iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Christopher
Mar 19, 2008, 10:30:24 AM3/19/08
to iPlant
The post is currently available at
http://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-singularity.html
http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/206
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=9853997910&ref=mf
What do you think?
http://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-singularity.html
http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/206
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=9853997910&ref=mf
What do you think?
psique
Mar 19, 2008, 1:04:10 PM3/19/08
to iPlant
no. no no no.
you start out so well and then you slip into transhumanist bullcrap
after all. the iPlant = singularity. please.
maybe i just dont understand the term "singularity" but as a scientist
i refuse to let it into my vocab anyway.
btw, monoamines are merely neuromodulators. it's not okay to ignore
all the other neurotransmitters when talking about a neuroscientific
model of the mind (or M1 if you wanna sound posh and knowledgable) and
you know that.
...
On Mar 19, 3:30 pm, Christopher
<christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The post is currently available athttp://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-s...http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/206http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=9853997910&ref=mf
>
> What do you think?
you start out so well and then you slip into transhumanist bullcrap
after all. the iPlant = singularity. please.
maybe i just dont understand the term "singularity" but as a scientist
i refuse to let it into my vocab anyway.
btw, monoamines are merely neuromodulators. it's not okay to ignore
all the other neurotransmitters when talking about a neuroscientific
model of the mind (or M1 if you wanna sound posh and knowledgable) and
you know that.
...
On Mar 19, 3:30 pm, Christopher
<christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The post is currently available athttp://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-s...http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger/show/206http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=9853997910&ref=mf
>
> What do you think?
Christopher Harris
Mar 19, 2008, 1:39:47 PM3/19/08
to ipl...@googlegroups.com
it should say:
"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not a good model for the singularity"
"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not a good model for the singularity"
not:
"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not the singularity"
my bad, i've changed it now. but i think it's clear in the rest of the post that i'm saying:
speculation about the iPlant = a good model for the singularity
(or as the title says: iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity)
the reason i'm bringing the dreaded Singularity term in here is that the technological singularity is defined as a point in time beyond which technological progress is such that we can no longer imagine what will happen, there's an 'event horizon'. i am not convinced that the time between the first hundred iPlants enter clinical trials and their being used by 10% of the population is THAT hard to characterize, otherwise i wouldn't try to do it, but we could certainly use some help. and if it turns out to be impossible to reach any consensus, well then it's a singularity as good as any.
Christopher
Mar 23, 2008, 10:42:46 AM3/23/08
to iPlant
The 'iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity?' article is quite
popular over at Future Blogger, currently getting more recommendations
than any other article. However, the short discussion completely
stopped after my second comment, which went as follows:
///
El Guapo, any technology can be used destructively but if you want to
hurt others it's much easier to get a bomb or a gun than to arrange a
series of complex operations. I think a more realistic worry is that
some countries might use the iPlant to create huge factories of people
addicted to manual labour.
XiXiDu, try to see the iPlant as something that's hard to get hold of.
You get it at the hospital after consultation with doctors and there's
a mountain of security that stops 999.999 out of 1.000.000 from using
it in any way that wasn't intended by the manufacturer (not least the
fact that the hardware is in your head - very difficult to fiddle
with). So as long as access control by the manufacturer is maintained
there would be no 'instant happiness button', 'mad goals', 'total self-
control', or wiping out of all feelings of distress. Initially there
would be only the opportunity to do physical exercise EFFORTLESSLY for
a few hours per day.
But imagine that 10% of the population have those iPlants and it WORKS
and we're quenching the obesity epidemic. What will the public debate
on what kind of behaviors to "allow" next look like? What kind of
expectations will people have? Which behaviors (e.g. learning
languages, doing biomedical research) SHOULD be promoted? Again, I'm
assuming all changes to how the iPlant works require approval by the
Institutional Review Board of the manufacturer and the hospital, and
possibly the government. Maybe that's a naïve assumption but I don't
think so - the brain surgery and the hardware is too complex to be
arranged by anyone who wants to; it requires a large, official
organization, hospitals and surgeons, all of which will be subject to
the laws of the country.
///
I'm hoping one of you will be able to get us unstuck, or at least
articulate WHY we're stuck. Are my speculations on the initial "iPlant
breakthrough into society" realistic? I.e. as a therapy for obesity
that has so many health-advantages associated with it that it quickly
becomes quite common. Personally I'm really interested in what the
public debate would/will look like at that point - I call it a point
where 10% of the population have an iPlant, two or three percent more
than the number of US americans currently on antidepressants, but I
don't think the numbers are too important, 0.01%-10%, call it what you
will, what will the public debate look like at that point? Imagine
that those 0.01%-10% have iPlants that ONLY motivates themselves to do
exercise for 1-2 hours per day, but that there is already significant
pressure on the manufacturer (and by extension the government?) to
allow additional programs for motivating other behaviors (studying
Chinese say). Say it works really well. What would people say? How
would people and politicians and the media relate to all this? Who
would hate it? Who would love it?
One technical detail to remember is that relying too much on one's
iPlant brain stimulation reward function for motivation would probably
be detrimental to one's ability to exercise self-discipline without
the help of the implant. Therefore there may be a 'natural' limit to
how much people can use it. Specifically it may be prudent to limit
the use of iPlant-motivation to times when you normally wouldn't be
doing anything that required self-dicipline. So if you exercise on
average an hour every week you should by NO means use your iPlant to
make that hour 'easier', you should keep doing that one hour,
preferably more, and then on top of that you could add that extra hour
on the running machine each day that your health so sorely craves, at
a time when normally you'd be watching TV or procrastinating online. I
hope that makes sense. It suggests that iPlant users would not take on
the personality of junkies. This technical problem seems, at least in
theory, like something that could eventually be solved, but at the
time when these public discussions I'm wondering about would be taking
place, they may define the scenario.
On Mar 19, 5:39 pm, "Christopher Harris"
<christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> it should say:
> *"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not a good model for the
> singularity"*
>
> not:
> *"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not the singularity"*
> (or as the title says: *iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity*)
popular over at Future Blogger, currently getting more recommendations
than any other article. However, the short discussion completely
stopped after my second comment, which went as follows:
///
El Guapo, any technology can be used destructively but if you want to
hurt others it's much easier to get a bomb or a gun than to arrange a
series of complex operations. I think a more realistic worry is that
some countries might use the iPlant to create huge factories of people
addicted to manual labour.
XiXiDu, try to see the iPlant as something that's hard to get hold of.
You get it at the hospital after consultation with doctors and there's
a mountain of security that stops 999.999 out of 1.000.000 from using
it in any way that wasn't intended by the manufacturer (not least the
fact that the hardware is in your head - very difficult to fiddle
with). So as long as access control by the manufacturer is maintained
there would be no 'instant happiness button', 'mad goals', 'total self-
control', or wiping out of all feelings of distress. Initially there
would be only the opportunity to do physical exercise EFFORTLESSLY for
a few hours per day.
But imagine that 10% of the population have those iPlants and it WORKS
and we're quenching the obesity epidemic. What will the public debate
on what kind of behaviors to "allow" next look like? What kind of
expectations will people have? Which behaviors (e.g. learning
languages, doing biomedical research) SHOULD be promoted? Again, I'm
assuming all changes to how the iPlant works require approval by the
Institutional Review Board of the manufacturer and the hospital, and
possibly the government. Maybe that's a naïve assumption but I don't
think so - the brain surgery and the hardware is too complex to be
arranged by anyone who wants to; it requires a large, official
organization, hospitals and surgeons, all of which will be subject to
the laws of the country.
///
I'm hoping one of you will be able to get us unstuck, or at least
articulate WHY we're stuck. Are my speculations on the initial "iPlant
breakthrough into society" realistic? I.e. as a therapy for obesity
that has so many health-advantages associated with it that it quickly
becomes quite common. Personally I'm really interested in what the
public debate would/will look like at that point - I call it a point
where 10% of the population have an iPlant, two or three percent more
than the number of US americans currently on antidepressants, but I
don't think the numbers are too important, 0.01%-10%, call it what you
will, what will the public debate look like at that point? Imagine
that those 0.01%-10% have iPlants that ONLY motivates themselves to do
exercise for 1-2 hours per day, but that there is already significant
pressure on the manufacturer (and by extension the government?) to
allow additional programs for motivating other behaviors (studying
Chinese say). Say it works really well. What would people say? How
would people and politicians and the media relate to all this? Who
would hate it? Who would love it?
One technical detail to remember is that relying too much on one's
iPlant brain stimulation reward function for motivation would probably
be detrimental to one's ability to exercise self-discipline without
the help of the implant. Therefore there may be a 'natural' limit to
how much people can use it. Specifically it may be prudent to limit
the use of iPlant-motivation to times when you normally wouldn't be
doing anything that required self-dicipline. So if you exercise on
average an hour every week you should by NO means use your iPlant to
make that hour 'easier', you should keep doing that one hour,
preferably more, and then on top of that you could add that extra hour
on the running machine each day that your health so sorely craves, at
a time when normally you'd be watching TV or procrastinating online. I
hope that makes sense. It suggests that iPlant users would not take on
the personality of junkies. This technical problem seems, at least in
theory, like something that could eventually be solved, but at the
time when these public discussions I'm wondering about would be taking
place, they may define the scenario.
On Mar 19, 5:39 pm, "Christopher Harris"
<christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> it should say:
> *"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not a good model for the
> singularity"*
>
> not:
> *"I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not the singularity"*
>
> my bad, i've changed it now. but i think it's clear in the rest of the post
> that i'm saying:
> *speculation about the iPlant = a good model for the singularity*
> my bad, i've changed it now. but i think it's clear in the rest of the post
> that i'm saying:
> (or as the title says: *iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity*)
>
> the reason i'm bringing the dreaded Singularity term in here is that the
> technological singularity is defined as a point in time beyond which
> technological progress is such that we can no longer imagine what will
> happen, there's an 'event horizon'. i am not convinced that the time between
> the first hundred iPlants enter clinical trials and their being used by 10%
> of the population is THAT hard to characterize, otherwise i wouldn't try to
> do it, but we could certainly use some help. and if it turns out to be
> impossible to reach any consensus, well then it's a singularity as good as
> any.
>
> the reason i'm bringing the dreaded Singularity term in here is that the
> technological singularity is defined as a point in time beyond which
> technological progress is such that we can no longer imagine what will
> happen, there's an 'event horizon'. i am not convinced that the time between
> the first hundred iPlants enter clinical trials and their being used by 10%
> of the population is THAT hard to characterize, otherwise i wouldn't try to
> do it, but we could certainly use some help. and if it turns out to be
> impossible to reach any consensus, well then it's a singularity as good as
> any.
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > no. no no no.
>
> > you start out so well and then you slip into transhumanist bullcrap
> > after all. the iPlant = singularity. please.
>
> > maybe i just dont understand the term "singularity" but as a scientist
> > i refuse to let it into my vocab anyway.
>
> > btw, monoamines are merely neuromodulators. it's not okay to ignore
> > all the other neurotransmitters when talking about a neuroscientific
> > model of the mind (or M1 if you wanna sound posh and knowledgable) and
> > you know that.
>
> > ...
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:30 pm, Christopher
> > <christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > The post is currently available
> > athttp://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-s...
>
> > > What do you think?>
> > no. no no no.
>
> > you start out so well and then you slip into transhumanist bullcrap
> > after all. the iPlant = singularity. please.
>
> > maybe i just dont understand the term "singularity" but as a scientist
> > i refuse to let it into my vocab anyway.
>
> > btw, monoamines are merely neuromodulators. it's not okay to ignore
> > all the other neurotransmitters when talking about a neuroscientific
> > model of the mind (or M1 if you wanna sound posh and knowledgable) and
> > you know that.
>
> > ...
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:30 pm, Christopher
> > <christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > The post is currently available
> > athttp://brainimplant.blogspot.com/2008/03/iplant-philosophy-model-of-s...
>
Christopher
Mar 23, 2008, 10:50:39 AM3/23/08
to iPlant
That last convoluted sentence should read:
public discussions I'm wondering about.
On Mar 23, 2:42 pm, Christopher
This technical problem seems, at least in theory, like something that
could eventually be solved, but it may come to define these initial
public discussions I'm wondering about.
On Mar 23, 2:42 pm, Christopher
antropos
Mar 23, 2008, 4:51:32 PM3/23/08
to iPlant
Personally, and I read the article on Future Blogger, I got the
feeling that this entire idea about the iPlant feels quite keen to me
as a tool to help a certain part of society. And in extend to that,
yes there will always be reasons to dismiss something, also concerning
the iPlant.
But honestly, I read allot of good reasons why we should do it and why
we shouldn't. And I'm quite sure that we can keep on doing this for
quite some time. So what I'm trying to say is. Would it not be handy
to formulate all these opinions and bundle them into some wiki or
something. Getting them ready for a book that one day the general
public can read, full of examples of where an iPlant can be relevant
etc. So you can get a real public debate and go defend this issue in
public with the book in hand.
The thing is that there will always be major complications to new
technologies. Only I suggest to handle those when they appear! (I
know, sounds pragmatic..) Guided by a book full of ethical concerns
(of which we've read allot around here and on the website). Well, I
talk about a book, but it can be any manuscript really that formulates
the ethical pitfalls we must watch out for when getting this
technologie into real live.
So my conclusion is that we might have to start looking for the real
thing. Finding testing material (human or animal) to start an
experiment by case. Lets say we look for an highly obese someone and
try to put this idea into action. Taking in consideration the possible
complications etc.
Not that I have the knowledge to start such a research. But would be
very willing to cooperate.
feeling that this entire idea about the iPlant feels quite keen to me
as a tool to help a certain part of society. And in extend to that,
yes there will always be reasons to dismiss something, also concerning
the iPlant.
But honestly, I read allot of good reasons why we should do it and why
we shouldn't. And I'm quite sure that we can keep on doing this for
quite some time. So what I'm trying to say is. Would it not be handy
to formulate all these opinions and bundle them into some wiki or
something. Getting them ready for a book that one day the general
public can read, full of examples of where an iPlant can be relevant
etc. So you can get a real public debate and go defend this issue in
public with the book in hand.
The thing is that there will always be major complications to new
technologies. Only I suggest to handle those when they appear! (I
know, sounds pragmatic..) Guided by a book full of ethical concerns
(of which we've read allot around here and on the website). Well, I
talk about a book, but it can be any manuscript really that formulates
the ethical pitfalls we must watch out for when getting this
technologie into real live.
So my conclusion is that we might have to start looking for the real
thing. Finding testing material (human or animal) to start an
experiment by case. Lets say we look for an highly obese someone and
try to put this idea into action. Taking in consideration the possible
complications etc.
Not that I have the knowledge to start such a research. But would be
very willing to cooperate.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages