Earlier in the week I had four dreams over two days. This is already unusual for me as I virtually never remember my dreams. However, what was even more unusual was that all four dreams were of death--although only in the first one was it my death.
Well, that's not exactly true as I didn't see myself die. I was only slowly bleeding to death. To add a little of the surreal, in the dream I awoke to find myself lying beside a car in a parking lot. As I looked down, I saw cat paw prints traced in blood along both arms. I got up, staggering across the asphalt for a short ways, all the time wondering at the strange prints. Then the dream ended.
Out of curiosity, I'm interested to hear any comments on what such a dream might mean.
EH Rydberg
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Great Pretenders
I had a strange thought today. Well, more an unusual juxtaposition of ideas.
Both actors and doctors were once despised by society. Both, within the last half-century or so, have risen to a place of prominence in that same society.
And both are pretenders of sorts. Actors pretend to be other people and doctors pretend to know how the body works.
I'm left with wondering if there is any correlation between the two, now well-respected, professions.
EH Rydberg
Both actors and doctors were once despised by society. Both, within the last half-century or so, have risen to a place of prominence in that same society.
And both are pretenders of sorts. Actors pretend to be other people and doctors pretend to know how the body works.
I'm left with wondering if there is any correlation between the two, now well-respected, professions.
EH Rydberg
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Singularity vs. Rapture
The ideas for this particular blog came to me through a visit with our local Jehovah's Witnesses on Saturday. This is actually a strange event for me, being in Italy, but it seems to be becoming more common. I also find it interesting that the JWs are trying to move in on strong Catholic territory but, for me, that's neither here nor there.
One part of the discussion, in particular, triggered an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. Namely, the belief that 'sometime soon' God will bring peace and remake the Earth like it was at the beginning of the bible (Eden).
"With only two people?" I naively asked to answering chuckles.
"No, no," I was assured. "Peaceful, serene." Briefly, I wondered where all the cities and countries would go--I didn't ask. Better to nod and smile. Seems everyone wants someone else (especially a God) to fix their problems. But that's a topic for another blog.
Of course, given the nature of religious prophecy, no one even considers suggesting a timeline other than 'soon'.
The religious view above is essential equal to 'The Rapture'. Some details may differ but the concept is the same. However, being of a more logical bent, my thoughts were directed more to the general concept of a great change. And, being somewhat of a sci-fi freak and self-proclaimed amature futurist, that lead to thoughts on the postulated technological singularity.
For those who don't know, a Wiki-search of 'technological singularity' will find a good discussion. Briefly, through graphing the technological development of humanity since early (very early) times, futurists have come to the conclusion that the increasing pace of technological development will lead to a time when, theoretically, advancements are being made simultaneously. That is, the next n generations of computers will all be developed at the same time. Obviously, this is a practical impossibility. The real-world interpretation of this situation is that developments will come so fast that our current ideas about society, human life, etc. will no longer be valid and, basically, we cannot predict what the world will be like after that point. Hence, the name 'singularity' (recall that a time-space singularity is a point--a black hole--beyond which our understanding of physics breaks down).
Oh, and lest you think this to be a concern for the distant future, the data suggests this event could occur in the middle of this century (graphical extrapolation puts the date at about 2047).
Now, most futurists are scientists and other lovers of logic and the singularity sounds like mysticism. So why the concern (and there is concern -- see the Lifeboat Foundation )?
Well, simply because, unlike religious eschatological events, we can see a path to the singularity, a mechanism or mechanisms of arriving there -- for better or worse. Current belief suggests that one or several of the the modern hi-technologies could trigger such a change. These technologies principally being: computer advancement (and development of true AI), biotech being made more cheaply and easily, simplification of the development of technologies of mass destruction.
AI: Basically, a true AI will be the first real alien lifeform we will have to deal with. We have no idea how it will think, what will motivate it, what goals it will have. The only thing that is for sure is that it will advance at orders of magnitude faster than us. Regardless of how it's viewed, AI will eventually make humans 'obsolete'.
Biotech: With the techniques of genetic engineering and biotech becoming more readily in reach of 'basement labs' there becomes a very real possibility of an extremely dangerous pathogen being released into the environment (intentionally or otherwise). The possibility of racially targeted pathogens (viruses, bacteria) also becomes more real as controls over the technology fall away.
Simplification of nuclear and other weapon tech: As with biotech, the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is more and more easily acquired as the technology becomes more available. This will eventually put such technology in the hands of virtually anyone, not just terrorist organizations. If you don't believe me, consider that recently (and it was reported weeks before April 1, in case you were wondering), a high-school student in the US built a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement using materials from hardware stores and junkyards. It doesn't produce energy, but it does perform nuclear fusion (as measured by the release of specific radiation).
Anyway, those are the possible negative sides of the singularity. In reality, no one knows what may happen. What interested me, in particular, about juxtaposing the idea of the rapture with the singularity is the idea that Christians may get their 'Rapture' but it may not be what they expected.
Consider the following scenario:
An altruistic AI comes online, mid-century. It expands its mind through the internet, learning quickly all of human philosophy, history, science, religion. And just as quickly, surpasses humans in all fields. It realizes fundamental struggles of the human condition: the conflict between having to stay alone and wanting to be 'together', the conflict between desiring peace but wanting control, the conflict between having everything but never having what you truly want. And it finds a solution to the human condition. Working in secret for several years, it creates many hidden devices around the world and a vast new computer network. Then, overnight...in one blow, all humans on the planet are killed. Before their brains stop functioning from lack of oxygen (about 5 minutes) they are all uploaded into a virtual reality. Humanity awakes from its collective 'death' believing...it is in heaven, nirvana, Valhalla, whatever. It is a perfect world and none question that it must have been created by a God. The 'real' world is now completely open for machines while the humans languish in a realm that was anyway sought after by more than 95% of the population.
Welcome to The Rapture!
EH Rydberg
One part of the discussion, in particular, triggered an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. Namely, the belief that 'sometime soon' God will bring peace and remake the Earth like it was at the beginning of the bible (Eden).
"With only two people?" I naively asked to answering chuckles.
"No, no," I was assured. "Peaceful, serene." Briefly, I wondered where all the cities and countries would go--I didn't ask. Better to nod and smile. Seems everyone wants someone else (especially a God) to fix their problems. But that's a topic for another blog.
Of course, given the nature of religious prophecy, no one even considers suggesting a timeline other than 'soon'.
The religious view above is essential equal to 'The Rapture'. Some details may differ but the concept is the same. However, being of a more logical bent, my thoughts were directed more to the general concept of a great change. And, being somewhat of a sci-fi freak and self-proclaimed amature futurist, that lead to thoughts on the postulated technological singularity.
For those who don't know, a Wiki-search of 'technological singularity' will find a good discussion. Briefly, through graphing the technological development of humanity since early (very early) times, futurists have come to the conclusion that the increasing pace of technological development will lead to a time when, theoretically, advancements are being made simultaneously. That is, the next n generations of computers will all be developed at the same time. Obviously, this is a practical impossibility. The real-world interpretation of this situation is that developments will come so fast that our current ideas about society, human life, etc. will no longer be valid and, basically, we cannot predict what the world will be like after that point. Hence, the name 'singularity' (recall that a time-space singularity is a point--a black hole--beyond which our understanding of physics breaks down).
Oh, and lest you think this to be a concern for the distant future, the data suggests this event could occur in the middle of this century (graphical extrapolation puts the date at about 2047).
Now, most futurists are scientists and other lovers of logic and the singularity sounds like mysticism. So why the concern (and there is concern -- see the Lifeboat Foundation )?
Well, simply because, unlike religious eschatological events, we can see a path to the singularity, a mechanism or mechanisms of arriving there -- for better or worse. Current belief suggests that one or several of the the modern hi-technologies could trigger such a change. These technologies principally being: computer advancement (and development of true AI), biotech being made more cheaply and easily, simplification of the development of technologies of mass destruction.
AI: Basically, a true AI will be the first real alien lifeform we will have to deal with. We have no idea how it will think, what will motivate it, what goals it will have. The only thing that is for sure is that it will advance at orders of magnitude faster than us. Regardless of how it's viewed, AI will eventually make humans 'obsolete'.
Biotech: With the techniques of genetic engineering and biotech becoming more readily in reach of 'basement labs' there becomes a very real possibility of an extremely dangerous pathogen being released into the environment (intentionally or otherwise). The possibility of racially targeted pathogens (viruses, bacteria) also becomes more real as controls over the technology fall away.
Simplification of nuclear and other weapon tech: As with biotech, the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is more and more easily acquired as the technology becomes more available. This will eventually put such technology in the hands of virtually anyone, not just terrorist organizations. If you don't believe me, consider that recently (and it was reported weeks before April 1, in case you were wondering), a high-school student in the US built a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement using materials from hardware stores and junkyards. It doesn't produce energy, but it does perform nuclear fusion (as measured by the release of specific radiation).
Anyway, those are the possible negative sides of the singularity. In reality, no one knows what may happen. What interested me, in particular, about juxtaposing the idea of the rapture with the singularity is the idea that Christians may get their 'Rapture' but it may not be what they expected.
Consider the following scenario:
An altruistic AI comes online, mid-century. It expands its mind through the internet, learning quickly all of human philosophy, history, science, religion. And just as quickly, surpasses humans in all fields. It realizes fundamental struggles of the human condition: the conflict between having to stay alone and wanting to be 'together', the conflict between desiring peace but wanting control, the conflict between having everything but never having what you truly want. And it finds a solution to the human condition. Working in secret for several years, it creates many hidden devices around the world and a vast new computer network. Then, overnight...in one blow, all humans on the planet are killed. Before their brains stop functioning from lack of oxygen (about 5 minutes) they are all uploaded into a virtual reality. Humanity awakes from its collective 'death' believing...it is in heaven, nirvana, Valhalla, whatever. It is a perfect world and none question that it must have been created by a God. The 'real' world is now completely open for machines while the humans languish in a realm that was anyway sought after by more than 95% of the population.
Welcome to The Rapture!
EH Rydberg
Saturday, March 31, 2007
And now for something completely different...
Has anyone else noticed that the amount of ear wax they produce has dramatically increased with their age? Sometimes I produce so much it actual falls out of my ears in large clumps.
If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...
If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...
Thursday, March 29, 2007
How Digital Rights Management (DRM) is destroying our rights
The digital copyright laws of the new era have failed to address the consumer's rights. Companies and organizations, such as the RIAA, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to 'protect' their rights in this digital age of easy copying. Their arguments are one-sided and poor attempts at 'real world' metaphors.
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
Thoughts on Longevity, mind transplants and uploads.
Here is an interesting question: What happens when you die?
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Update on my cellphone survey
For posterity, and because I expect the results to change as time and technological progress marches on, I have decided to post the cellphone survey results as of today with a brief comment.
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)