afford it. As it is, we are unable to make rich people and poor people equal. If you fundamentally change the humanity of one group, how could we even hope for a chance to make them equal?

It wouldn't be too long before the price drops so low in the "enhancing" technologies to make them available to everyone - BUT, as rtm mentioned, this doesn't mean everyone will DO it.

But imagine that that's what it takes - a society in which "natural" humans are under the thumb of the enhanced ones, in which they can't do what they want, in which they live in the shadow of the others. If the technology became available to you, wouldn't you want to jump right on it? Cross the rift. End the conflict. Or maybe you would learn to hate them so much you would refuse to ever become like them.

Kurzweil writes this off because of how cheap and ubiquitous the technology would become. But I think we all know it's not going to go down that easily.

Today people don't trust GM crops. Tomorrow, there's no way they're going to trust brain-implants and nanobots in their bodies. This is going to greatly pronounce the divide between transhumans and natural humans. In Gattaca, they call babies born without genetic modification "faith births". They tend to lead hard lives.


So that main 'idea' is why I don't see any problem with manipulating genetics, adding machinery to your body or whatever; in the end you are simply mass and you have been given self awareness just for this moment in the form of what people call 'you'.

There's actually a really interesting, terrifying fact I learned about in reading these books.

This is the big question.
What is the nature of our consciousness, in what part of our matter do WE exist?

Here's the thought experiment. Indulge me for a minute. This isn't a practical application, purely a thought experiment for the purpose of getting to the bottom of this question.

Imagine we had the technology to copy your brain EXACTLY. Every memory, every synapse and neuron, every reflex and piece of data in there.

Now let's say that we're going to replace a small piece of your brain in a surgical procedure. To make this a "perfect" thought experiment, I'm going super-sci-fi for this one - The procedure involves a single instant - BAM - one part of your brain is instantly replaced by an identical copy of it that was made in that same instant using the hospital's super-powered mega-brain technology. (registered trademark of brainio corp.)

You wake up from the procedure, and NOTHING feels different at all, whatsoever.

Next month it's time to replace another part of your brain. BAM! Instantly copied and replaced.

over the course of several months, your entire brain is replaced. And yet you still appear to be exactly the same person, making all the expected decisions.

So what happened? Did you disappear and become replaced by a mere clone of you? At what point did that happen? Is there one specific spot in your brain where your SOUL is stored?

Well guess what - in a sense, this actually happens to us all the time. The molecules that make up the matter of our bodies are not the same today as they were last year. They cycle. They change. This is true for our hearts, our hands, our brains. The atoms, the very fundamental matter itself is completely different today than what it was just months ago.

None of us doubt that we're the same consciousness now as we were then. We remember. We KNOW. We FEEL.

Kurzweil suggests, then, that our consciousness isn't in the matter - it's in the "pattern". Our brains are computers that hold patterns of information that define who we are, and it's those patterns that create the consistency, the lingering sense of self, the life we know we have.

So, if you agree that that makes sense, then the logical conclusion is that you can replace your brain gradually with MACHINE parts that do all of the same functions, but enhanced, and over time, after your entire brain is a machine, you're still you.

Suddenly this feels wrong, unnatural. It can't be.

This is where it gets really brain-twisting, mind-scroogingly crazy.

We're going to take that road even further - if we are the patterns of our minds - then we could make backups of our minds, into the central machine, the "heaven" machine. Don't be distracted by my own term for it - People in the Heaven machine would still be able to interact with people in the real world.

So say it becomes common practice to back up your brain every month or so. You and your wife never miss an appointment. A couple of weeks after one of these appointments, your wife is hit by a car and killed. You're devastated, so you go to the central machine and file for a resurrection. A clone of her body is created and her backed-up brain is uploaded to it. She doesn't remember the 2 weeks after her last backup, so she has no memory of the car crash - the last thing she remembers is going in for the backup - but that's okay, it's only 2 weeks. You can fill her in on the new episodes of Mad Men. And the two of you get on with your lives.
Is it really her? Is she in there?

And now what if you've made a backup of yourself. What if the doctors, when they turned the switch to "wake you up", simultaneously turned the switch to "activate" your backup - or even uploaded it to a clone of you just like your wife - but the two of you both wake up simultaneously, so you experience the same thing. The only difference in their experience is that the clone wakes up on the left table, and you on the right table.

Both you and your clone will be 100% certain that you are the original. Or maybe you're the clone?

Are the two of you now fundamentally different people?

Has your consciousness, your ghost, been torn in two?

What are we??

It's a relatively easy answer for most of the religious. We have a unique soul that's ours, that can't be found in our brains, and these types of technologies are crucially evil, playing God.

But for people who may not believe in a soul in the same spiritual sense, this is a major, major conundrum.

And, crucially, in our very own future, it will become a question of science. In fact, it will become THE question of science.
2009-08-25 22:34:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


So say it becomes common practice to back up your brain every month or so. You and your wife never miss an appointment. A couple of weeks after one of these appointments, your wife is hit by a car and killed. You're devastated, so you go to the central machine and file for a resurrection. A clone of her body is created and her backed-up brain is uploaded to it. She doesn't remember the 2 weeks after her last backup, so she has no memory of the car crash - the last thing she remembers is going in for the backup - but that's okay, it's only 2 weeks. You can fill her in on the new episodes of Mad Men. And the two of you get on with your lives.
Is it really her? Is she in there?

And now what if you've made a backup of yourself. What if the doctors, when they turned the switch to "wake you up", simultaneously turned the switch to "activate" your backup - or even uploaded it to a clone of you just like your wife - but the two of you both wake up simultaneously, so you experience the same thing. The only difference in their experience is that the clone wakes up on the left table, and you on the right table.

Both you and your clone will be 100% certain that you are the original. Or maybe you're the clone?

Are the two of you now fundamentally different people?

Has your consciousness, your ghost, been torn in two?

What are we??

It's a relatively easy answer for most of the religious. We have a unique soul that's ours, that can't be found in our brains, and these types of technologies are crucially evil, playing God.

But for people who may not believe in a soul in the same spiritual sense, this is a major, major conundrum.

And, crucially, in our very own future, it will become a question of science. In fact, it will become THE question of science.

Man this really makes my mind boggle. Mind-twisting stuff indeed.
2009-08-25 23:03:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250


Man this really makes my mind boggle. Mind-twisting stuff indeed.

I've been working on a screenplay exploring this very conundrum from a relationship standpoint. I'd love to make this movie someday, about the life of a couple trying to cope with the existential issues raised by future technologies.

One thing that's always intrigued me, and this is getting a bit off topic - stillbirths, and especially sudden infant death syndrome - these are children who the parents never get to know, they die too soon, and so suddenly. Many parents, especially mothers, who have been through this have been haunted their entire lives by memories of the child, and visions of the child's life that never was. Sometimes they die before the child is ever named - there are literally tombstones out there for children that only read "so-and-so's daughter". But the parents are haunted, they have other children but throughout their entire lives they catch glimpses of the "other" child that never grew, the ghostly sibling. (I actually made a short film about this - Edward Cole (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1423365/)).

But I can just imagine something similar happening with this car-crash scenario. After "resurrecting" your wife's backup, it would be SO easy to forget about the whole affair and get on with your life.

But those 2 weeks - what if your wife shared some secret with you in those 2 weeks that you never knew?
Those 2 weeks are an experience you've shared with your wife that the current "version" of her has never gone through, has no memory of.

The ghost of that woman, the woman you loved in those 2 weeks, that died in a car crash, might haunt you the rest of your life. Because she is somehow someone else, someone different from the woman who's with you now. Purely by virtue of the fact that she did something with you totally unique in a time that can never be taken back, and she's gone forever.

This may be a fleeting thought before your wife calls you over to check out something funny. You watch it, you laugh together, you realize, yes this is certainly the same woman I've always loved and again, you go on with your lives.
2009-08-25 23:26:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Well I'm glad that my point seems to have been understood

I find it slightly amusing that my first venturing into this started with an episode of batman future (future batman? I forget the name) a guy had his thought processes put into a machine and for all intents and purposes that was his 'soul' and all that was different was that it was a computer going through the motions rather than flesh.

I might have to read that guys books; it's interesting to see what other people think on a subject and since my arrival to my current thoughts has been relatively independent (besides that Batman episode and Bioshock) it would be good to see how much he has truly 'humbled'.
2009-08-25 23:41:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


I'm kinda going to ignore your current discussion to throw my opinion out there.

Wow, I daydream of GNR. Seriously. Pretty much, if I were able to get my hand on GNR tech, anything would be unleashable.... Genetics, I could engineer a non-contagious virus that would slowly replace certain genes, making humans invincible, extremely smart, fast, improvements in almost all of the anatomy. If such genes exist. Then Nanotech. Wow, this is my main interest right here. In theory, they should replicate endlessly, and are nearly indestructible. Imagine swallowing apill of programmed nanomachines, having them kind of "scan" your body. After wards, they form into an exact copy of you, with your mindset copied exactly from your brain. Imagine making AN INDESTRUCTIBLE ARMY OF YOURSELF. I mean, in the wrong hand deadly, but in the right ones, well, no more bad guys. And the resources... we could make almost ANYTHING. We could wear Nanosuits that change in seconds to match what we want to wear with a simple THOUGHT! We wouldn't need economy because everything is FREE! (Definition of Economy; Decision making in a limited-resources world) Of course, robotics goes hand in hand with Nanotech... nanomachines to study the human body to be able to replicate it.... we'd all be immortal,. We wouldn't need to run out of space because by this time we'd surely developed nano-landmasses, or space-time-warpers that could take us to the already discovered second-Earths. (I'm being serious about this.)

However, on the debate of the spirituality of "backups",as you said, while they would have the full consciousness of a human, per say, it wouldn't be "you", in theory. It's a conscious back-up that's waking up, not the actual corpse.... I mean, this would only apply on a personal level. If you die, and you get resuscitated, YOU won't wake up but the cyborg that does will be completely conscious, as you were before death.

Speaking of daydreams, I have to get that story written up...
2009-08-26 01:04:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046


(I'm being serious about this.)

You certainly seem to have it all planned out!
Me, I imagine how nanotech might cause the entire concept of economy to become obsolete, and I fear for humanity. Most people aren't going to be able to handle this type of change, and certainly the power-hungry are going to SALIVATE knowing this. This is the stuff good sci-fi is made of.



However, on the debate of the spirituality of "backups",as you said, while they would have the full consciousness of a human, per say, it wouldn't be "you", in theory. It's a conscious back-up that's waking up, not the actual corpse.... I mean, this would only apply on a personal level. If you die, and you get resuscitated, YOU won't wake up but the cyborg that does will be completely conscious, as you were before death.

This is pretty close to where I stand on the matter. If you back up your brain perfectly, as soon as that brain is activated it's going to have a different experience from you. Therefore it is a different being. Your "pattern" has been duplicated, but it's been given a new consciousness.

From this viewpoint, I don't imagine I would ever wake up in the machine, as Kurzweil believes. Once backed up, if I die, I consider myself dead - I don't expect my current consciousness is going to suddenly awaken inside the machine. Would I still back myself up? I probably would, but because of the reason I mentioned earlier - to make myself a permanent part of the future of human civilization. Follow the process all the way down the line and in the end, we all become one - one networked, shared, redundant consciousness. It's kind of fun to imagine what comes "next", if there is a "next step" after machine civilization. The answer is suggested in 2001, and has been pondered by many people over the decades. The next step is God. 2001 suggests a "starchild", that the final evolution is a sort of spiritual consciousness with power over the cosmos. Maybe Horton Hears a Who has it right, and perhaps our entire universe is a tiny spit bubble blown by a star-baby in a higher dimension.

I'm going a bit far now. To reign it back in:

I don't believe that it's exactly ME that will wake up in the machine - merely a copy of me, a NEW consciousness.

BUT! That doesn't answer the problem of the brain-transplant conundrum. This one has baffled me. It seems to make sense to me, that in the thought experiment outlined earlier, your consciousness remains consistent through a gradual transplant of your brain's parts with exact replacements.

The only way it seems to me that there would be a "transition" of sorts would be if it was all at once. As if there's one tiny part of the brain where your current consciousness of your own experience is stored. Once THAT part is replaced, then the old you dies, and a new consciousness takes over.

Of course, that's a very unlikely scenario. So what's really happening in that gradual process? Nothing at all? Or everything?
2009-08-26 02:35:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


With the individual transplant thing I think they're only one way to find out

Since we don't really have a definite experience of what a conciousness is we'd have to experiment with these sorts of things to find the boundaries; from where we stand now we can't guess at what would happen if we went through the procedure.
2009-08-26 10:34:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


With the individual transplant thing I think they're only one way to find out

Since we don't really have a definite experience of what a conciousness is we'd have to experiment with these sorts of things to find the boundaries; from where we stand now we can't guess at what would happen if we went through the procedure.

that's what's SO mindboggling about it though - if we did go through with it, we may still be in the dark!

Johnny Experiment over here might have have no distinctive experience to speak of regarding the procedure. "...Uh... Everything seems the same to me, Doc! No soul ripping, that's for sure. I feel fine! Just the same as this morning!"

It may be one thing that doesn't present clear empirical evidence. We're dealing with an abstract that science has never been able to properly measure - Consciousness. We've certainly seen an incredible variety of extreme cases. Some babies are born with only a brain stem, the condition known as anencephaly. Some of these babies live around 3 years or so, they eat, they display motor functions, they even cry. But they don't have a brain - only the stem, which controls autonomous functions like heartbeat and breathing and reflexes. They don't feel pain - there's no brain to compute the necessary signals for pain - but they will react to stimulus. And again - they will cry. This is an extreme form of human life. But is it consciousness? The baby may appear to act like a normal baby. After all, all babies just kind of lay around crying and squirming and cooing and drooling. The difference is, the anencephalic baby has NO brain! There are people who have survived injuries and continue their lives with only half a brain. there are people who are caught in personal time loops, experiencing amnesia every 10 seconds. Nowhere have we been able to pick out a marble from the depths of our grey matter and say, "oh shoot, there it is!"

It may be an answer that continues to elude us even when we can properly test it. But the farther we get in the future, the more crucial that question's going to become.

Also, I can't belive I didn't cover this, but there was something earlier in the discussion that I didn't address:


Kinda like Whaaaaale said but how could it really be possible for us to create something thats actually smarter than us? It just can't really be possible for the creation to be smarter than the creator. If we had been the ones to create it we should know the extent of what it could do right?

The way it works is this: We're probably going to base our most advanced Artificial Intelligence on everything we glean from how the human brain works - that is, a neural network. This type of structure is well-suited to do the types of things that traditional computers are bad at - recognizing patterns, adapting, and complex connections among a wide array of inputs and outputs. Imagine a traditional computer as linear, with a straight pipeline of data. Now imagine a neural network as a big, diffuse, non-linear field, where data roam and graze and be free.

Here's the thing - right now, a computer can beat a human at chess. A computer can calculate phenomenally complex mathematical equations quickly. Our computers today are way better and faster at certain computations than we are, but grossly underpowered when it comes to other types of computation. For example, a computer can calculate Pi to 30 million digits. But it has a hell of a hard time properly understanding the words I say.

In the future, when we get really good at creating artificial neural networks, we may be able to create a computer that isn't smarer than us - but is AS smart as us, or even slightly LESS smart than us. We build the neural network, and then we're able to teach it things, it adapts and learns and progresses. The thing is - it's a computer. It's able to learn everything perfectly, without forgetting, without flaws, and QUICKLY. This artificial intelligence will have every piece of literature ever recorded memorized in short order. It will be able to perform complex mathematical equations quickly. It will learn faster than the smartest human on Earth. And, it will be able to recognize patterns and communicate.

Once this program is up and running, if successful, it would eventually become smarter than us at an increasingly rapid rate. It will be able to invent new methods of fine-tuning its own technology. It will be able to improve its own software, far more efficiently than we could do ourselves.

Obviously you can see the danger in this. What if it decides it's better than us and should be in charge of us? What if it becomes conscious and we end up in The Terminator or The Matrix?

Believe it or not, these are valid questions that scientists today continue to have discussions about. There are a number of plans for preventing this, and they all have to do with how we go about creating our AI. You have to prepare in the field of Strong AI for the inevitability that, given enough time, our AI will become smarter than us. Think in terms of a computerized AI-version of the golden rule. There's no reason that an AI should need to enslave humans in the future if everything is done carefully and properly. Imagine this scenario instead:

The AI has taken off, its brilliance is so far beyond human capacity that it is as a God. It's conquering the problems of the universe and the origin of all existence.

Meanwhile, outside the machine, people are just kind of chilling on the beach. They're no threat whatsoever to the AI. The smartest person alive, to my knowledge, hasn't declared war on the entirety of the ant population merely because they aren't as smart as him. Imagine this machine's been able to solve most of humanity's problems, and all needs people have would be easily taken care of. All resources would be plentiful because of nano-assembly. Sociological problems, solved. world hunger, solved. nuclear war, solved.

Once your biological life has ended, you can join the machine, become a part of it.
I'm painting Kurzweil's golden-light scenario here. The machine should be just as likely to revere us as its creator, to take care of us, its tiny ant creators, and ensure that we are safe and healthy, as suddenly decide to wipe us out altogether. So the trick is in figuring out how to foster the values of the first scenario into the AIs we create in the future.

but in short, this is how you solve the paradox of creating something smarter than you. All you really need to invent is a thing that can learn really fast. And then you sit back and let it become smarter than you. This is obviously the cartoon outline, but it's a handy illustration.
2009-08-26 10:42:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


We learn from our surroundings so the fastest way to teach an AI would make it have a larger memory than us, more audio/visual etc sensors so it could detect things we couldn't and also learn from them.

Then move it from place to play and during transitions make it learn even more so it doesn't become complacent.

Shove that electrical equipment in a human skull so it can then use our motor functions etc maybe even replace an organ or two, could even add some.

Ta da! Humanity +1
2009-08-26 10:51:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


On the AI thing..... by the time we find out how to actually make it we'll probably know how to program individual parts of it.... Well, you guys know how we only use, at the most, about 3%-10% of the brain max? I remember reading up on that somewhere..... however, in theory, we could almost increase our computing speed hundredfold with extensive genetic and nanotech therapy. That is of course, a theory. On that note, with powerful enough brains mind reading, scanning, and maybe control could be possible. (Based on theory that a brain may send out as well as read neuro-electrical signals with enough power.)

As well, by the time we figure out AI, we'll probably know how to program individual parts of it, so that it has enough 'clearance' to think but not enough to become 'self-aware'. For example, an AI stockbroker could be programmed to have endless devotion to humans and to never doubt their wiseness, yet be able to have freedom to think and calculate as it wishes otherwise. It's a bit hard to explain.......
2009-08-26 19:58:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046


2012. Judgement Day.2009-08-26 21:14:00

Author:
BasketSnake
Posts: 2391


We have pretty incredible neural implant technology in use today. With neural implants in one of the most-understood and easily-mapped areas of the brain: the visual cortex - scientists have been able to give a rough, low-fi sense of vision to people who are otherwise completely blind. Granted, at this juncture they have wires coming out of their skull wired to wear glasses with a camera mounted - but they allow blind people to SEE. This technology is out there today!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/BCI_JensNaumann.png

Neural implants have allowed monkeys to operate robotic arms with their minds.
they've been able to decode visual signals in the brains of humans and cats (eventually this will lead to the technology to be able to record what you see and dream - no joke, this will be possible someday, make sure Big Brother's not watching)

Here's a decoded image from a film shown to a cat:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/LGN_Cat_Vison_Recording.jpg
these are literally snapshots from a cat's brain of what she was looking at.
Poor kitty!!

But animal rights aside, the technology is becoming incredible, and it's happening in leaps and bounds all around us.

Parkinsons and Epilepsy patients have neural implants that stimulate deep neurons that misfire or no longer work, and serve to eliminate many of the effects of the disease that before were completely untreatable.

One frightening side effect of some of these implants is that they introduce NEW PERSONALITY TRAITS into the person with the implant. According to the wikipedia article, among these are: possibility of apathy, hallucinations, compulsive gambling, hypersexuality, cognitive dysfunction, and depression. Many of these are also frequent side effects of strong medications, and it's believed to be reversible and "fixable" by careful placement and calibration of the implants.

They've created an artificial chip-based hippocampus (this bad boy handles long-term memory and understanding of space). In the beginning, this will be a treatment for victims of brain damage and strokes, who've lost much of the usage of the hippocampus. This kind of technology will quickly lead to ENHANCING brain implants - it isn't a large jump to create a hippocampus that enables better long-term memory, for example. We're right on the cusp.


2012. Judgement Day.

Maybe more like 2022.
If it IS 2012, I'm putting odds on pandemic.
2009-08-26 21:18:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


Maybe more like 2022.
If it IS 2012, I'm putting odds on pandemic.

If that, it's been 2000+ years and religion is still large enough to squash certain scientific ventures.

Curiosity and religious morals will have a turning point but I don't see how it can be so soon without some 'Gandhi of science' changing the more active religious people's minds.

Not that religion is entirely bad, I personally believe it is why we've survived so long. Even though it is arguable whether the teachings are correct the enforcement of morals and a promise of afterlife has got us where we are today.

Though some people may be comfortable knowing that they do die and then they may never have concious thought ever again other aren't; with a fear of death ruling their lives it would make them highly 'volatile'.
2009-08-26 22:18:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330


It's pretty easy to imagine that as "transhumanism" because a more practical matter, many people may view the transition as a spiritual, probably eventually religious one. There may be churches of machines springing up.

Maybe the antichrist will be a cyborg.

random tangential aside: Anyone hear about the guy who regrew his fingertip by sprinkling pig-bladder-pixie-dust on it? Sounds like a joke, but it happened.

Regenerative powder! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/22/sunday/main3960219.shtml)

The short version is this: A guy severed his index fingertip in his hobbyshop, asked his medical scientist brother for help. He gave him a powder, told him to sprinkle it on... just... sprinkle it! And it grew back in four weeks. The whole fingertip, "flesh, blood, vessels and nail".

There's video of the stuff in action if you aren't too squeamish.
2009-08-27 09:57:00

Author:
Teebonesy
Posts: 1937


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.