The Huffington Post | Ray Kurzweil, Google’s Director of Engineering, wants to bring the dead back to life
December 28, 2012
Source: The Huffington Post — December 28, 2012
Inventor Ray Kurzweil hopes to develop ways for humans to live forever, and while he’s at it, bring back his dead father. Behind him is the support of a tech giant. This month, Kurzweil, a futurist, stepped into the role of Director of Engineering at Google, focusing on machine learning and language processing.
“There is a lot of suffering in the world,” Kurzweil once said, according to Bloomberg. “Some of it can be overcome if we have the right solutions.”
Since his father’s death in 1970, Kurzweil has stored his keepsakes in hopes the data will one day be fed into a computer capable of creating a virtual version of him, Bloomberg reported. Interestingly, one of his novels lays out how humans might “transcend biology.” [...]
Comments (22)
by Whittaker
I recommend the essay “Pigs in Cyberspace” by roboticist Hans Moravec.
http://www.primitivism.com/pigs.htm
(Funny that when I type the essay’s name in Google’s search box, the first page show up is inside a website called “Primitivism”. I find this kind of ironic.)
In the essay, he mentioned:
“… But, once in a long while, humans do think of bacteria, even particular individual bacteria seen in particular microscopes. Similarly, a cyberbeing may occasionally bring to mind a human event of the distant past. If a sufficiently powerful mind makes a sufficiently large effort, such recall could occur with great detail — call it high fidelity.”
In the future we might perform exactly as he said: ancestor simulation inside supercomputers. Virtual existence for our resurrected historical persons may cost less to support them than real, material existence.
Such simulation will allow the resurrected people to not only re-live their previous lives, and also live all other possible lives (with sufficient computing power, a posthuman civilization may run simulation of all possible life stories, similar to how Deep Blue compute all possible chess moves, albeit they, if they are benevolent beings, will probably prune out those that involves pain and suffering of a sentient being).
by Ashley
Is it just me or does the Huffington Post suck?
by Gabriel
A headline like that is sure all it takes for someone whose never heard of things like this to groan, laugh and turn away without really reading it….it would be more helpful for people who, say, have never heard of Kurzweil to have articles that doesn’t throw bombs like he wants to bring back his father in their faces.
by Mr.X
“For people who are more inclined to psychics/Forteana/homeopathy etc:”
—> pseudoscience;) More inclined- a sign wishful thinking?
“It is claimed (by some)”
Who?
” usually have many coincidences throughout their lives”
Having the same genetics, and living at the same / similiar places would certainly help right, show me how these alleged coincidences are statistically significant.
“Surely the Singularity will be very interesting for even Terrans/Primitivists.”
I think it would be stressful for most people (if they are like humans are today).
Let me elaborate: When I was younger I read up on gamedesign after my first “mediocre” trials at making games.There I encountered an interesting model.
The complexity of a game has a relationship with the emotional arousal it can induce that can be described as going along a continuum, relative to the intelligence of the individual playing the game.
On the left, relatively low complexity bores the player.Tic-tac-toe may be interesting to children or the mentally disabled, but a normal adult would prefer something more challenging.
In the middle lies the individual’s (or target group’s) “sweet-spot.”
If the engagement is just right (leaving out other off-topic stuff), a game can be addictive.
On the right are games that are to hard for the normal person, but maybe at the sweet spot for “non-casuals”; nerds and Asians(^^; in Japan and Korea they release certain games with an extra difficulty level).If it is too hard, most persons respond with stress, frustration, and give up.
Taking this model (which is suitable for many kinds of media, or even normal tasks—> strategic multi-tasking—>cleaning your room while listening to something) and looking at the singularity in it’s mindblowing complexity makes me think it will be a stressfull process for almost anyone.
Look at todays political situation, where most people without basic understanding of economy,media, diplomacy, strategy, critical thinking etc either give up on understanding entirely or revert to / fall prey to simplistic, nice feeling explanations, or “group think”, which sometimes even contain(s) extremism.
Humans without training can’t stand change in higher doses, especially not extremely complex change.
Have a nice day.
Ps:Sometimes labeling people is like trying to see better by creating clouds with a device so that they block your field of vision.
by Mr.X
Damned; should be a reply to whittaker down there;)
by Bri
Think of it like this, though you might think this is wishful thinking on my part. Then again it just might be a form of superstitious animistic belief system, but I believe that we are mice stuck in a maze, and there is a big cat guarding us. We think we are smart mice and we try to run, but that cat is waiting and bammmm!!! That reply to Whiticker is gone into a big black hole, and a long furry tale is wagging. It’s just my own personal belief system now, as I madly scramble for an exit! Maybe even wishful thinking!
by Mr.X
An animistic belief system could often be subsumed under wishful thinking; as a special manifestation; depending on the motivation to believe something like that;).
Notice: I don’t claim this makes it automatically wrong especially since, when thinking about the physical world as opposed to metaphysical systems, I tend to adhere to a more propabalistic approach.
Why I do so would be too much to write in this comment, and it would be partly off-topic.I just wanted to make you aware of the difference (or, that there is a difference).
I don’t think your beliefs (as I know them) are wrong, I think their truth is unlikely, given the limited information I have.Very often, I simply notice I don’t know and refrain from forming an (strong) opinion before gathering the necessary information.And even then, I always have to be ready to “update my beliefs”.
“We think we are smart mice”
I guess most people with a decent knowledge of science and physics, who don’t fail at skill-transfer, know that we objectively can’t be smart compared to the intelligence of physically possible entities.
Btw, not believing the conclusions of the last paragraph means not believing in the singularity, since the (associated!?) explosion of intelligence would have to be ruled out as impossible.
We are only relativly smart compared to the other “products” of evolution that we know of, and about whom our knowledge is deep enough to make this evalution (many animals have been found to be much smarter than “mankind” initially thought).
In the moment in which a person with a phd, a doctor, a scientist, etc fails to transfer his “thinking-skills”/methodology while reasoning, his claims are as good (or bad, depending on your point of view;)) as anyone’s else (barring the fact that the “general knowledge” of such a person tends to exceed the gk of an average person, and he [or she] thus has more information at hand to make a “judgment”).
That’s why a converted, famous scientist wouldn’t make me convert, if he doesn’t tell me something I didn’t already know, which also meets certain criteria.Facts are preferable to social proof.
Your worldview seems to be theistic (the big cat?),animistic etc.
It seems to resemble what many spiritual/esoteric disciplines teach (broadly).
If your beliefs were to be true, “bringing back” other people wouldn’t be nearly as important as people like Mr.Kurzweil think.
Whether he rejects this kind of belief system (as his actions imply) on the grounds of classical logic (computer guy; nah, unlikely^^), other kinds of self-interest as those he states, or because he doesn’t like the odds…
I tend to agree with him in so far as I’d like to see the technology whose development he tries to accelerate come into being before everybody I know is dead (who’d bring me back, then!? ^^).
” We think we are smart mice and we try to run, but that cat is waiting and bammmm!!That reply to Whiticker is gone into a big black hole, and a long furry tale is wagging. ”
In this case it is not unlikely that the editor is part of the cat, maybe a paw (bammm)!?
by Whittaker
I recommend (you probably have already heard of it) the wonderful website Lesswrong.com headed by Eliezer Yudkowsky.
They have great discussions on rationality, Bayesian statistics, artificial intelligence, futurism and many more interesting topics. They have a comment-voting system though.
By the way, my previous post was not meant to be serious.
“For people who are more inclined to psychics/Forteana/homeopathy etc:”
I should have add “not including me”.
I apologize for advocating superstitious beliefs that I don’t personally believe in.
by Mats Svensson
Is it alive or is it, memroex?
by Israel Silverman
I don’t believe that a virtual version of him will be him. It may be good enough to pass the Father Turing Test. It may even be good enough to become self-aware, and be certain that it is Father.
But it will not be. If I take a really good picture of something, it is not the something. If I model perfectly a 3-D object I saw, it is not the object. I have no reason to think that if I increase the level of complexity by any given factor that this basic logic will change.
From another approach, if the father did not die, but Kurzweil took his keepsakes and made another him, at any level of reproduction, it’s clear that while the new “Father” may consider himself the “real” father, he is not, even if both are self-aware.
This raises interesting questions of what it is to be conscious, and human, and these have been well explored to date in science fiction,
by Jonas Stewart
Israel, What you are describing sounds like essentialism. That there is an essence in things that can’t be copied. Its so engrained in human psychology, that we believe in it at a young age. In an episode of Through the Wormhole “Did we invent god” there is a section on from Bruce Hood on this topic.
In Kurzweil’s movie, he talks about reconstructing this father, but also if I remember correctly the concept that the essence of who we are is more like information, and that people life on as information in our brains for example, that we can construct a model of people long dead to help us ponder through problems. Much like a computer can simulate a weather system to see if a Hurricane warning needs to be issued.
Do we NEED an original. Are we original? Both of us are not even constructed of the same atoms that we had when we we’re 10. We’ve been atom by atom entirely replaced, yet we seem to have a continuous consciousness.
I think it’s obliviously that once we create perfect replica of a person down to the atom, they would instantly diverge into 2 separate people as their circumstances are different, even if it’s that they are 5 ft apart from one another. Their context is not identical. More like super identical twins.
All fun stuff to ponder :)
by louis
Jonas, you point out the interesting fact that although our atoms that make up our brain are replaced, we still feel as though we are continuous. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities that can explain this. One is that actually we are not continuous and it is only through our copied memories that we have the illusion of being continuous at that moment in time. The second is that another substance that has not been detected by science is actually continuous and is able to remain throughout atomic replacement. It seems that copying from one atom to another may explain memory and information but not the thing that is experiencing this. How otherwise is it possible for the experiencer of this memory and consciounsess to continue? Surely you can’t copy the experiencer if they are made of different atoms.
by R. Wolf
Continuity is important… I wonder if stepping into an artificial brain or body would be like turning on a copy and killing the original . You might be left alive for 10 seconds, long enough to view your doppelgänger wake up across the room and proclaim “wow it worked! Continuity shmontinuity!”, before you suddenly feel dread and cry out “wait! Don’t kill me its not really me STOP!” but too late , the procedure is finished and they already believe the new “you” is the real you. Then blackness. Forever. Or do you somehow get magically awarded a new camera-point in the world when your old view stops transmitting, perhaps like waking up after a nights sleep? Maybe they should do body swaps while you are asleep. What if you wake up as a walnut?
by Whittaker
Do not fear death. Do not fear oblivion.
We go somewhere.
by Mr.X
Could someone please explain the expression “wishful thinking” for me!?Thanks in advance!
by Bri
It implies that it can’t happen. That what you are asking for is only a wish with no chance of becoming real. If I had a million dollars, all my problems would be solved is an example of wishful thinking.
by Mr.X
I implied that this “Do not fear death. Do not fear oblivion.
We go somewhere. ” is wishful thinking;)
That’s why I answered the comment directly.
Wishful thinking: Thinking that reaches it’s conclusions by having one’s own desires, wishes (etc) as main criteria for acceptence of said conclusions, filtering out the subjectively inconvenient in the process.
Nonetheless, thank you for your kindness:)
Thinking that just copying oneself means you won’t die is another example of wishful thinking.The copy will be an individual itself, all else being equal.
These copies may do more for your relatives (or the copies of your relatives, having the same experiences as basis as the original persons; and so on) than yourself^^
Bty: None of the proponents of the “it’s you” theory had any convincing arguments, afaik, and most of what they say boils down to “argument ad ignorantiam”.
E.g I can’t think how it is different from me, so it must be me.If I say: Continuity and context make all the difference- they say:Nah, that’s not true.
And they leave it at that.
Wishful thinking.
That the singularity must be a good thing is also wishful thinking,
If this site had a system like youtube for rating the approval of the “audience” my comment would probably, if it is not tldr, get downvoted till it’s noted as spam, for saying this.
Anyway; have a nice day.
by Bri
Oh trust me, I think it’s wishful thinking too. It will take a lot of work to overcome many tendencies. Needless to say I have a different take on the death issue, and feel it’s a little more than wishful thinking, but your point is taken. Playing lotto is wishful thinking, but somebody wins. Perspective and relativity, it’s hard to speak in absolutes. There is always a wildcats in the mix. The unexpected, unforeseen outcome that alters everything that you thought was right.. Ahhhhh to each his own!
by Mr.X
By saying it is wishful thinking that lead to a certain conclusion I didn’t say it is impossible for the conclusion to be true.Doing so would be certainly irrational.
I just wanted to point out that, if we want to be rational and consistent in our thinking, which we should in order to maximize the occasions in which we get as near to the truth as we can (in a given moment), we should prefere those conclusions that seem objectively more likely, given our current information (evidence).
This helps us “to win at life” in the same way a more accurate map allows us to “better” reach our destination.
Wishful thinking is based on something inside you, a something that tends to have rather low correlations with “what’s really out there”.It can’t compare to the use of the scientific method.
Given what we know of evolution, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to us.
What you mention there is already known to most well-educated (in science, no moral judgement) persons, e.g in popular culture it is sometimes refered to as black swan (when an unexpected event occurs that leads us to massively revise our view of reality, to “update” our probabilities).
As I wrote before, I don’t think our ca 1,5kg brains can really crasp “absolute truths.”; given the complexity of our universe.
“Playing lotto is wishful thinking, but somebody wins. ”
Common mathematical intuition would lead one to expect this.And?In the complete set of players, the set of “losers” is much larger.Thus, all else being equal, you are more likely to lose.
Using this analogy, you shouldn’t play, especially given the other alternatives to increase your wealth.Of course, this depends on the values you assign to the other usages of money.
Would you trust a financial advisor that tells you to “just play lotto”!?
I wouldn’t ;)
by Whittaker
(This is actually a reply to the comment by Mr.X underneath)
“As I wrote before, I don’t think our ca 1,5kg brains can really crasp “absolute truths.”; given the complexity of our universe.”
Think about it: to understand the “absolute truth”, a human mind (in your opinion) cannot suffice and must be expanded.
But after the expansion, the total complexity of the universe actually increased (ignoring the increasing in cosmic global entropy) because *your brain* had grow more complex.
(According to the nomenlectures of AI, a “Strong AI” is an AI that is qualitatively better, in other words complexier, and not just quantitatively larger-memoried faster-CPUed, see the Wikipedia entry on AI).
And of course, concomitant to your augmentation is the augmentation of everyone else, which results in the Technological Singularity. To understand this even complexier world, your mind must be further expanded (or else you risk to be left behind in a MOSH retire home, living on the mercy of unpredictable AI servants).
This expansion should accumulate and result in another Singularity. (Akin to the “Subliming” from Iain Banks’ Culture series, see http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-future-might-be-a-hoot-how-iain-m-banks-imagines-utopia).
And after that should be, by induction, another singularity.
IMO, we will never reach a state that we can fully understand the universe down to every detail. It, to me, is not a quantitative problem, but a goal that is by its nature simply not possible.
But that also imply that sentient lifeforms can grow indefinitely and incredible height of noetics can be achieved.
Will there be an infinite number of Singularities? Of course, we know that we are ultimately constrained by the laws of physics and the total amount of matter and energy available in this universe.
But perhaps colonization to other universes is possible, and it may be proven that the multiverse (in astrophysicists’ term) is truly infinite.
If that is the case, then there is no end to the growth of intelligence.
by Whittaker
“Or do you somehow get magically awarded a new camera-point in the world when your old view stops transmitting, perhaps like waking up after a nights sleep?”
I believe that, even if your camera-point (sounds to me somehow akin to the concept of “consciousness”, which is said by some to reside physically in the pineal gland of the brain) suddenly magically shifted (not to a copy-body, but let’s say to another, totally different, human being), you will not notice it.
We should differ “transfer of consciousness” from “transplantation of brain”. (I personally don’t believe in a supernatural soul and do not like lengthy, and often fruitless, discussions on the “nature of consciousness”.)
If my brain is transplanted to another body (with a vacant cranium for my brain that is), then I will retain my memory and my physical skills (presuming that “physical skills” exist as connection-patterns in the somatosensory lobes and the cerebellum of human brain).
I will wake up and find myself in a different body with a different face. I probably will have to take some time to adapt to the new body (e.g. some of my physical skills may need to be retrained as they need to connect to the muscles of the new body, and I probably have to psychological adapt as well).
But if none of my brain, except for the so-called “consciousness” (for people who believe in that the pineal gland is the house of consciousness, let’s say a pineal gland transplantation), is transplanted, I will wake up and notice nothing. I will possess my host’s memory and physical skills, therefore I will believe that I *am* the host, and that I life was exactly as the host’s memories tell me that his/her was.
It will be somehow like the belief in reincarnation of Hindus and Buddhists.
Despite that the consciousness (or soul) is transfered to a new body, most (except for the supernatural cases) children are born with no memories or skills retained from their past lives. To allow a child to remember his/her past life (supposing the reincarnation process is real), there must be physical changes done to his/her brain.
“What if you wake up as a walnut?”
In my opinion, you will suddenly 1) recieve no sensory input, 2) cannot react to your sudden lose of sensory input because of lack of efficators, 3) do *not* feel panic because no emotion centre exist in your brain. Actually, you do not possess a brain (as a walnut).
I recommend (another, as I have posted Hans Moravec essays on this page before) essay by Hans Moravec, “Dualism through Reductionism”. Although of course there are more stimulating and aesthetically enhanced discussions in science fiction literatures.
http://www.primitivism.com/Reductionism.htm
by Whittaker
For people who are more inclined to psychics/Forteana/homeopathy etc:
It is claimed (by some) that identical twins usually have many coincidences throughout their lives (and even psychic links).
If we can create a duplicate through a far future 3D printer, will some form of psychic/supernatural link spontaneous emerge at the moment when the copy is complete?
Surely the Singularity will be very interesting for even Terrans/Primitivists.