Perhaps today I wish to eliminate my sex and other monkey drives and stay logically focused on an interesting pursuit. Perhaps tonight I wish to indulge with friends in tremendous feelings of joy and connectedness.

This vision is all dependent on control of one mental aspect… that of addiction.
As we achieve and receive the “keys to the kingdom” it’s possible that our ability to induce pleasure may out-race our ability on an individual level (for drug addicts it already has!). But overall as a species I believe we are moving towards obtaining the keys to control addiction and our mental states.
In 15-20 years, the social workers of that day may take you to “rehab” where your mind is restored to sanity and you are rescued from a personal loss of control. But simple progress will ensure that it is a far faster and more effective recovery than today’s rehab. During this process they will probably remind you you are able to put an automatically maintained time limit on your mental emotional excesses in advance so that your self-loss to pleasure can be regained automatically.

The real fear as I see it is not an uncontrolled spin into pleasure-addiction.

Rather it is one of identity. When we are given the ability to control these emotional levels, we are receiving the ability to define and even change who we are. Who is the “real” Mark? The one that naturally lets himself spin out of control because his monkey brain loves positive-pleasure feedback loops? Or the logical Mark that objectively analyzes his world? Or the motivated Mark that can evangelize excitedly to a group?

When, through technology, we are given the ability to significantly change our mental states, who we are will come into question, not just in an existential and philosophical manner… but from from an objective onlooker’s perspective, a legal perspective, and even from a personal selection perspective.

We may not be friends with entire persons in the future… but rather aspects of us may become friends with aspects of another person. Imagine asking someone’s mobile device, “what aspect is Mark running today? Does he have any plans to go “social-athletic motivated” in the next week? If so, schedule me to go “social-athletic” also with some court time.”

For me the big questions about trans-human evolution are not about addiction, but rather: “When I can be anybody, Who am I?”

With respect, those who say, ‘we cannot fathom what the post Singularity world will be like, so it’s useless to worry about whatever’, I would disagree.

We are the parents of the Singularity, if you will, and while the technology will obviously change our perceptions of every facet of our interactions with each other and the universe at large, it is up to us living here and now to contemplate these issues, and perhaps frame the debate prior to the technology that will encompass us arrives. Historically, we have been terrible at developing the ethics/laws that surround a technological advancement until well after the cow has left the barn (music and the internet come to mind).

Personally, I am concerned about the line that will be drawn between individual identity versus collectivization. I’m all for enhanced sensory input and a body that is in perfect health forever, but I’m not sure the price of my own identity is worth it. My hope is that there is some agreement in principle on how technology is to be implemented prior to the technology itself being created.

1 “Let the crazy people have a piece of the future pie”
or
2 “Let the crazy people play a part in determining what the future pie is”?

In my view:
1 Don’t worry, no one is excluded.
2 Crazy people won’t play a part in shaping the future because they’re crazy. They’ve never been involved, and neither will they be now. Sorry. (By ‘crazy’ I mean the people the article talks about, people with various degrees of eccentricity.)

No insane person ever did anything that a sane person couldn’t but didn’t choose to because doing sane things was more productive, creative, and beautiful. Sanity always wins unless what you want to see are the results of insanity.

Evolve beyond what is vital to the monkey-mind. Perhaps satisfaction of curiosity, pursuit of the unknown, discovery and invention will become most important. Where does the endless motivation come from though; could there eventually be an idle machine, dormant? The hand teaches the mind. In this new virtual realm without hands and the anchor or limited biological reality, would there be profound, novel mental hazards? A riddle or puzzle encountered which consumed all of the processing power, a new form of a fracturing of the intellect, etc.?

it seems inevitable that (somehow, someone )will come to the conclusion that for the greater good some must be desroyed, or the at least the parts
that make us us!

who will own this technology?

is this my right to have this?

and a trillion other questions!
its so easy to dream of better times but its irresponsible to not plan for the worst.

I could imagine various of such groups, enhanced to different levels; some might want to stay biologically the same, but get nanobots to assure a disease-free 100-year-ish lifespan, and dying in their sleep once it’s over. Basically a superbly lucky life in this day and age.

However, I am still under the impression we’re already heading in the right direction (so far).
Personally I’ve found great freedom through technology, and I’ve developed myself in myriad ways, whatever strikes my fancy really. I’m of course completely aware of how weak an argument that is scientifically. I’ll think about standards by which to measure freedom of non-conformity, and perhaps we’ll get to discuss them at some later time. I’m sure there are some decent ones to be found.

Yes. Think of it as a reality check or meme bank. These “terrans” (in Hugo de Garis lingo) will need to be protected from domination or extermination by the “cosmists” (us).

“If you mean that outliers might not have a place in the coming situation.”

Yes.

“The potential for non-conformity has grown immensely the past 10 years or so, as we’ve been increasingly liberated (and connected) by (social) networks and technology”

How does one measure that? How do you know more connectedness does not also breed more conformity — and submission?

I for one do NOT welcome our new overlords.

If you mean people who’ll reject the coming influx of technologies? That just sounds horrible (for them) to me, to miss out on such a chance.

If you mean that outliers might not have a place in the coming situation, I respectfully disagree.
I think the potential for non-conformity has grown immensely the past 10 years or so, as we’ve been increasingly liberated (and connected) by (social) networks and technology. It seems clear to me that personal independence and ability to individually create will only continue to grow. These technologies have created endless opportunity for art, expression, emotion and humanity.
I think the tools of the singularity will end up doing much the same. They’ll attract people from all directions…. Though I’d love to hear more artists at the conventions, I’m convinced they’ll show up in the years to come.

I’ve always seen amplification as the most desirable option, and this is also the vibe I get from mr. Kurzweil.
If all of our brain is enhanced, there is no reason we’d end up more detached and logical – it seems very probable our capacity for Quirkiness, feeling, emotions, appreciation and the like would increase to the same extent. I’d think we’d become more of a person, and more different from one another than we’ve ever been.

I hope I understood your comment correctly and replied in a constructive manner.

I’ve read all the books. The talk about EXPONENTIAL growth. But could someone please remind me: How does an exponential approach an asymptote? And how can you have a pole (singularity) without approaching a limit? (Thank you.)

Examples of micro modification are when a routine (boring) person on a routine (boring) drive decides to take an alternate route to their destination on a whim. The personality of the individual hasn’t changed, but one small iteration of their behavior has. Examples of macro level changes are those personalities mentioned (the outliers like Dali.) In some cases, entire cultures could be considered more creative, as a whole.

This brings me back to the notion of creativity (in all its forms) emerging in a closed system as a result of entropy/noise. Similar to Dr. Thaler’s work, I foresee any number of coupled systems – like his imaginatron and perceptron – working to ensure/maximize creativity. The first system spits out ideas that are essentially the result of faulty memories (imaginatron.) [The faulty memories are the result of “noise” acting upon valid/true memories in the system.] The second system observes the faulty memories (ideas) and chooses those that are most useful. The usefulness (utility, if you prefer) is determined in context to the situation at hand.

This coupling (idea/observer) is not limited to one pair per brain. In fact, it may be repeated any number of times in one brain and between individuals in groups at all levels of society. One group serves as the idea generator and the other observes ideas and determines which are best.

Even if boring, shortsighted programmers are the only ones who design the architecture of the singularity, they cannot (intentionally or unintentionally) code out creativity; well, at least not for long. Even a boring/conformist/non-freaky/non-aberrant entity post Singularity will note the usefulness of creativity and adopt it as necessary in any instance of its behavior or personality as a whole.

In the future, Salvador Dali may seem tame by comparison.

To express things in terms of our current daily life seems folly to me.

Why would a post-singularity being abide to our current societal structure? Few of the forces and limiting factors that shaped our current situation would apply to them.

The author mentions our clever, logical monkey-mind should not be allowed to instantiate our limited ideas of the universe and everything on the universe and everything. And there should be room for freaks, hedonists and other ‘uncodable strangeness’ (help me out here? DNA is a code.). He fears we might lose that variety.

We only have freaks because they are outliers. We have limited space and resources, shared social interaction, inherited social rules, and inherited distaste for certain strangenesses.

The variety will explode post-singularity, as any fetish, desire or thought can be played out without interfering with others who dislike it, and without the worry over resources. There probably won’t be any rules in V.R.

Furthermore, whatever is interesting and entertaining to us now would be ridiculously simple for such a being. Perhaps they might still be interested in sex, but likely a heavily altered form of it, and whilst simultaneously doing dozens of things that are completely unimaginable to us.

It’s not ‘the same as now, but perfect’. It’s all a completely different game. They won’t be human by a long shot, they’ll be far more. They’ll easily transcend whatever crude vision we can dream up of them now.

A good article regardless, and an interesting read. But I can’t help but feel the concerns of the author won’t really matter in the long run. We won’t lose any of our humanity and quirks – we’ll expand on them greatly – but they’ll become an infinitesimally small part of us, and likely not all that interesting to what we’ll eventually become.

Great article!

It’s a good article of questions, much like questions preceding today sciences and technologies. The future is where we’re headed and we need to get ready for it, but I don’t believe should think like a Luddite in the process. Even if the human race simply sit around doing nothing nature would likely kill us all some day…unless you believe in a religion, of which I don’t in the formal sense, or maybe you believe some alien will save us somehow. Good lucky for those who would continue living in the past…not a most happy time for most humans.

But of course you could settle down with someone; have a conventional marriage if you wish with virtual reality, honeymoon and all the works…your children could just download everything to become essentially adults in no time at all, or you could simulate growth and play at raising a child the old-fashioned way, diapers and all.

Mind you, they can do all sorts of things all at once….they could be in that sex-paradise, and at the same time, solving topical issues….boredom and laziness simply won’t exist unless we deliberately allow it.

I explained this to Bri…you can’t blame the capabilities for a lack of willpower, especially if they are ever-accelerating.

It’s hard to say what people will do because the sex will be very good when nanocells throughout your body can regenerate all your precious bodily fluids from second to second. People will become photosynthetic so they can lie naked out in the sun and have sex that much longer without getting too hungry…or they will grow shoots to connect with trees in the forest so they can power their exertions with glucose straight from beneath the bark of a mighty oak. If they want to go for days on end, they can lie out in a farm field and take nourishment directly from growing soybeans. Even if the guy wears his penis down to a nub, if he rolls over and lays there a few minutes his nanocells will grow it right back, even larger than before.

Everything is enhanced, everything is enriched….problems will be solved, new problems will arise….we will still be every bit as human and diverse as we were before (even more so), especially when we superficially can change our personalities, experiences and so on…

Diversity isn’t an issue to worry about — I think this article is a bit concerned that we’re going to lose some irreplaceable part of our humanity in the transformation, and I don’t see that as the case….it will be enhanced and enriched; eating, drinking, sleeping etc will become enriched choices over natural necessities….

I feel the writer has nothing to worry about — again, his fears are basically the same-old fear that we’re going to end up losing some ineffable quirkiness, quality or what-have-you….that we’re going to lose ourselves somewhere in the transition and become static, dull, boring and perfect….That’s not the case at all — the post-Singularity world isn’t the end by any means….

We will be just as, even more, diverse then before….able to express and “free” ourselves more then ever before…we will be just as thwarted by the limits of our intelligence and threatened by software and nano-threats….It’s not gonna be a a perfect world (but certainly a much better one), and perhaps because of that, we’re still gonna have an array of unconventional people doing unconventional things.

Heck, you could even call the unenhanced folk the “weird” ones, the outliers who willfully choose not to join the club

I just wish R.U. Sirius would learn the difference between insure and ensure. Those sorts of errors throw me out of the flow of the words, which is something someone who writes wants to avoid.