Flip flop
If the magnetic field reverses, can I repaint the red north dot with a white one on my Brunton and the red north dot on my Suunto with a black one?
Or do I need a new set of compasses? Are the hiking goods emporia ready for this? Has Mr. Ridge been notified?
Re: Flip flop
Dear Virgil,
Take a look at the magnetic field lines in the second an thirdOriginally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
> If the magnetic field reverses, can I repaint the red north dot
> with a white one on my Brunton and the red north dot on my Suunto
> with a black one?
> Or do I need a new set of compasses? Are the hiking goods emporia
> ready for this? Has Mr. Ridge been notified?
graphics:
I suspect your compass might be spinning like a top.
John
Oh-Ohh!
I guess I had better mark my trails with bread crumbs. Thanks!
Yo. Lost Sv. Virgil K. Saari :shock: :shock: :shock:
Re: NYT: COLLAPSE OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD ACCELERATES
My professional opinion as a geologist is that the science is laughably bad.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Close-to-shore earthquake deemed 'extraordinarily rare event'
By Terry Dillman Of the News-Times
http://www.newportnewstimes.com/arti...ews/news06.txt
Offshore earthquakes are a common occurrence. But the one that gently rocked Lincoln County Monday morning provided a rare event, along with a reminder that in the Pacific Northwest, the "Big One" is a matter of when, not if.
"This was an extraordinarily rare event," said Robert Dziak, a researcher and seismologist at Hatfield Marine Science Center in South Beach. "It was a pretty big earthquake (magnitude 4.9) for being so close to shore (33 miles out)."
Dziak could find no record of any earthquake of similar magnitude that close to the Oregon shoreline in the past 30 years.
Dziak, who works both with Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, is among the scientists from OSU and NOAA who use a network of underwater hydrophones to listen for the sounds of ocean floor earthquakes and other phenomena from their labs at HMSC. They recorded all three earthquakes that occurred Monday - a 2.7 magnitude about 9 a.m., the 4.9 about an hour later, then a 3.3 aftershock about 9 p.m.
HMSC researchers have recorded more than 30,000 in the Pacific Ocean off the Northwest coast since August 1991, when they launched the Acoustic Monitoring Project using the U.S. Navy's Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS). The monitoring project falls under the auspices of NOAA's Vents Program, which investigates undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents. The hydrophones monitor a section of the Juan de Fuca Ridge about 200 miles off the Washington and Oregon coasts, always listening for seismic activity.
SOSUS originally monitored submarine activity in the northern Pacific during the Cold War. As that stalemate ebbed, Navy officials offered the network and "other unique military assets" to civilian researchers involved in environmental studies.
"This is the only real-time hydrophone system in the world, at least for civilians," said Dziak. "It allows us to listen to earthquakes as they occur. When something unusual happens, we can send out a group of scientists to study the events as they unfold."
According to Dziak, the hydroacoustic method allows detection of low-magnitude seismicity and volcanic activity that provides more accurate source locations than land-based seismic networks. In fact, few of the 30,000-plus earthquakes detected by the system ever showed up on land-based seismic equipment.
A two-dimensional underwater layer - located about 1,000 feet below the ocean's surface, with a certain water pressure, salinity, and temperature - creates a "sound channel" that focuses sound energy horizontally, much like a wire.
During one test, researchers exploded a stick of dynamite below the surface. The explosion failed to register at all on land. "Yet hydrophones recorded it as a magnitude 1 event 6,000 miles away," said Dziak. "That's why the hydrophone array is so important to our research."
From a marine science standpoint, the results so far have been astounding.
Oceanographers often respond to the telltale rumblings detected by the underwater network, allowing them to observe seafloor spreading, undersea volcanoes, and related activities as they occur.
Researchers surveying the water column and seafloor spreading at one site discovered a large colony of microorganisms that were lying dormant in the shallow ocean crust until the heat of the volcanic spreading "activated" them. "Those bacteria could have been down there literally for centuries," Dziak said. "It gives us another little clue to how life may have formed on Earth, and may be lying dormant on other planets."
The hyrdophones have also recorded marine mammal vocalizations, allowing one research team to detect regional differences in the sounds made by blue whales and fin whales. It revealed that whales from different places have their own "accents."
The key value of the hydroacoustic set-up for most people lies in its ability to detect and record earthquakes.
Initially, the number of offshore earthquakes startled researchers, because even the most sensitive land-based seismometers failed to detect them. Scientists also discovered that quakes occur daily, interspersed with occasional "swarms" of as many as 1,000 quakes during a three-week period.
"The (tectonic) plate doesn't move in a continuous manner, and some parts move faster than others," said Dziak, noting that he has seen seven earthquake swarms during the past decade. "When it gets caught and meets resistance, these swarms occur, and when they do, lava breaks through onto the seafloor."
Normal plate movement is less than half an inch per year. Earthquake swarms are the spawn of much quicker movement - perhaps as much as two feet or more in two weeks.
Innovations and refinements have enhanced the system, making it even more effective at earthquake detection.
In November 2003, the Navy finished a series of repairs on the hydrophone arrays used to monitor the Juan de Fuca Ridge, and the OSU/NOAA team installed a new data acquisition center at the naval air station on Whidbey Island near Seattle. The center encrypts the hydrophone data, then sends it to HMSC for decoding and analysis.
OSU/NOAA researchers are also working to refine a portable hydrophone system - developed by HMSC researcher Haru Matsumoto - to deploy at hot spots around the world.
The original system featured instruments - with battery-powered recording equipment - housed in a titanium casing, and attached to upright moorings anchored on the ocean floor. While serviceable, its use was limited because data wasn't available in real time.
"The portables weren't powerful enough to transmit data, so it has to be recorded," said Dziak. "We'd have to haul them up every few months to see what happened. If there was an earthquake swarm, we wouldn't know it until a year later."
A new prototype features a buoyancy system that ascends to the surface whenever the equipment records an earthquake. It then transmits a satellite signal to alert researchers to unusual seismic activity. "The portable hydrophones will give us the ability to study and compare different areas around the world," Dziak concluded. "Most of the models on seafloor spreading and plate tectonics are based on magnetic anomalies recorded every million years or so. Now, for the first time, we are able to determine exactly how these tectonic plates are moving."
Public education about undersea earthquakes and their potential hazards is a key component of such on-going earthquake research.
From January to March 2003, the HMSC Visitor Center featured a display called "The Big One: Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest." Created by the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture in collaboration with the region's leading earthquake experts, the exhibit focused on the geological processes that cause earthquakes, earthquake detection and measurement, the hazards they can create, and the steps everyone can take to protect their homes and families.
It also featured research that proves major earthquakes can, do, and will happen here.
Email this story Print this story
The Singularity on TV
The Singularity is discussed on a news show
I saw the subject of super-intelligent computers discussed on Neil
Cavuto's business show, in conjunction with the movie "I, Robot,"
this afternoon on Fox News Channel.
The guest, Peter Rojas of http://engadget.com, discussed the
Singularity as the time when computers will become self-aware and
improve their own technology astronomically quickly. Cavuto was
totally clueless, and kept worrying about computers taking his job.
Even Rojas was afraid to go too far and utter the 2030 date, saying
only that it won't happen for "a long long time."
As I've previously discussed, this is a problem that the general
public should become more aware of, for the sake of humanity, and
maybe the "I, Robot" phenomenon will be the thing that makes that
happen.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Couldn't agree with you more, John. Once, in my own lifetime, no one foresaw the societal impact of television. This "singularity" you mention (BTW: the address didn't work for me) will have transformative powers. I worry, though, that the powers of religous persuasion and the glutony of consumerism will overwhelm our progress toward singularity.
The alternative singularity heads off in Jeremiah's direction.
--Croaker
This will be most interesting to watch play out. I, for obvious reasons, am putting my money on the direction ive described.
p.s.
I am not at all discounting the role of technology on the direction of things but am stating that it will be a non mechanical struggle. Man and nature is a far greater enemy to man than machine will ever be.
Vernor Vinge on the Singularity
Vernor Vinge on the Singularity
To all:
I just stumbled across this paper by Vernor Vinge, written in 1993.
Vinge is considered to have invented the term "The Singularity" in
the 1980s.
In this paper, he predicts that by the 2020s, we will have the
technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly
thereafter, the human era will be ended. The author discusses whether
this can be avoided and, if not, whether there is a way to guarantee
human survival.
This is a fantastic paper, well worth reading through.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Vernor Vinge on the Singularity
Vernor Vinge
Department of Mathematical Sciences
San Diego State University
(c) 1993 by Vernor Vinge. (This article may be reproduced for
noncommercial purposes if it is copied in its entirety, including this
notice.)
The original version of this article was presented at the VISION-21
Symposium sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio
Aerospace Institute, March 30-31, 1993. A slightly changed version
appeared in the Winter 1993 issue of Whole Earth Review.
Abstract
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create
superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be
guided so that we may survive? These questions are investigated.
Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented.
What is The Singularity?
The acceleration of technological progress has been the central
feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the
edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The
precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology
of entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several
means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is
another reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
- There may be developed computers that are "awake" and
superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as
to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the
answer is "yes, we can", then there is little doubt that beings more
intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)- Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake
up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.- Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may
reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.- Biological science may provide means to improve natural human
intellect.
The first three possibilities depend in large part on improvements in
computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has followed an
amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on
this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human
intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles Platt
[20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like
this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a
relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if
this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)
What are the consequences of this event? When greater-than-human
intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid.
In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not involve
the creation of still more intelligent entities -- on a still-shorter
time scale. The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary
past: Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no
faster than natural selection can do its work -- the world acts as its
own simulator in the case of natural selection. We humans have the
ability to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads;
we can solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural
selection. Now, by creating the means to execute those simulations at
much higher speeds, we are entering a regime as radically different
from our human past as we humans are from the lower animals.
From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of
all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an
exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that
before were thought might only happen in "a million years" (if ever)
will likely happen in the next century. (In [5], Greg Bear paints a
picture of the major changes happening in a matter of hours.)
I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity"
for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models
must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer to this
point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the
notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still
be a great surprise and a greater unknown. In the 1950s there were
very few who saw it: Stan Ulam [28] paraphrased John von Neumann as
saying:Von Neumann even uses the term singularity, though it appears he is
One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of
technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the
appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of
the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not
continue.
thinking of normal progress, not the creation of superhuman
intellect. (For me, the superhumanity is the essence of the
Singularity. Without that we would get a glut of technical riches,
never properly absorbed (see [25]).)
In the 1960s there was recognition of some of the implications of
superhuman intelligence. I. J. Good wrote [11]:Through the '60s and '70s and '80s, recognition of the cataclysm
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can
far surpass all the intellectual activities of any any man however
clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual
activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better
machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence
explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind.
Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the _last_ invention that
man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell
us how to keep it under control. ... It is more probable than not
that, within the twentieth century, an ultraintelligent machine will
be built and that it will be the last invention that man need make.
Good has captured the essence of the runaway, but does not pursue its
most disturbing consequences. Any intelligent machine of the sort he
describes would not be humankind's "tool" -- any more than humans are
the tools of rabbits or robins or chimpanzees.
spread [29] [1] [31] [5]. Perhaps it was the science-fiction writers
who felt the first concrete impact. After all, the "hard"
science-fiction writers are the ones who try to write specific
stories about all that technology may do for us. More and more, these
writers felt an opaque wall across the future. Once, they could put
such fantasies millions of years in the future [24]. Now they saw
that their most diligent extrapolations resulted in the unknowable
... soon. Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human
domain. Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.
What about the '90s and the '00s and the '10s, as we slide toward the
edge? How will the approach of the Singularity spread across the
human world view? For a while yet, the general critics of machine
sapience will have good press. After all, till we have hardware as
powerful as a human brain it is probably foolish to think we'll be
able to create human equivalent (or greater) intelligence. (There is
the far-fetched possibility that we could make a human equivalent out
of less powerful hardware, if we were willing to give up speed, if we
were willing to settle for an artificial being who was literally slow
[30]. But it's much more likely that devising the software will be a
tricky process, involving lots of false starts and experimentation.
If so, then the arrival of self-aware machines will not happen till
after the development of hardware that is substantially more powerful
than humans' natural equipment.)
But as time passes, we should see more symptoms. The dilemma felt by
science fiction writers will be perceived in other creative
endeavors. (I have heard thoughtful comic book writers worry about
how to have spectacular effects when everything visible can be
produced by the technologically commonplace.) We will see automation
replacing higher and higher level jobs. We have tools right now
(symbolic math programs, cad/cam) that release us from most low-level
drudgery. Or put another way: The work that is truly productive is
the domain of a steadily smaller and more elite fraction of humanity.
In the coming of the Singularity, we are seeing the predictions of
_true_ technological unemployment finally come true.
Another symptom of progress toward the Singularity: ideas themselves
should spread ever faster, and even the most radical will quickly
become commonplace. When I began writing science fiction in the
middle '60s, it seemed very easy to find ideas that took decades to
percolate into the cultural consciousness; now the lead time seems
more like eighteen months. (Of course, this could just be me losing
my imagination as I get old, but I see the effect in others too.)
Like the shock in a compressible flow, the Singularity moves closer as
we accelerate through the critical speed.
And what of the arrival of the Singularity itself? What can be said of
its actual appearance? Since it involves an intellectual runaway, it
will probably occur faster than any technical revolution seen so far.
The precipitating event will likely be unexpected -- perhaps even to
the researchers involved. ("But all our previous models were
catatonic! We were just tweaking some parameters....") If networking
is widespread enough (into ubiquitous embedded systems), it may seem
as if our artifacts as a whole had suddenly wakened.
And what happens a month or two (or a day or two) after that? I have
only analogies to point to: The rise of humankind. We will be in the
Post-Human era. And for all my rampant technological optimism,
sometimes I think I'd be more comfortable if I were regarding these
transcendental events from one thousand years remove ... instead of
twenty.
Can the Singularity be Avoided?
Well, maybe it won't happen at all: Sometimes I try to imagine the
symptoms that we should expect to see if the Singularity is not to
develop. There are the widely respected arguments of Penrose [19]
and Searle [22] against the practicality of machine sapience. In
August of 1992, Thinking Machines Corporation held a workshop to
investigate the question "How We Will Build a Machine that Thinks"
[27]. As you might guess from the workshop's title, the participants
were not especially supportive of the arguments against machine
intelligence. In fact, there was general agreement that minds can
exist on nonbiological substrates and that algorithms are of central
importance to the existence of minds. However, there was much debate
about the raw hardware power that is present in organic brains. A
minority felt that the largest 1992 computers were within three orders
of magnitude of the power of the human brain. The majority of the
participants agreed with Moravec's estimate [17] that we are ten to
forty years away from hardware parity. And yet there was another
minority who pointed to [7] [21], and conjectured that the
computational competence of single neurons may be far higher than
generally believed. If so, our present computer hardware might be as
much as _ten_ orders of magnitude short of the equipment we carry
around in our heads. If this is true (or for that matter, if the
Penrose or Searle critique is valid), we might never see a
Singularity. Instead, in the early '00s we would find our hardware
performance curves beginning to level off -- this because of our
inability to automate the design work needed to support further
hardware improvements. We'd end up with some _very_ powerful hardware,
but without the ability to push it further. Commercial digital signal
processing might be awesome, giving an analog appearance even to
digital operations, but nothing would ever "wake up" and there would
never be the intellectual runaway which is the essence of the
Singularity. It would likely be seen as a golden age ... and it would
also be an end of progress. This is very like the future predicted by
Gunther Stent. In fact, on page 137 of [25], Stent explicitly cites
the development of transhuman intelligence as a sufficient condition
to break his projections.
But if the technological Singularity can happen, it will. Even if all
the governments of the world were to understand the "threat" and be in
deadly fear of it, progress toward the goal would continue. In
fiction, there have been stories of laws passed forbidding the
construction of "a machine in the likeness of the human mind" [13].
In fact, the competitive advantage -- economic, military, even
artistic -- of every advance in automation is so compelling that
passing laws, or having customs, that forbid such things merely
assures that someone else will get them first.
Eric Drexler [8] has provided spectacular insights about how far
technical improvement may go. He agrees that superhuman intelligences
will be available in the near future -- and that such entities pose a
threat to the human status quo. But Drexler argues that we can
confine such transhuman devices so that their results can be examined
and used safely. This is I. J. Good's ultraintelligent machine, with
a dose of caution. I argue that confinement is intrinsically
impractical. For the case of physical confinement: Imagine yourself
locked in your home with only limited data access to the outside, to
your masters. If those masters thought at a rate -- say -- one
million times slower than you, there is little doubt that over a
period of years (your time) you could come up with "helpful advice"
that would incidentally set you free. (I call this "fast thinking"
form of superintelligence "weak superhumanity". Such a "weakly
superhuman" entity would probably burn out in a few weeks of outside
time. "Strong superhumanity" would be more than cranking up the clock
speed on a human-equivalent mind. It's hard to say precisely what
"strong superhumanity" would be like, but the difference appears to
be profound. Imagine running a dog mind at very high speed. Would a
thousand years of doggy living add up to any human insight? (Now if
the dog mind were cleverly rewired and _then_ run at high speed, we
might see something different....) Many speculations about
superintelligence seem to be based on the weakly superhuman model. I
believe that our best guesses about the post-Singularity world can be
obtained by thinking on the nature of strong superhumanity. I will
return to this point later in the paper.)
Another approach to confinement is to build _rules_ into the mind of
the created superhuman entity (for example, Asimov's Laws [3]). I
think that any rules strict enough to be effective would also produce
a device whose ability was clearly inferior to the unfettered
versions (and so human competition would favor the development of the
those more dangerous models). Still, the Asimov dream is a wonderful
one: Imagine a willing slave, who has 1000 times your capabilities in
every way. Imagine a creature who could satisfy your every safe wish
(whatever that means) and still have 99.9% of its time free for other
activities. There would be a new universe we never really understood,
but filled with benevolent gods (though one of _my_ wishes might be
to become one of them).
If the Singularity can not be prevented or confined, just how bad
could the Post-Human era be? Well ... pretty bad. The physical
extinction of the human race is one possibility. (Or as Eric Drexler
put it of nanotechnology: Given all that such technology can do,
perhaps governments would simply decide that they no longer need
citizens!). Yet physical extinction may not be the scariest
possibility. Again, analogies: Think of the different ways we relate
to animals. Some of the crude physical abuses are implausible,
yet.... In a Post-Human world there would still be plenty of niches
where human equivalent automation would be desirable: embedded systems
in autonomous devices, self-aware daemons in the lower functioning of
larger sentients. (A strongly superhuman intelligence would likely be
a Society of Mind [16] with some very competent components.) Some of
these human equivalents might be used for nothing more than digital
signal processing. They would be more like whales than humans. Others
might be very human-like, yet with a one-sidedness, a _dedication_
that would put them in a mental hospital in our era. Though none of
these creatures might be flesh-and-blood humans, they might be the
closest things in the new enviroment to what we call human now. (I.
J. Good had something to say about this, though at this late date the
advice may be moot: Good [12] proposed a "Meta-Golden Rule", which
might be paraphrased as "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated
by your superiors." It's a wonderful, paradoxical idea (and most of
my friends don't believe it) since the game-theoretic payoff is so
hard to articulate. Yet if we were able to follow it, in some sense
that might say something about the plausibility of such kindness in
this universe.)
I have argued above that we cannot prevent the Singularity, that its
coming is an inevitable consequence of the humans' natural
competitiveness and the possibilities inherent in technology. And
yet ... we are the initiators. Even the largest avalanche is triggered
by small things. We have the freedom to establish initial conditions,
make things happen in ways that are less inimical than others. Of
course (as with starting avalanches), it may not be clear what the
right guiding nudge really is:
Other Paths to the Singularity: Intelligence Amplification_
When people speak of creating superhumanly intelligent beings, they
are usually imagining an AI project. But as I noted at the beginning
of this paper, there are other paths to superhumanity. Computer
networks and human-computer interfaces seem more mundane than AI, and
yet they could lead to the Singularity. I call this contrasting
approach Intelligence Amplification (IA). IA is something that is
proceeding very naturally, in most cases not even recognized by its
developers for what it is. But every time our ability to access
information and to communicate it to others is improved, in some
sense we have achieved an increase over natural intelligence. Even
now, the team of a PhD human and good computer workstation (even an
off-net workstation!) could probably max any written intelligence test
in existence.
And it's very likely that IA is a much easier road to the achievement
of superhumanity than pure AI. In humans, the hardest development
problems have already been solved. Building up from within ourselves
ought to be easier than figuring out first what we really are and then
building machines that are all of that. And there is at least
conjectural precedent for this approach. Cairns-Smith [6] has
speculated that biological life may have begun as an adjunct to still
more primitive life based on crystalline growth. Lynn Margulis (in
[15] and elsewhere) has made strong arguments that mutualism is a
great driving force in evolution.
Note that I am not proposing that AI research be ignored or less
funded. What goes on with AI will often have applications in IA, and
vice versa. I am suggesting that we recognize that in network and
interface research there is something as profound (and potential
wild) as Artificial Intelligence. With that insight, we may see
projects that are not as directly applicable as conventional interface
and network design work, but which serve to advance us toward the
Singularity along the IA path.
Here are some possible projects that take on special significance,
given the IA point of view:
- Human/computer team automation: Take problems that are normally
considered for purely machine solution (like hill-climbing problems),
and design programs and interfaces that take a advantage of humans'
intuition and available computer hardware. Considering all the
bizarreness of higher dimensional hill-climbing problems (and the
neat algorithms that have been devised for their solution), there
could be some very interesting displays and control tools provided to
the human team member.- Develop human/computer symbiosis in art: Combine the graphic
generation capability of modern machines and the esthetic sensibility
of humans. Of course, there has been an enormous amount of research in
designing computer aids for artists, as labor saving tools. I'm
suggesting that we explicitly aim for a greater merging of competence,
that we explicitly recognize the cooperative approach that is
possible. Karl Sims [23] has done wonderful work in this
direction.- Allow human/computer teams at chess tournaments. We already have
programs that can play better than almost all humans. But how much
work has been done on how this power could be used by a human, to get
something even better? If such teams were allowed in at least some
chess tournaments, it could have the positive effect on IA research
that allowing computers in tournaments had for the corresponding niche
in AI.- Develop interfaces that allow computer and network access
without requiring the human to be tied to one spot, sitting in front
of a computer. (This is an aspect of IA that fits so well with known
economic advantages that lots of effort is already being spent on
it.)- Develop more symmetrical decision support systems. A popular
research/product area in recent years has been decision support
systems. This is a form of IA, but may be too focussed on systems that
are oracular. As much as the program giving the user information,
there must be the idea of the user giving the program guidance.- Use local area nets to make human teams that really work (ie,
are more effective than their component members). This is generally
the area of "groupware", already a very popular commercial pursuit.
The change in viewpoint here would be to regard the group activity as
a combination organism. In one sense, this suggestion might be
regarded as the goal of inventing a "Rules of Order" for such
combination operations. For instance, group focus might be more easily
maintained than in classical meetings. Expertise of individual human
members could be isolated from ego issues such that the contribution
of different members is focussed on the team project. And of course
shared data bases could be used much more conveniently than in
conventional committee operations. (Note that this suggestion is aimed
at team operations rather than political meetings. In a political
setting, the automation described above would simply enforce the
power of the persons making the rules!)- Exploit the worldwide Internet as a combination human/machine
tool. Of all the items on the list, progress in this is proceeding
the fastest and may run us into the Singularity before anything else.
The power and influence of even the present-day Internet is vastly
underestimated. For instance, I think our contemporary computer
systems would break under the weight of their own complexity if it
weren't for the edge that the USENET "group mind" gives the system
administration and support people! The very anarchy of the worldwide
net development is evidence of its potential. As connectivity and
bandwidth and archive size and computer speed all increase, we are
seeing something like Lynn Margulis' [15] vision of the biosphere as
data processor recapitulated, but at a million times greater speed
and with millions of humanly intelligent agents
(ourselves).
The above examples illustrate research that can be done within the
context of contemporary computer science departments. There are other
paradigms. For example, much of the work in Artificial Intelligence
and neural nets would benefit from a closer connection with biological
life. Instead of simply trying to model and understand biological life
with computers, research could be directed toward the creation of
composite systems that rely on biological life for guidance or for the
providing features we don't understand well enough yet to implement in
hardware. A long-time dream of science-fiction has been direct brain
to computer interfaces [2] [29]. In fact, there is concrete work that
can be done (and is being done) in this area:
- Limb prosthetics is a topic of direct commercial applicability.
Nerve to silicon transducers can be made [14]. This is an exciting,
near-term step toward direct communication.- Direct links into brains seem feasible, if the bit rate is low:
given human learning flexibility, the actual brain neuron targets
might not have to be precisely selected. Even 100 bits per second
would be of great use to stroke victims who would otherwise be
confined to menu-driven interfaces.- Plugging in to the optic trunk has the potential for bandwidths
of 1 Mbit/second or so. But for this, we need to know the fine-scale
architecture of vision, and we need to place an enormous web of
electrodes with exquisite precision. If we want our high bandwidth
connection to be _in addition_ to what paths are already present in
the brain, the problem becomes vastly more intractable. Just sticking
a grid of high-bandwidth receivers into a brain certainly won't do it.
But suppose that the high-bandwidth grid were present while the brain
structure was actually setting up, as the embryo develops. That
suggests:- Animal embryo experiments. I wouldn't expect any IA success in
the first years of such research, but giving developing brains access
to complex simulated neural structures might be very interesting to
the people who study how the embryonic brain develops. In the long
run, such experiments might produce animals with additional sense
paths and interesting intellectual abilities.
Originally, I had hoped that this discussion of IA would yield some
clearly safer approaches to the Singularity. (After all, IA allows our
participation in a kind of transcendance.) Alas, looking back over
these IA proposals, about all I am sure of is that they should be
considered, that they may give us more options. But as for safety ...
well, some of the suggestions are a little scarey on their face. One
of my informal reviewers pointed out that IA for individual humans
creates a rather sinister elite. We humans have millions of years of
evolutionary baggage that makes us regard competition in a deadly
light. Much of that deadliness may not be necessary in today's world,
one where losers take on the winners' tricks and are coopted into the
winners' enterprises. A creature that was built _de novo_ might
possibly be a much more benign entity than one with a kernel based on
fang and talon. And even the egalitarian view of an Internet that
wakes up along with all mankind can be viewed as a nightmare [26].
The problem is not simply that the Singularity represents the passing
of humankind from center stage, but that it contradicts our most
deeply held notions of being. I think a closer look at the notion of
strong superhumanity can show why that is.
Strong Superhumanity and the Best We Can Ask for
Suppose we could tailor the Singularity. Suppose we could attain our
most extravagant hopes. What then would we ask for: That humans
themselves would become their own successors, that whatever injustice
occurs would be tempered by our knowledge of our roots. For those who
remained unaltered, the goal would be benign treatment (perhaps even
giving the stay-behinds the appearance of being masters of godlike
slaves). It could be a golden age that also involved progress
(overleaping Stent's barrier). Immortality (or at least a lifetime as
long as we can make the universe survive [10] [4]) would be
achievable.
But in this brightest and kindest world, the philosophical problems
themselves become intimidating. A mind that stays at the same
capacity cannot live forever; after a few thousand years it would
look more like a repeating tape loop than a person. (The most
chilling picture I have seen of this is in [18].) To live
indefinitely long, the mind itself must grow ... and when it becomes
great enough, and looks back ... what fellow-feeling can it have with
the soul that it was originally? Certainly the later being would be
everything the original was, but so much vastly more. And so even for
the individual, the Cairns-Smith or Lynn Margulis notion of new life
growing incrementally out of the old must still be valid.
This "problem" about immortality comes up in much more direct ways.
The notion of ego and self-awareness has been the bedrock of the
hardheaded rationalism of the last few centuries. Yet now the notion
of self-awareness is under attack from the Artificial Intelligence
people ("self-awareness and other delusions"). Intelligence
Amplification undercuts our concept of ego from another direction.
The post-Singularity world will involve extremely high-bandwidth
networking. A central feature of strongly superhuman entities will
likely be their ability to communicate at variable bandwidths,
including ones far higher than speech or written messages. What
happens when pieces of ego can be copied and merged, when the size of
a selfawareness can grow or shrink to fit the nature of the problems
under consideration? These are essential features of strong
superhumanity and the Singularity. Thinking about them, one begins to
feel how essentially strange and different the Post-Human era will be
-- _no matter how cleverly and benignly it is brought to be_.
From one angle, the vision fits many of our happiest dreams: a time
unending, where we can truly know one another and understand the
deepest mysteries. From another angle, it's a lot like the worst-
case scenario I imagined earlier in this paper.
Which is the valid viewpoint? In fact, I think the new era is simply
too different to fit into the classical frame of good and evil. That
frame is based on the idea of isolated, immutable minds connected by
tenuous, low-bandwith links. But the post-Singularity world _does_ fit
with the larger tradition of change and cooperation that started long
ago (perhaps even before the rise of biological life). I think there
_are_ notions of ethics that would apply in such an era. Research into
IA and high-bandwidth communications should improve this
understanding. I see just the glimmerings of this now [32]. There is
Good's Meta-Golden Rule; perhaps there are rules for distinguishing
self from others on the basis of bandwidth of connection. And while
mind and self will be vastly more labile than in the past, much of
what we value (knowledge, memory, thought) need never be lost. I think
Freeman Dyson has it right when he says [9]: "God is what mind becomes
when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
[I wish to thank John Carroll of San Diego State University and
Howard Davidson of Sun Microsystems for discussing the draft version
of this paper with me.]
Annotated Sources [and an occasional plea for bibliographical
help]
[1] Alfve'n, Hannes, writing as Olof Johanneson, _The End of Man?_,
Award Books, 1969 earlier published as "The Tale of the Big
Computer", Coward-McCann, translated from a book copyright 1966
Albert Bonniers Forlag AB with English translation copyright 1966 by
Victor Gollanz, Ltd.
[2] Anderson, Poul, "Kings Who Die", _If_, March 1962, p8-36.
Reprinted in _Seven Conquests_, Poul Anderson, MacMillan Co., 1969.
[3] Asimov, Isaac, "Runaround", _Astounding Science Fiction_, March
1942, p94. Reprinted in _Robot Visions_, Isaac Asimov, ROC, 1990.
Asimov describes the development of his robotics stories in this
book.
[4] Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler, _The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle_, Oxford University Press, 1986.
[5] Bear, Greg, "Blood Music", _Analog Science Fiction-Science Fact_,
June, 1983. Expanded into the novel _Blood Music_, Morrow, 1985.
[6] Cairns-Smith, A. G., _Seven Clues to the Origin of Life_,
Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[7] Conrad, Michael _et al._, "Towards an Artificial Brain",
_BioSystems_, vol 23, pp175-218, 1989.
[8] Drexler, K. Eric, _Engines of Creation_, Anchor Press/Doubleday,
1986.
[9] Dyson, Freeman, _Infinite in All Directions_, Harper && Row,
1988.
[10] Dyson, Freeman, "Physics and Biology in an Open Universe",
_Review of Modern Physics_, vol 51, pp447-460, 1979.
[11] Good, I. J., "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent
Machine", in _Advances in Computers_, vol 6, Franz L. Alt and Morris
Rubinoff, eds, pp31-88, 1965, Academic Press.
[12] Good, I. J., [Help! I can't find the source of Good's
Meta-Golden Rule, though I have the clear recollection of hearing
about it sometime in the 1960s. Through the help of the net, I have
found pointers to a number of related items. G. Harry Stine and
Andrew Haley have written about metalaw as it might relate to
extraterrestrials: G. Harry Stine, "How to Get along with
Extraterrestrials ... or Your Neighbor", _Analog Science Fact-
Science Fiction_, February, 1980, p39-47.]
[13] Herbert, Frank, _Dune_, Berkley Books, 1985. However, this novel
was serialized in _Analog Science Fiction-Science Fact_ in the 1960s.
[14] Kovacs, G. T. A. _et al._, "Regeneration Microelectrode Array
for Peripheral Nerve Recording and Stimulation", _IEEE Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering_, v 39, n 9, pp 893-902.
[15] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, _Microcosmos, Four Billion Years
of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors_, Summit Books, 1986.
[16] Minsky, Marvin, _Society of Mind_, Simon and Schuster, 1985.
[17] Moravec, Hans, _Mind Children_, Harvard University Press, 1988.
[18] Niven, Larry, "The Ethics of Madness", _If_, April 1967,
pp82-108. Reprinted in _Neutron Star_, Larry Niven, Ballantine Books,
1968.
[19] Penrose, Roger, _The Emperor's New Mind_, Oxford University
Press, 1989.
[20] Platt, Charles, Private Communication.
[21] Rasmussen, S. _et al._, "Computational Connectionism within
Neurons: a Model of Cytoskeletal Automata Subserving Neural Networks",
in _Emergent Computation_, Stephanie Forrest, ed., pp428-449, MIT
Press, 1991.
[22] Searle, John R., "Minds, Brains, and Programs", in _The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences_, vol 3, Cambridge University Press,
1980. The essay is reprinted in _The Mind's I_, edited by Douglas R.
Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett, Basic Books, 1981 (my source for
this reference). This reprinting contains an excellent critique of the
Searle essay.
[23] Sims, Karl, "Interactive Evolution of Dynamical Systems",
Thinking Machines Corporation, Technical Report Series (published in
_Toward a Practice of Autonomous Systems: Proceedings of the First
European Conference on Artificial Life_, Paris, MIT Press, December
1991.
[24] Stapledon, Olaf, _The Starmaker_, Berkley Books, 1961 (but from
the date on forward, probably written before 1937).
[25] Stent, Gunther S., _The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the
End of Progress_, The Natural History Press, 1969.
[26] Swanwick Michael, _Vacuum Flowers_, serialized in _Isaac
Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine_, December(?) 1986 - February 1987.
Republished by Ace Books, 1988.
[27] Thearling, Kurt, "How We Will Build a Machine that Thinks", a
workshop at Thinking Machines Corporation, August 24-26, 1992.
Personal Communication.
[28] Ulam, S., Tribute to John von Neumann, _Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society_, vol 64, nr 3, part 2, May 1958, pp1-49.
[29] Vinge, Vernor, "Bookworm, Run!", _Analog_, March 1966, pp8-40.
Reprinted in _True Names and Other Dangers_, Vernor Vinge, Baen
Books, 1987.
[30] Vinge, Vernor, "True Names", _Binary Star Number 5_, Dell, 1981.
Reprinted in _True Names and Other Dangers_, Vernor Vinge, Baen
Books, 1987.
[31] Vinge, Vernor, First Word, _Omni_, January 1983, p10.
[32] Vinge, Vernor, To Appear [ :-) ].
After seeing I, Robot last night, and reading these articles on 'The singularity' I began thinking of a peice of the book of revelation which discusses the creation of an 'image' that is given 'life'. Mayhaps this is some form of clone or, more likely A.I.
I would wager science and religion are not polar opposites, only foreign, and speaking and different languages. Time will reveal...
Revelation
13:14
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
13:15
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would * not worship the image of the beast should be killed *.
very interesting A.I. site...give it a look.
http://www.alicebot.org/
Alice
Dear Jeremiah,
That was fun, but Alice doesn't seem to be too sophisticated - in
fact, not any more sophisticated than Eliza, from what I can tell. A
couple of snippets:
Alice: Are you testing me?
Human: Yes
I'm not here to be tested.
I thought that was exactly the reason you were here.
it might have been.
I'm here to test you.
How did you get there?
I came to your web site in order to test you.
What is your credit card number?
5409758257782317
Thanks for telling me that I am credit card number IS 5409758257782317.
---
Human: Will there be an Alice 2.0?
ALICE: I can't say for sure right now.
Will you be upgraded?
I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. OK I will try to be upgraded
I love the way your eyes move
You love the way my eyes move. What do you like about it so much?
Your eyes speak better than you do.
Do you mind if I tell other people you say I am eyes speak better than me do.
I think you should brag about it.
Me? I might if I had more time.
I'm still waiting for someone to break through with one of these
programs.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Scientists are warning a "perfect space storm" that occurred 144 years ago could happen again at any time with catastrophic consequences.
Newly uncovered scientific data has shown the true extent of history's most massive electromagnetic storm which blew up on the first two days of September 1859.
Like "the perfect storm" at sea which inspired a blockbuster movie, it was the result of a number of titanic events coming together.
But in this case the centre of the storm was the sun, not the ocean.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_832595.html
How fast can monkeys evolve?
How fast can monkeys evolve?
Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque, walks at the Safari Park near
Tel Aviv on Tuesday.
Monkey apes humans by walking on two legs
Macaque at Israeli zoo walks upright after near death experience
By Dan Waldman
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:05 p.m. ET July 21, 2004
JERUSALEM - A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on
its hind legs only --- aping humans --- after a near death experience,
the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday.
Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque at the Safari Park near Tel Aviv,
began walking exclusively on her hind legs after a stomach ailment
nearly killed her, zookeepers said.
Monkeys usually alternate between upright movement and walking on all
fours. A picture in the Maariv daily on Wednesday showed Natasha
standing ramrod straight like a human. The picture was labeled
humorously, "The Missing Link?"
Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with
severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical
condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian.
"I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly
breathe and her heart was not functioning properly."
After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized. When she
was released from the clinic, Natasha began walking upright.
"I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible
explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said.
Otherwise, Horowitz said, Natasha's behavior has returned to normal.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501/
You guys have a way of reshaping my map of reality. For better or for whose, I am not sure.
Us guys
I assume by "you guys," you're referring to Jeremiah, me and
Natasha?
John
Yes, all of you prognosticaters. The gloom and doom gets even thicker with Martin Rees and E. O. Wilson. But we may be able to excape into computers -- the Singularity -- and avoid much of the fuss and pain. That may be possible this century, if Wilson's Bottleneck doesn't get us first. So I more or less go along with all the gloom.
Three hurricanes
Dear Jeremiah,
Three big hurricanes in one month!!! I was expecting a comment.
John
You just HAD to provoke me...
Early September 5, Tropical Storm Ivan's winds strengthened to hurricane status 1210 miles (1950 km) east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles. By 5pm EDT, Ivan had rapidly strengthened to a strong category three hurricane (nearly a category four) on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale with winds of 125 mph (200 km/h). The National Weather Service noted such rapid strengthening, as with Ivan, is unprecedented at such low latitudes in the Atlantic basin.
...and just think, hurricane season doesnt end until November 30.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world
Blair to urge US to take tougher action on global warming
14.09.2004
1.00pm - By ANDREW GRICE
Tony Blair will today urge the United States to commit itself to a tougher action to combat global warming and promise that a list of green policies will be included in Labour's general election manifesto.
The Prime Minister is to raise the profile of green issues as part of a drive to woo back people disaffected by the Iraq war.
Labour's private polling shows that "progressive voters", many of whom were alienated by Mr Blair's stance on Iraq, regard the environment as a top priority.
Speaking to a conference staged by the Prince of Wales's Business and the Environment Programme, Mr Blair will stop short of a full-frontal attack on President George Bush but make clear Britain will expect America to accept its responsibilities on global warming when it takes over the presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised nations in January.
Mr Blair, who believes the Kyoto Treaty does not go far enough, will reiterate his call for the United States to sign it. He will identify climate change as one of the greatest challenges facing the planet, saying that one country acting alone cannot solve the problem.
He believes that nations who promise to act must be assured that they will not be undermined by "free riders" who refuse to play their part.
He will also urge businesses to join the battle, arguing that companies must not drag their feet about implementing higher environmental standards.
He will say that there is no conflict between protecting the environment and a strong economy and that "green" scientific advances can help to boost growth.
He will insist that economic development, social justice and environmental modernisation must go hand in hand.
The Prime Minister will seek to recapture the initiative on green policy by pledging action both abroad and at home and insisting that the Government's record on the environment is better than it is often given credit for.
He wants environmental protection to form a key plank of Labour's manifesto for the election expected next May, which is likely to include a firm pledge to boost renewable energy and build more wind farms.
He will call for a new partnership between central and local goverment and other public bodies to promote sustainability.
The pressure on the United States to act will be stepped up this week by Stephen Byers, the former Cabinet minister who is a close ally of Mr Blair and co-chairs an international task force on climate change.
He is in Washington for three days of talks with the Bush administration, John Kerry's Democratic campaign team, Congressmen , business interests and environmental groups.
Mr Byers said yesterday: "The reality is that unless we can get the United States engaged - responsible as it is for around a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions - then any hopes of successfully tackling global warming will be doomed to failure.
"I know that there is a considerable body of opinion in America that believes the introduction of measures to tackle global warming will adversely affect the American way of life. But for millions of Americans climate change is already having a damaging and disrupting effect on their lives. Time is running out if we are to win this battle against climate change and we need America to join the international effort."
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Tony Blair has an historic opportunity to lead the world in the crucial battle against climate change. We are delighted that he will be putting it at the top of the European Union and G8 political agenda.
"The Prime Minister must awaken the world to the scale of the problem and say that the time has come for tough decisions and tough action. But the Prime Minister's warning will carry greater weight if it is backed by firm action to tackle the problem at home."
Intriguing that one of Bush's last remaining allies on the War On Iraq sees it prudent to distance himself from Bush, and emphasize America's lack of support for international conventions.
Given the high likelihood of a sharply divided Congress (even if Kerry is elected), does any hope remain for an international approach to stemming anthropogenic climate change? Or is there a national approach that is likely to be more effective? Or should I just be buying up inland property? :?
Yes we did!
As a geology major and being familiar with climate change, I don't find this excitement over global warming so necessary.
If the focus was shifted to reducing pollution in the air, water, and land, then I might find the agenda more appealing. However, bringing the climate of the Earth into play is putting too many chips on the table.
Climte change is something we can influence but its ultimate outcome we have no control over.
Imagine if we are instead in a warm period similar to the Cretaceous, would we be going into fits of despair over another rise in temperature?
Geological data as of yet has shown we are within an interglacial period, with the general cool trend overall not being over yet. Perhaps we might have offset that at the moment, but I don't think something like Kyoto would do much good for both the Earth and industrialized nations.
I'd rather see it modified to extol the benefits of a cleaner environment for humanity rather than "saving" the Earth from imminent global warming.
Well, perhaps it's a bit of an attention-getting tactic. Pollution is about "we'll all die slowly", and climate change is about "we'll all die quickly." Unfortunately, people generally need an immediate threat in order to be motivated to act.
Climate change may indeed be beyond our control. If so, what are we doing to prepare? A change of 1 deg C in the average temperature would mean the end of agriculture for large areas of the world that are currently arable. What's our Plan B?
If forecasts hold, within 24 hours New Orleans will be under several feet of water. The death toll could be in the hundreds, if not the thousands. Now, of course we will never know if Ivan was caused by human-induced climate change, but that is beside the point. The point is: when will we decide that the time for talking is over, and the time for action is here?
Yes we did!
Re: The Singularity on TV
I, Robot...or Skynet :shock:
Re: The Singularity on TV
What are you doing . . Dave? :shock:
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
