A sixth path towards the singularity? (response to Vernor Vinge)

http://neurocrank.blogspot.com/2008/06/sixth-path-towards-singularity.html

by pygy • 18 years ago

2 3 18 years ago

neurocrank.blogspot.com

pygy2• 18 years ago

Blogger/Blogspot is down half of the time ATM... Sorry about this.

Here's the full text :

Vernor Vinge recently reviewed various singularity scenarios advanced by experts in the field in the latest issue of the IEEE Spectrum magazine:

- The AI Scenario: We create superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) in computers.

- The IA Scenario: We enhance human intelligence through human-to-computer interfaces—that is, we achieve intelligence amplification (IA).

- The Biomedical Scenario: We directly increase our intelligence by improving the neurological operation of our brains.

- The Internet Scenario: Humanity, its networks, computers, and databases become sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

- The Digital Gaia Scenario: The network of embedded microprocessors becomes sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

He gives lots of insights, but I think there's an option missing which has never discussed as far as I know. I already posted this as a comment on the journal page, but I think it's worth it's own entry.

Here's the idea: what would be the implications of using micro-electrode arrays currently used for BCI to implement direct, bidirectional brain to brain communication?

Since it has never been tried, even in animals, and since we have no idea if it could ever work, the following points are strictly speculative (yet not gratuitous, but very exciting as it's often the case with speculative stuff ;-).

Here are a few topics worth envisioning, assuming the feat is possible:

Technical issues.

- Avoid triggering epilepsy because of the new neuronal circuits (duh...)

- Where to put electrodes? A priori I'd put the arrays on the fronto-parietal associative networks of the convexity. Connecting medial (self related), or prefrontal, volitional structures could also be interresting, as would connecting together areas naturally unrelated to each other (even in a single brain, this could enable great synesthesia... yum!). - Learning to communicate at a low level should't be problematic. The fundamental function of any cortical module is to communicate with another cortical module. I don't think that they would be affected by being located in different heads.

Ethical / transhuman issues.

- Higher level cooperation: assuming that communication is really possible, would we become smarter or dumber? Would we be able to cooperate, or would it be distracting, disruptive, and in the end ineffective? Would we simply tolerate the process?

- First person experience / phenomenal consciousness: Would we experience another person's perception/cognition? What about a non delusional influence syndrome?

- Identity and individual self. Would this create a human "super-being", or two superhuman beings?

- Trans-species, hybrid communication (assuming some animals are better than us at processing some kind of specialized information).

- Developing a Brainternet? Could it be possible to scale B2B communication beyond a one to one setting, allowing global cognition?

... all of this assuming that the monkeys we'll use for preliminary experiments don't outsmart then extinguish us ...

runs away

stcredzero• 18 years ago

This is just the IA scenario.

pygy2• 18 years ago

IA is based on a hypothetical man-machine symbiosis, with direct brain to computer interfaces.

Here we tap into the power of other's people minds, and of what would happen if we could think collaboratively.

This is more of a mix between the IA and the internet scenario, except it's technically possible to implement it right now (ethical issues aside, of course).

A sixth path towards the singularity? (response to Vernor Vinge)

Related Stories