Inspire

Michael Chorost on Cyborgs, Direct Brain Interfaces and Human Enhancement

Recently I was amazed by the cyborg Kevin Warwick at the LIFT Conference 2008 with his story on telepathy and direct brain interfaces. Deepening Warwicks' story, Michael Chorost presents insights from his latest book called Rebuilt in the video below.

Michael Chorost became a cyborg on October 1, 2001, the day his new ear was booted up. Born hard of hearing in 1964, he went completely deaf in his thirties. Rather than live in silence, he chose to have a computer surgically embedded in his skull to artificially restore his hearing. This is the story of Chorosts' journey - from deafness to hearing, from human to cyborg - and how it transformed him. The melding of silicon and flesh has long been the stuff of science fiction. But as Chorost reveals in this witty, poignant, and illuminating memoir, fantasy is now giving way to reality.

Prepare to be amazed, especially after 31 minutes and 40 seconds as well as his view on direct brain interfaces. And how Google might play a big part on this future.

Chris Anderson on The End of Theory (Wired/Edge) and the Petabyte Age and Its Impact on Scientific Evolution

Chris Anderson recently wrote a thought-provoking piece in Wired and Edge called The End of Theory in which he focuses on the rise of massive datasets, computational algorithms and correlations (instead of causation) for the next step in scientific evolution. Highly recommended reading.

More importantly, different leading thinkers like Kevin Kelly, Bruce Sterling, Daniel Hillis, George Dyson, Douglas Rushkoff, Jaron Lanier, Stewart Brand and John Horgan respond to the Anderson view in this post on Edge analyzing the pros and cons of The End of Theory article. Below some quotes by Anderson and his critics.

In my view, correlation might boost useful science in the sense of working or realistic correlations. Nonetheless, in most disciplines intuition, creativity, asking good questions (perspectives/frames !), understanding, models and theory still have a clear value add, albeit for social / sharing reasons on top of a deeper understanding of the why of natural or social phenomena. Additionally, the reasoning of Chris Anderson is relevant for the rise of the mobile internet and its ubiquitous computing role in the near future. All these real-time mobile sensors might boost correlations and predictive capabilities to a certain degree while still acknowledging the power of Black Swans. Furthermore, Andersons' view seems to resonate with the Internet Scenario and Digital Gaia Scenario within the Singularity according to Vernor Vinge in which the continuing profileration and advancement of the internet will give rise to posthuman sense of consciousness as its too complex to contemplate. Finally, the role of the Semantic Web/Web 3.0 is interesting in the light of Andersons' reasoning. He seems to disagree with the benefits of the meaning and top-down structures of the Semantic Web. It would be great to see the responses of Tim Berners Lee and Nova Spivack to the Anderson piece. 

"All models are wrong, but some are useful. So proclaimed statistician George Box 30 years ago, and he was right. But what choice did we have? Only models, from cosmological equations to theories of human behavior, seemed to be able to consistently, if imperfectly, explain the world around us. Until now. Today companies like Google, which have grown up in an era of massively abundant data, don't have to settle for wrong models. Indeed, they don't have to settle for models at all.

Sixty years ago, digital computers made information readable. Twenty years ago, the Internet made it reachable. Ten years ago, the first search engine crawlers made it a single database. Now Google and like-minded companies are sifting through the most measured age in history, treating this massive corpus as a laboratory of the human condition. They are the children of the Petabyte Age.

Chris Anderson seems to think computers will reduce science to pure induction, predicting the future based on the past. This method of course can't predict black swans, anomalous, truly novel events. Theory-laden human experts can't foresee black swans either, but for the foreseeable future, human experts will know how to handle black swans more adeptly when they appear.

Just because we remove the limits and biases of human narrativity from science, does not mean other biases don't rush in to fill the vacuum.

It is clear to me that while numerical simulation and computation are welcome tools, they are helpful only when they are used by good scientists to enhance their powers of creative reasoning. One rarely succeeds by “throwing a problem onto a computer”, instead it takes years and even decades of careful development and tuning of a simulation to get it to the point where it yields useful output, and in every case where it has done so it was because of sustained, creative theoretical work of the kind that has been traditionally at the heart of scientific progress."

Our Technological Future: Special on the Singularity by Vernor Vinge

IEEE Spectrum has a fantastic special edition on the Singularity just released in June 2008.
In this post on the many faces of the Singularity and our human and technological future are some remarkable quotes by Vernor Venge. For all readers who are into deep future, Metaverse, Multiverse and Augmented Reality. Highly recommended as this is in my view mind-expanding and blowing material !

"I expect the singularity will come as some combination of the following:   
1. The AI Scenario: We create superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) in computers.
2. The IA Scenario: We enhance human intelligence through human-to-computer interfaces—that is, we  achieve intelligence amplification (IA).
3. The Biomedical Scenario: We directly increase our intelligence by improving the neurological operation of our brains.
4. The Internet Scenario: Humanity, its networks, computers, and databases become sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.
5. The Digital Gaia Scenario: The network of embedded microprocessors becomes sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

Several of the essays discuss the plausibility of mind uploads and consequent immortality for “our digitized psyches,” ideas that have recently appeared in serious  nonfiction, most notably Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near. As with nanotechnology, such developments aren't prerequisites for the singularity. On the other hand, the goal of enhancing human intelligence through human-computer interfaces (the IA Scenario) is both relevant and in view. Today a well-trained person with a suitably provisioned computer can look very smart indeed. Consider just a slightly more advanced setup, in which an Internet search capability plus math and modeling systems are integrated with a head‑up display. The resulting overlays could give the user a kind of synthetic intuition about his or her surroundings. At a more intimate but still noninvasive level, DARPA's Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System is based on the idea of monitoring the user's mental activities and feeding the resulting analysis back to the user as a supplement to his or her own attention. And of course there are the researchers working with direct neural connections to machines. Larger numbers of implanted connections may allow selection for effective subsets of connections. The human and the machine sides can train to accommodate each other.

Brooks suggests that the singularity might happen—and yet we might not notice. Of the scenarios I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, I think a pure Internet Scenario—where humanity plus its networks and databases become a superhuman being—is the most likely to leave room to argue about whether the singularity has happened or not. In this future, there might be all-but-magical scientific breakthroughs. The will of the people might manifest itself as a seamless transformation of demand and imagination into products and policy, with environmental and geopolitical disasters routinely finessed. And yet there might be no explicit evidence of a superhuman player.

A singularity arising from networks of embedded microprocessors—the Digital Gaia Scenario—would probably be less deniable, if only because of the palpable strangeness of the everyday world: reality itself would wake up. Though physical objects need not be individually sapient, most would know what they are, where they are, and be able to communicate with their neighbors (and so potentially with the world). Depending on the mood of the network, the average person might notice a level of convenience that simply looks like marvelously good luck. The Digital Gaia would be something beyond human intelligence, but nothing like human. In general, I suspect that machine/network life-forms will be faster, more labile, and more varied than what we see in biology. Digital Gaia is a hint of how alien the possibilities are."

The Political Mind by George Lakoff

WOW, just saw this 1 hour presentation and Q&A with George Lakoff on Authors@Google, one of my favorite channels in YouTube. He just released a new book The Political Mind. Very powerful and clear presentation on neurology, psychology, mirror neurons/empathy and its impact in politics. What is most striking to me is the clarity, especially the second part of this talk covering topics like nurturing kids and Obama. Highly recommended !

Peter Schwartz and Niall Ferguson on Futurism versus Historians

One of my all-time favorite discussions on history versus futurism.  Two world class thinkers and authors - Niall Ferguson and Peter Schwartz - are discussing their similarities and differences as well as the foundations, methods, biases and limitations of both disciplines.

One great quote: "Historical knowledge is the reenactment of a past thought encapsulated in a context to present thoughts, which in contradicting it confine it to a plane different from theirs".

Another one: "If you have simultaneously Economic volatility, Ethnic disintegration and Empires in decline, then the probability of a high level of organized lethal violence is significant."

Highly highly recommended viewing including the spicy Q&A.

 

Craig Venter on Synthetic Biology (LongNow Foundation Presentation)

One of the most exciting new scientific topics around: Synthetic Biology. If this field keeps on growing we are in my view experiencing a more revolutionary trajectory the coming decades relative to the internet (online and mobile combined). Highly recommended viewing, especially the Q&A. Including some possible solutions for our environmental and resource challenges.

TED 2008: Microsoft WorldWide Telescope (WWT) as a Milestone for Human Exploration

Below a short presentation from TED 2008 which inspired me a lot. For the first time, the universe becomes more accessable, knowable, personal and sharable to all of us spurring different innovations going forward.

My previous (speculative) blog post on the impact of increasing parallellism and evolutionary thinking on the one hand and the decreasing (perceived) centrality of the human species on digital media resonates in my view with the WWT experience and learning, especially in relation to the decreasing centrality of humans and a deeper understanding of the evolutionary nature of our existence.

Experience, immersion, inspiration, education, consciousness expansion... thanks to Microsoft for all of this !

Richard Dawkins, Craig Venter and John Brockman Video from DLD 2008 on Biotech and Genes

Insightful 1-hour discussion on biotech and genetics by two of the leading experts in our world.

Link: sevenload.com

On BANG Convergence and Three Other Key Value Drivers in the Coming Decades

Global Business Network is one of my favorite sources. To me Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand and Eamonn Kelly are leading thinkers. In this short PDF document Eamonn Kelly - author of the highly acclaimed (futuristic) book Powerful Times - sheds some light on four key drivers of value creation in the coming decades.

The reasons for posting this one are the importance of the Gift Economy (see also the recent remarks by Kevin Kelly, Yochai Benkler and Don Tapscott), the revitalization of the Physical Infrastructure Economy (creative new insight) and most importantly the coming BANG convergence. BANG convergence is bigger than the current Digital Convergence and it relates to Bits, Atoms, Neurons and Genes. This is one of my favorite topics for a very long time as a result of reading the book Complexity. A life changer to me ! After reading this book in 1993, I was lured to the Santa Fe Institute as an inspiring knowledge platform for BANG convergence. It inspired me to read great books by Stuart Kauffman and Ilya Prigogine. And when we watch all those outstanding videos on TED we can see by our own senses why the BANG convergence is the biggest value creator of our times. 

On Citizendium versus Wikipedia, Digital Maoism and the Difference between Wisdom of the Crowd and Collective Intelligence

A fantastic post by Larry Sanger on Edge on Wikipedia and other forms of mass online opinion. It is about subjectivity and objectivity, about equal access and authority, about meritocracy and reputational systems. Sanger is co-founder of Wikipedia and started a competitor called Citizendium (Wikipedia with real names and experts-integration). Sangers' deepens my previous posts on journalists and bloggers, on who controls entries on Wikipedia from a PR point of view and on Jaron Laniers' Digital Maoism. Highly recommended reading and watch out for Citizendium to grow rapidly !

"Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.  An intelligent group, especially when confronted with cognition problems, does not ask its members to modify their positions in order to let the group reach a decision everyone can be happy with.

But that's exactly what happens on wikis, and on Wikipedia.  To be able to work together at all, consensus and compromise are the name of the game.  As a result, the Wikipedian "crowd" can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims, which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an "average" of public opinion on a subject.  I don't mean to say that the Wikipedia process is not robust and does not produce a lot of correct answers.  It is and it does.  But the process does not closely resemble the "wise crowd" phenomena that Surowiecki is explaining.

The desire for fairness creates hostility toward any authority—and not just when authority uses its power to gain an unfair advantage, but toward authority as such. That is, the most radical egalitarians advocate that our situations be made as equal as possible, including in terms of authority.  But, in our specialist-friendly modern society, expertise can confer much authority not available to non-experts. Perhaps the most important and fundamental authority experts have is the authority to declare what is known. This authority, then, should be placed in the hands of everyone equally, according to a thoroughgoing egalitarianism.

I support meritocracy: I think experts deserve a prominent voice in declaring what is known, because knowledge is their life. As fallible as they are, experts, as society has traditionally identified them, are more likely to be correct than non-experts, particularly when a large majority of independent experts about an issue are in broad agreement about it. In saying this, I am merely giving voice to an assumption that underlies many of our institutions and practices. Experts know particular topics particularly well. By paying closer attention to experts, we improve our chances of getting the truth; by ignoring them, we throw our chances to the wind. Thus, if we reduce experts to the level of the rest of us, even when they speak about their areas of knowledge, we reduce society's collective grasp of the truth.

It is no exaggeration to say that epistemic egalitarianism, as illustrated especially by Wikipedia, places Truth in the service of Equality. Ultimately, at the bottom of the debate, the deep modern commitment to specialization is in an epic struggle with an equally deep modern commitment to egalitarianism. It's Truth versus Equality, and as much as I love Equality, if it comes down to choosing, I'm on the side of Truth."