Cryonics Will Scare Your Head Off

Annalee Newitz apparently thinks cryonics is creepy.

Her favorite comment on the photo collection of dewars (scary!) was this articulate one:

Profound.

Question: is cryonics any more “creepy” than what we already do with bodies where metabolism has ceased?

Human beings are largely unaware about the gruesome nature of “death”.

Humans also shy away from the mutilation that occurs during hospital surgery.

Hollywood films portray cryonics in a glamorous high-tech manner that makes it appear that one’s body can easily be placed into a capsule and frozen for future revival.

Reality is that cryopreservation involves complex surgery whereby tubes are inserted into major arteries and veins in order to deliver special anti-freeze solutions into the brain. The purpose is to reduce or eliminate freezing damage and other types of damage to brain cells. The process involves introducing stabilizing drugs and a special solution in the field and a major procedure in an operating room.

There’s nothing pretty about human cryopreservation, but as you’ll read, the alternatives are truly ghastly—and every …

Read More →

A Christian Perspective on the Singularity Movement

This was published late last year at Metanexus by the founder of the foundation, William Grassie: “Millennialism at the Singularity: Reflections on Metaphors, Meanings, and the Limits of Exponential Logic”. Here’s a quote to pique interest:

This is a very technical discussion in computer science, but the short of it is that many problems simply don’t compute. There are also other theoretical and practical limits to computation. These are called intractable problems because they “require hopelessly large amounts of time even for relatively small inputs…” Computer encryption depends on this second fact. It may be that the genome, in dynamic relationship with proteins and its environment, is in some sense “encrypted.” It may be that the mind-brain is similarly “encrypted.” In which case, we will never be able to fully understand, let alone reliably control life and mind no matter how exponentially our scientific knowledge grows nor how fast technological know-how accelerates

Here’s another quote:

Of course, anytime we talk about the future, our hopes or our fears, we are in the realm of religions.

…

Nowhere is …

Read More →

Dangers of Molecular Nanotechnology, Again

Over at IEET, Jamais Cascio and Mike Treder essentially argue that the future will be slow/boring, or rather, seem slow and boring because people will get used to advances as quickly as they occur. I heartily disagree. There are at least three probable events which could make the future seem traumatic, broken, out-of-control, and not slow by anyone’s standards. These three events include 1) a Third World War or atmospheric EMP detonation event, 2) an MNT revolution with accompanying arms races, and 3) superintelligence. In response to Jamais’ post, I commented:

I disagree. I don’t think that Jamais understands how abrupt an MNT revolution could be once the first nanofactory is built, or how abrupt a hard takeoff could be once a human-equivalent artificial intelligence is created.

Read Nanosystems, then “Design of a Primitive Nanofactory”, and look where nanotechnology is today.

For AI, you can do simple math that shows once an AI can earn enough money to pay for its own upkeep and then some, it would quickly gain …

Read More →

John Horgan Attacks the “Artificial Brain” Projects

John Horgan, the eminent science journalist who previously called me a cultist, is back on track with a guest blogging article at ScientificAmerican.com titled, “Artificial brains are imminent…not!” And hey, guess what — I totally agree with him. (Especially as far as the “cat brain” is concerned.) If AI comes about within the next two decades, I wager that it will be because we discovered the operating principles of intelligence and instantiated them in a machine, not because we copied a brain.

(Additional note: Markram has claimed that he has simulated a neocortical column with biologically realistic fidelity, but without demonstrating it more thoroughly, there is no way we can know if this claim is true. A commenter, Jordan, pointed out that Horgan misrepresented Markram’s attitude.)

Here’s a big quote from John’s post:

Sejnowski is a very smart guy, whom I’ve interviewed several times over the years about the mysteries of the brain. But I respectfully—hell, disrespectfully, Terry can take it—disagree with his prediction that artificial brains are imminent. Sejnowski’s own article shows …

Read More →

Nature: “A proximity-based programmable DNA nanoscale assembly line”

io9 has coverage of Nadrian Seeman’s latest work in nanotechnology: the first nanoscale assembly line! This is big news. If you were at Singularity Summit 2009 back in October and listening very carefully, you might have heard Seeman mention this device seven months in advance of its formal announcement! Now that’s foresight.

The full Nature article describing the device is here.

Read More →

Survey: Hiding Risks Can Hurt Public Support for Nanotechnology

Here’s an interesting news item from Eurekalert:

A new national survey on public attitudes toward medical applications and physical enhancements that rely on nanotechnology shows that support for the technology increases when the public is informed of the technology’s risks as well as its benefits – at least among those people who have heard of nanotechnology. The survey, which was conducted by researchers at North Carolina State University and Arizona State University (ASU), also found that discussing risks decreased support among those people who had never previously heard of nanotechnology – but not by much.

“The survey suggests that researchers, industries and policymakers should not be afraid to display the risks as well as the benefits of nanotechnology,” says Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at NC State who conducted the survey. “We found that when people know something about nanotechnologies for human enhancement, they are more supportive of it when they are presented with balanced information about its risks and benefits.”

The survey was conducted by Cobb in collaboration with Drs. Clark Miller and …

Read More →

Mice Show Pain on Their Faces Just Like Humans

Wired Science has news on how mice show pain on their faces, just like humans… not really surprising. Here’s a quote from the article:

“It suits us to think that animals don’t have a real depth of feeling or emotion, so it’s OK to treat them badly,” Williams said. “Farming practices aren’t very sensitive to animals’ feelings. It’s convenient to just hope they aren’t feeling these things.”

Yes — “insensitive” is an understatement. However, conditions are far better for animals on small family farms than they are in industrial meat operations. If you’re going to eat meat, buy from a small supplier if you can.

Read More →

James Hughes and Wesley J. Smith on Transhumanism

James Hughes has a good new essay on transhumanism that was reposted at io9. Also check out Wesley J. Smith’s response to it, where he claims:

Transhumanism is essentially about destroying the human race in order turn us into something better–actually an infinite variety of something betters since the very idea of norms is rejected as tyrannical. And in that anarchy would be sown the seeds of tyranny, since without the glue of commonality –- and the right to modify oneself at will would hardly promote cohesion –- society would descend into chaos, the cure for which would definitely not be liberty.

Maybe we can compromise by agreeing on certain modifications which are appropriate and which are not? Surely there would be an extended transitional period where modifications are slowly introduced into populations all over the world.

Technological progress in general can “sow the seeds of tyranny” by creating power asymmetries. Human enhancement makes it even more difficult to handle, but I think the challenge is part of our growing up as a species. Is …

Read More →
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →