George

Changes to the BH news section

2008-01-17T18:21:00Z

As we work to develop the next phase of Betterhumans we’re going to introduce and integrate some of our new offerings with the existing version of the site. The first of these changes will be a new approach to how we report the news.

If you’re like us, you need to have your daily fix of the latest news in sci-tech, culture, ethics, politics and all the important happenings around the blogosphere. And if you’re really like us, you’re totally bored of the tired and stale news format that you find virtually everywhere on the web.

We’re going to change it up a bit. We want our news coverage to have some more bite and attitude.

Watch for this starting next week.

A sneak peek into the new Betterhumans?

2007-12-02T01:16:00Z

Check out this sexy conceptual front page mock-up for Betterhumans. While it's unlikely that we're going to go with this exact design, it should give you an idea of the direction we have in mind for the next phase of Betterhumans (which is slated for re-launch in January).

Announcing the next phase of Betterhumans

2007-11-13T21:38:00Z

We’ve made some changes at Betterhumans.

Some have already happened, while others are still in the works. More importantly, despite our varied and (at times) inconsistent past, it’s fair to say that the best is yet to come; we are about to embark on an exciting next phase for Betterhumans. And this time, we have the resources to bring some of our wildest ideas to life.

To this end, I have taken on the role of editor-in-chief of Betterhumans. Many of you know me from previous contributions, and from my work with the World Transhumanist Association, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and Sentient Developments blog. I am now also responsible for the day-to-day management of Betterhumans, working to ensure that we produce quality content that reflects its mission.

As for Simon Smith, Betterhumans' former editor-in-chief, he has moved into the role of publisher. Here, he's working to grow the site, set direction, build partnerships and sponsorships, and generally ensure that we create and achieve long-term goals.

These changes were made possible by the advent of Commune Media, of which Betterhumans is now a wholly owned publication. Commune is a communications agency that helps companies use science and technology for positive change. Simon is the company's principal and I manage its operations. We decided recently that it made sense to bring Betterhumans under Commune, as this would provide greater resources for Betterhumans while in turn helping promote Commune's expertise. And now we have some big plans for Betterhumans over the coming months.

But before I get into the future of Betterhumans, let’s take a quick look at its past.

Simon founded Betterhumans in 2001 and I joined him less than a year later as deputy editor. We quickly developed the site and attracted a loyal following. Regular content featured editorials from key movers and shakers in the various futurist and progressive movements. We regularly published book reviews, interviews, encyclopedic articles and the latest news in human biotechnology and progress.

It was a thing of beauty, but given our volunteer workforce, it couldn't last.

This model, while very effective, proved difficult to manage given limited resources. Consequently, our next focus was on creating a community centered site to which members could contribute a good share of the content, namely through the development of user forums and member blogs. This strategy had its pluses and minuses, and we eventually recalibrated and re-worked the site such that it combined more traditional editorial practices with community driven material.

Which is where we find Betterhumans today. Admittedly, it's less than ideal. We recognize that the site is lacking in dynamic, exciting and cutting-edge content and services. But that's going to change soon in a very big way.

We're proud to announce that we are already working on the next phase of Betterhumans, which we hope to launch in January 2008.

While we’re not ready to give away too many details just quite yet, I can say that the changes aren’t going to be subtle. We’re re-inventing Betterhumans once again. And this time, we have the resources to make and sustain changes that honestly make us howl with excitement.

Stay tuned for more information over the coming weeks.

Scientific literacy as a means to inoculate against religion

2007-09-22T17:09:00Z

[Cross-posted from Sentient Developments]

"My only wish is…to transform friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are "half animal, half angel" into persons, into whole persons."

– Ludwig Feuerbach

There’s a current billboard in Toronto that reads, “Literacy is a right.”

Now, we’ve all be told to believe that rights are nonsense on stilts, but there is a certain significance to these sorts of proclamations. Clearly, when someone declares something to be a ‘human right’ they are making a very serious claim. They have pinpointed something they feel no person should have to do without, whether it be protection against racial discrimination, access to clean water, or in this case, the ability to read.

The impetus behind these sorts of social efforts is the assurance that persons be guaranteed the most basic tools and protections required to get through life fairly and safely. In the case of reading, it is generally acknowledged that illiteracy debilitates a person to the point where they experience undue difficulty engaging in all that life and society has to offer.

Interestingly, there’s a normative aspect to these sorts of ‘endowments’ and privileges. A few centuries ago most people did not need to know how to read to get through life. Today, however, it is near impossible – hence the call for literacy as a basic right.

But it’s not just the ability to read that is crucial today. Given the intricacies of the modern age and the ever-growing complexification of ideas and technology, it can be said that a scientific education is also increasingly necessary; if literacy can be considered a basic right, then so to must scientific literacy.

Yet, far too few people truly understand science and technology today. This is proving to be extremely problematic, particularly at the dawn of what looks to be a transformative future. Scientific illiteracy, quite unfortunately, appears to be an issue that will only get worse and create a slew of social problems.

Including the ongoing entrenchment and spread of religion.

We currently live at a time when rationality and tolerance have never been more important to the human species. Religion, with all its prejudices and devotion to ignorance, continues to present a threat to not just healthy and inquisitive minds, but to civilization itself.

Consequently, we need to place a much higher value on a scientific education. Simply put, there’s no better way to inoculate against religion and other forms of misinformation and unhealthy thinking habits. Our children deserve the right to a scientific, critical mind.

Soft memetic engineering

Indeed, the only truly effective and ethical way to combat viral religious memes is to nip them in the bud and prevent them from taking root in the first place. Prevention is what’s required rather than a cure.

Memetic theory -- the notion that ideas replicate by spreading from mind to mind – suggests that memes are only effective if they find a home in a sympathetic brain. The ability of a meme to take root in someone’s consciousness is a reflection of its ability to exploit human psychology (consequently, memetics can be thought of the science of understanding how human psychology responds to information). But this is only part of the story. Not all minds are alike, and not everyone is subject to the same information acquisition/transmission tendencies.

There are currently 6.6 billion human minds on the planet in various states of memetic receptiveness. Owing to new technologies, many these minds have unprecedented access to the world’s information. The current memepool is an anarchic mix of ideas bursting open like the Cambrian Explosion --each idea waiting for the opportunity to copy itself from one mind to another.

These conditions are the result of human ingenuity, creativity and tolerance. In free societies memes remain largely unchecked and are allowed to proliferate and mutate at will. In liberal democracies we consider freedom of speech and the right to free expression as among our highest values.

We also live in a world, quite thankfully, where people cannot be coerced into adopting a specific mindset. This was attempted in the 20th century by totalitarian Marxist regimes who, in the case of religion, banned spiritual practices, burned down churches and executed priests. The end result, particularly in post-Soviet Russia, was a religious community who survived the persecution only to come back with more power and fervor than before.

In other words, it backfired.

Indeed, this kind of ideological ‘memetic engineering’ is very much frowned upon today and should not be considered a viable solution in the struggle to maintain cultural health.

Unfortunately, however, there are consequences to having an anarchic memepool, namely the unchecked proliferation of misinformation, superstition, and of course, religion. These types of ideas are more than mere falsities, they create problems as well. Recently in Canada, for example, Catholic girls were nearly denied vaccinations for for human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease. As a result, these girls were put at risk of developing cervical cancer on account of religious sexual taboos.

As Thomas H. Hulxey once noted, “Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” As we can attest to today, religious notions are interfering with the quality of human lives, whether it be public health issues, hallucinations of an intelligent designer or the blood lust of a suicidal would-be martyrs.

Thankfully, there is a gentle and elegant way to steer people in the direction of truth and rationality – what we can call a soft form of memetic engineering. I’m speaking, of course, of scientific literacy. Given our society's laws and values, the best we can do is to prime minds in such a way that they are equipped to fend off superstitious nonsense. A mind in tune with scientific methodology can better sterilize religious memes, and at the same time guard against other psychological pot-holes like pseudoscience and conspiratorial paranoia.

A way of thinking

A scientific education consists of more than just memorizing the periodic table of the elements or understanding Newton’s basic laws. In addition to these things it is the acquisition of the skeptical mind and the capacity for critical thought. Carl Sagan once noted that, “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”

Skepticism should be considered a virtue and a redeeming characteristic. Physicist Richard Feynman agreed, “There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Conversely, Richard Dawkins describes the religious mind as being unimaginative, not poetic, not soulful. “On the contrary, they are parochial, small-minded, niggardly with the human imagination, precisely where science is generous,” he says.

Needless to say a number of things have to change. The education system needs to be reformed, while popular media needs to take on a more positive outlook when it comes to science.

Take school, for example. In addition to regular science classes students should have lessons dedicated to critical and healthy thinking (including lessons in emotional intelligence). These classes should teach the scientific method, empiricism, how to recognize biases and extraordinary claims, and how to properly source data and work with credible sources.

This would go a long way in making the learning of science much more palatable for students. Today, most students, particularly girls, find it off-putting. It’s geek stuff. It’s supposed to be hard. Moreover, science is often relegated to the sidelines in favour of easier or more romantic and exciting subjects, including athletics.

Districts should establish pro-science campaigns and bring in expert speakers and science-focused entertainers. Schools need more money, better equipment, and enthusiastic teachers. Students should have more time allocated each week to learning about science and critical thinking. Pop culture needs more positive role models like Bill Nye and outspoken individuals like Richard Dawkins and the late Carl Sagan.

Science can be sexy. It just has to presented that way.

Liberal education and home schooling

All of this, of course, cannot happen in a vacuum; science most certainly needs to be part of a broader liberal education. Students should understand the width and breadth of the world and avoid the insular thinking that characterizes religious minds and communities.

To this end, schools should introduce students to psychology, history and cultural studies at an earlier age. World religions should be taught to expand otherwise limited faith-based views, thus greatly reducing xenophobia and general lack of awareness. It would also establish a sense of humility and reduce notions of cultural relativism.

As for the issue of home schooling, yes, parents deserve the right to keep their kids at home or send them to private faith-based schools.

But such a decision may eventually come at a price. Standardized testing should be implemented and no student should be able to earn a high school diploma without a solid grasp of the basics of science and its methodology. Should some parents insist on teaching creationism instead of evolution, their children will have to face the consequences. The outcome may be that faith-based schooling will eventually carry a stigma. It’s conceivable that these children will have low employability and have difficultly earning admission to universities.

Democratic process

An implicit assumption in a democracy is that the collective actions of an informed populace will be to the benefit of both individuals and the community. The world, in order to be properly comprehended, and for an individual to fully engage in life, is increasingly dependent on persons having a scientific rather than a metaphysical interpretation of existence. Today, without critical thinkers, democracy and effective governance is in peril.

Moreover, given the complexity of today’s technologies and the dire consequences (or benefits!) of their development, the need to address global scale problems has never been more important. Scientific minds are absolutely necessary to not just identify these problems, but to solve them as well. Today we face such calamities as global warming and the spread of catastrophic diseases.

It should be noted that many Christian evangelists are global warming deniers -- not because they claim any special scientific knowledge, but because they are skeptical of any scientific claim, and any other 'belief system' like environmentalism that could rival their own. This is a recipe for disaster.

Close-mindedness is not what's required here; instead, we need dynamic and effective people to help humanity deal with problems like climate change.

Helping people and society

Scientific illiteracy is an impairment. Individuals without the capacity for critical and rational thought are increasingly having a difficult time understanding their world and relating to ‘mainstream’ society. There is a growing divide between the secular and religious worlds, giving rise to two distinct cultures who are increasingly unable to converse with each other.

Worse, those individuals who embrace more extreme or fundamentalist versions of religion feel increasingly alienated by modern society. The urge is to rail against the tide rather than seek a kind of reconciliation or understanding; cultural relations ends up regressing to an 'us versus them' mentality.

But a common ground does exist. Science is the universal language.

If literacy can be declared a right, then so too must scientific literacy. The health of individuals and society depends on it.

Thinking inside the box: Visualizing data with mind maps

2007-09-11T15:03:00Z

A friend of mine recently turned me on to a new way of organizing and conceptualizing data. Called mind mapping, it is a method of note taking that utilizes diagrams which are used to represent words, ideas, tasks or other items linked to and arranged radially around a central key word or idea. Mind maps can be used to generate, visualize, structure and classify ideas. They're also used as an aid in study, organization, problem solving, decision making and writing.

After playing around with mind mapping software for several weeks now (I'm using the open source FreeMind), I have to admit that it totally works for me. I've started to use it for virtually all aspects of my life, whether it be organizing my next blog post or structuring my daily routines. I'm even using it for networking purposes by keeping track of my friends and linking them to various parts of my life (e.g. wine tasting, concert going, mountain biking, transhumanism, etc.)

How and why does it work?

It works because mind mapping is more sympathetic to the way in which the human brain operates. Our minds do not organize data in the same way we typically structure notes or arrange to do lists. Rather, we like to conceptualize things in a more graphical or symbolic manner, which results in better and more intuitive conceptualization. Further mind maps double as a mnemonic device as elements are remembered more easily when they are laid out in a graphical, non-hierarchical fashion (some studies have shown as much as 10% improvement in recall, but I'm inclined to think it's better than that).

Typically, mind maps are composed of an image-centered diagram that represents semantic or other connections between chunks of information. Elements are arranged intuitively based on the importance of the concepts and are organized into groupings, branches or areas.

This method better facilitates brainstorming approaches. Idea flow can be better captured when elements are laid out in a radial, non-linear graphical manner. Subsequently, this strategy eliminates the hurdle of initially establishing an intrinsically appropriate or relevant conceptual framework to work within.

Meta organization

Mind mapping has allowed me to take a more holistic approach to my research, analysis and writing. I have created a massive mind map that I'm using to key in ideas as they come to me. The map never becomes unwieldy because extraneous branches can always be collapsed. Elements can be linked across the map, either with graphical symbols or internal hyperlinks. When the entire map is open it looks like a giant bowl of Alphagetti.

My hope is that over time the mind map will become exactly that: a map of my mind. Having a large and highly organized database with interlinks should allow me to better "see" and remember the data that is in my head and help me bring together related concepts.

The key, of course, is to not let the technology get in the way of work. One runs the risk of obsessing over the quality of the mind map. Just because I'm reshuffling data within my map doesn't mean I'm actually getting anything done. A tool is not an end unto itself; it is an assistive device that must ultimately lead to a final product or goal.

Time will tell if this will be the case for me, but my initial impression is very positive.

var a = 2; if(a == 0) {document.write('Add a comment');} else if(a == 1) {document.write('1 comment');}else{document.write(a+' comments');}

The Fermi Paradox: Back with a vengeance

2007-08-04T19:14:00Z

Cross-posted from Sentient Developments.

This article is partly adapted from my TransVision 2007 presentation, “Whither ET? What the failing search for extraterrestrial intelligence tells us about humanity's future.”

The Fermi Paradox is alive and well.

As our sciences mature, and as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence continues to fail, the Great Silence becomes louder than ever. The seemingly empty cosmos is screaming out to us that something is askew.

Our isolation in the Universe has in no small way shaped and defined the human condition. It is such an indelible part of our reality that it is often taken for granted or rationalized to extremes.

To deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the Great Silence, we have resorted to good old fashioned human arrogance, anthropocentrism, and worse, an inter-galactic inferiority complex. We make excuses and rationalizations like, ‘we are the first,’ ‘we are all alone,’ or, ‘why would any advanced civilization want to bother with us backward humans?’

Under closer scrutiny, however, these excuses don’t hold. Our sciences are steadily maturing and we are discovering more and more that our isolation in the cosmos and the dearth of observable artificial phenomenon is in direct violation of our expectations, and by consequence, our own anticipated future as a space-faring species.

Indeed, one of the greatest philosophical and scientific challenges that currently confronts humanity is the unsolved question of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI's).

We have yet to see any evidence for their existence. It does not appear that ETI’s have come through our solar system; we see no signs of their activities in space; we have yet to receive any kind of communication from them.

Adding to the Great Silence is the realization that they should have been here by now -- the problem known as the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox
The Fermi Paradox is the contradictory and counter-intuitive observation that we have yet to see any evidence for the existence of ETI’s. The size and age of the Universe suggests that many technologically advanced ETI’s ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

Largely ignored in 1950 when physicist Enrico Fermi famously asked, “Where is everybody,” and virtually dismissed at the seminal SETI conference in 1971, the conundrum was given new momentum by Michael Hart in 1975[1] (which is why it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart Paradox).

Today, 35 years after it was reinvigorated by Hart, it is a hotly contested and relevant topic -- a trend that will undoubtedly continue as our sciences, technologies and future visions develop.

Back with a vengeance
A number of inter-disciplinal breakthroughs and insights have contributed to the Fermi Paradox gaining credence as an unsolved scientific problem. Here are some reasons why[2]:

Improved quantification and conceptualization of our cosmological environment
The scale of our cosmological environment is coming into focus. Our Universe contains about 10^11 to 10^12 galaxies, giving rise to a total of 10^22 to 10^24 stars[3]. And this is what exists right now; there have been a billion trillion stars in our past Universe. [4]

The Milky Way itself, which is considered a giant as far as galaxies go, contains as many as 400 billion stars and has a diameter of 100,000 light years.[5]

Improved understanding of planet formation, composition and the presence of habitable zones
The Universe formed 13.7 billion years ago. The Milky Way Galaxy formed a mere 200 million years later, making our Galaxy nearly as old as the Universe itself. Work by Charles Lineweaver has shown that planets also began forming a very long time ago; he places estimates of Earth-like planets forming 9 billion years ago (Gyr).

According to Lineweaver, the median age of planets in the Galaxy is 6.4+/0.7 Gyr which is significantly more than the Earth’s age. An average terrestrial planet in the Galaxy is 1.6 Gyr older than the Earth. It is estimated that three quarters of earth-like planets in the Galactic habitable zone are older than the Earth.

We have a growing conception of where habitation could be sustained in the Galaxy. The requirements are a host star that formed between 4 to 8 Gyr ago, enough heavy elements to form terrestrial planets, sufficient time for biological evolution, an environment free of sterilization events (namely super novae), and an annular region between 7 and 9 kiloparsecs from the galactic center that widens with time. [6]

The discovery of extrasolar planets
Over 240 extrasolar planets have been discovered as of May 1, 2007[7]. Most of these are so-called “hot Jupiters,” but the possibility that their satellites could be habitable cannot be ruled out. Many of these systems have stable circumstellar habitable zones.

Somewhat shockingly, the first Earth-like planet was discovered earlier this year orbiting the red star Gilese 581; it is 20 light years away, 1.5 times the diameter of Earth, is suspected to have water and an atmosphere, and its temperature fluctuates between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius.[8]

Confirmation of the rapid origination of life on Earth
The Earth formed 4.6 Gyr ago and rocks began to appear 3.9 Gyr ago. Life emerged quickly thereafter 3 Gyr ago. Some estimates show that life emerged in as little as 600 million years after the formation of rocks.[9]

Growing legitimacy of panspermia theories
There is a very good chance that we inhabit a highly compromised and fertile Galaxy in which ‘life seeds’ are strewn about. The Earth itself has been a potentially infectious agent for nearly 3 billion years.

Evidence has emerged that some grains of material in our solar system came from beyond our solar system. Recent experiments show that microorganisms can survive dormancy for long periods of time and under space conditions. We also now know that rocks can travel from Mars to Earth.[10]

Discovery of extremophiles
Simple life is much more resilient to environmental stress than previously imagined. Biological diversity is probably more much larger than conventionally assumed.

Developing conception of a biophilic Universe in which the cosmological parameters for the existence of life appear finely tuned
As scientists delve deeper and deeper into the unsolved mysteries of the Universe, they are discovering that a number of cosmological parameters are excruciatingly specific. So specific, in fact, that any minor alteration to key parameters would throw the entire Universe off kilter and result in a system completely unfriendly to life. The parameters of the Universe that are in place are so specific as to almost suggest that spawning life is in fact what the Universe is supposed to do. [11]

Cosmological uniformitarianism implies that that anthropic observation need not be and cannot be specific to human observers, but rather to any observer in general; in other words, the Universe can support the presence of any kind of observer, whether they be here on Earth or on the other side of the cosmos.

Confirmation of the early potential for intelligent life
My own calculations have shown that intelligence could have first emerged in the Universe as long as 4.5 Gyr ago -- a finding that is consistent with other estimates, including those of Lineweaver and David Grinspoon.[12]

Refinement of evolutionary biology, computer science and systems theories
Evolution shows progressive trends towards increasing complexity and in the direction of increasing fitness. There has also been the growing acceptance of Neo-Darwinism.

Advances in computer science have reshaped our conception of what is possible from an informational and digital perspective. There is the growing acceptance of systems theories which take emergent properties and complexity into account. Game theory and the rise of rational intelligence add another level to this dynamic mix.

Development of sociobiological observations as they pertain to the rapid evolution of intelligent life and the apparent radical potential for advanced intelligence
Exponential change. Moore’s Law. Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns. Steady advances in information technologies. Artificial intelligence. Neuroscience. Cybernetics, and so on.

And then there is the theoretic potential for a technological Singularity, digital minds, artificial superintelligence, molecular nanotechnology, and other radical possibilities. There is also emerging speculation about the feasibility of interstellar travel, colonization and communication.

In other words….
There are more stars in the Universe than we can possibly fathom. Any conception of ‘rare’ ‘not enough time’ or ‘far away’ has to be set against the inability of human psychology to grasp such vast cosmological scales and quantities. The Universe and the Milky Way are extremely old, our galaxy has been able to produce rocky planets for quite some time now, and our earth is a relative new-comer to the galaxy.

The composition of our solar system and the Earth itself may not be as rare as some astronomers and astrobiologists believe. These discoveries are a serious blow to the Rare Earth Hypothesis – the idea that the genesis, development and proliferation of life is an extremely special event[13]. It’s also a blow to Brandon Carter’s anthropic argument which takes a very human-centric approach to understanding cosmology, suggesting that our existence as observers imposes the sort of Universe that only we can observe.

Finally, the Universe appears capable of spawning radically advanced intelligence – the kind of advanced intelligence that transhumanists speculate about, namely post-Singularity, post-biological machine minds. Given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that any advanced civilization would seek out new resources and colonize first their star system, and then surrounding star systems. Indeed, estimates place the time to colonize the Galaxy anywhere from one million to 100 millions years.[14]

The fact that our Galaxy appears unperturbed is hard to explain. We should be living in a Galaxy that is saturated with intelligence and highly organized. Thus, it may be assumed that intelligent life is rare, or, given our seemingly biophilic Universe, our assumptions about the general behaviour of intelligent civilizations are flawed.

A paradox is a paradox for a reason: it means there’s something wrong in our thinking.

So, where is everybody?

[1] Hart, M. H. "An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrial Life on Earth," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 16, 128-135 (1975).

[2] This list, which is not intended to be a complete re-affirmation of the Fermi Paradox, was inspired and partly adapted from: Ćirković , Milan M. and Bradbury, Robert J. "Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of SETI", New Astronomy, vol. 11, pp. 628-639 (2006).

[3] "How many stars are there in the Universe?" European Space Agency, Space Scientist, February 23, 2004: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html.

[4] Hanson, R. 1999, “Great Filter,” (preprint at http://hanson.berkeley.edu/greatfilter.html).

[5] See Harvey Mudd and S. E. Levine: “Mass of the Milky Way and Dwarf Spheroidal Stream Membership.”

[6] Gonzalez, G., Brownlee, D., and Ward, P. 2001, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution,” Icarus 152, 185-200; Lineweaver, Charles H., Fenner , Yeshe, and Gibson, Brad K. 2004, “The Galactic Habitable Zone and the Age Distribution of Complex Life in the Milky Way.”; M. Noble , Z. E. Musielak , and M. Cuntz: 2002, "Orbital Stability of Terrestrial Planets inside the Habitable Zones of Extrasolar Planetary Systems"

[7] "A Rush of New Planets," Astrobiology Magazine: Jun 02, 2007: http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2351

[8] "All Wet? Astronomers Claim Discovery of Earth-like Planet," Scientific American, April 24, 2007: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A261F0-E7F2-99DF-313249A4883E6A86&chanID=sa007

[9] See Stephen J. Mojzsis: http://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/

[10] Raulin-Cerceau, F., Maurel, M.-C., and Schneider, J. 1998, “From panspermia to bioastronomy, the evolution of the hypothesis of universal life,” Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 28, 597; "Encore: Great Debates Part VI," Astrobiology Magazine, Aug 19, 2002: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article254.html

[11] The Wikipedia entry on the Fine Tuning argument has some good links and references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[12] Dvorsky, George: 2006, “When Did Intelligent Life First Emerge in the Universe?” http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/06/when-did-intelligence-first-emerge-in.html;

[13] Ward, P. D. and Brownlee, D. 2000, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (Springer, New York). Lineweaver, Charles H., Fenner , Yeshe, and Gibson, Brad K. 2004; Grinspoon, David, Lonely Planets, Ecco; 1st edition (November 4, 2003).

[14] Ćirković , Milan M., 2003: "On the Importance of SETI for Transhumanism." As it pertains to reframing the Fermi Paradox, Ćirković recommends Lytkin, Finney, and Alepko (1995; for Tsiolkovsky), Jones (1985; for Fermi), Viewing (1975), and Hart (1975), (Tipler 1980), Boyce (1979).

Martine's mindfiles

2007-08-03T04:02:00Z

Martine Rothblatt has an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I don't think her idea is going to work.

In our cybernetic and virtual world of the future, says Rothblatt, genes are not going to matter so much. Instead, we’ll be concerned about ‘bemes' -- a fundamental, transmissible, unit of beingness.

This will give rise to the transbeman person -- a being who claims to have the rights and obligations associated with being human, but is beyond accepted notions of legal personhood. Examples would include a computer claiming to be conscious; a person successfully reanimated from cryonic stasis; or the downloading of a ‘cyberconsciousness’ into a highly engineered ‘bionano’ body.

Operation: Mindfile
Rothblatt, an eccentric billionaire lawyer, author, and entrepreneur, made the case for "Cybernetic Biostasis" during TransVision 2007 and argued that bemes will eventually become the currency of the future – the stuff that will help prospective persons restore their memories and sense of identity. She believes that people should create digital ‘mindfiles’ that chronicle their lives; eventually, after death, persons could be revived by means of ‘mindware’ transfer when the requisite technology is powerful enough (namely the advent of artificial intelligence).

According to Rothblatt, bemes can be virtually anything that could later be used to restore a person’s history, identity and tendencies. Bemetic mindfiles could be comprised of old photos, blogs, transcripts, diaries, and so on; these artifacts could later be used to restore and re-define a person’s personality (including mannerisms, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values). Most importantly, these files could restore a person's memory.

To this end, Rothblatt has created the websites Cyberev.org (short for ybernetic beingness revival) and Lifenaut.com. People are encouraged to use the sites to start chronicling their lives.

During her TV07 presentation Rothblatt admitted that piecing together odds and sods of data would not create a perfect copy of a person’s consciousness. She contended that most people only remember fragments of their past anyway. To Rothblatt, it’s the preservation of the person’s "essence" that’s important.

Memories are a strange thing
I find Rothblatt’s mindfile concept quite intriguing, but ultimately unsatisfactory. I’m not convinced that a person’s identity and sense of ongoing self can be re-instantiated in this way. At best we might get a twisted copy of ourselves with a haphazard sense of someone else’s past.

Memories are a tricky thing; they don’t exist in a vacuum. First, we have memories because we, as conscious observers, experience the events in real time. Based on the strength and uniqueness of the event our brain parses the experience and temporarily stores it into short term memory. From there it solidifies into our long-term memory where we build an association with the event. This association allows us to recall the event at will. We are able to access the memory because we a) experienced the event first hand, and we b) created a personal linkage to that event (what could also be referred to as a personal narrative).

In other words, you have to know that you have the memory in order to access it.

Sometimes we forget that we have a memory of an event only to be reminded that it still exists in the brain just waiting to be accessed. I love it when that happens. My first few thoughts are usually, “Why did I forget about that? Why did I not think about that for so long?” For what ever reason the association or linkage to that piece of data was lost. The memory was still there embedded in the mind, but it was simply not accessed enough causing it to lie dormant.

As for Rothblatt’s concept, just because a mind is infused with memories doesn’t mean that all the associations will be there. The memories would likely be construed as a random mess of images, words and events. It would be unlikely that the person would be able to make any sense of it at all and frame a personal narrative around it.

Consciousness, identity, and an ongoing sense of self
Far too many people at the WTA’s TransVision conference batted around the word “consciousness” with complete disregard for definitions and a concrete understanding of what it truly is. Consciousness all too often gets conflated with other aspects of the mind, including memory and other cognitive tasks that comprise the mechanistic or computational aspects of the brain.

Consciousness is not something you can piece together and instantiate with cultural artifacts. Nor can a continuity of consciousness be restored in this manner. That’s still a question that perplexes even the best philosophers and neuroscientists.

Here’s a thought experiment: let’s suppose that you traded memories with your best friend – nothing else, just the memories. You’ve still got your body and all the grey matter in your brain that rightfully belongs to you, except your memories. Does this mean that you and your friend have traded consciousnesses? Does it mean that you’ve uploaded yourself into your friend's brain and vice-versa?

The answer is no to both questions! You would still be you in the sense that you’re still observing reality, but you’d be convinced that you are now your friend. A sense of identity (sense being the key word -- a kind of illusion) may have been transferred, but not the conscious lens that each of us has with which we observe and experience the world.

No link to cryonic reanimation
Later, when Alcor’s Tanya Jones was answering questions after her cryonics presentation, a member of the audience asked her if Alcor would consider using the mindfile concept to help in the process of reanimating frozen patients.

Jones answered very clearly: no.

Elaborating, she said that Alcor has considered using mindfiles to help newly revived persons re-connect with their past life. In this sense, the mindfiles would be a glorified shoebox filled with an individual's personal effects.

This makes sense. Assuming that a person’s brain was properly preserved they should have no trouble accessing their memories. If all goes well the person should feel like they had a long and hard nap. A very, very hard nap. Their memories, along with the all important personal narrative, associations and ongoing identity, should be readily accessible.

The mindfile as restorative medicine
Rothblatt’s mindfile concept may have limitations in regards to uploading or restoring a consciousness, but it is far from useless. The short-term potential as a means for restorative medicine is certainly a possibility.

Alzheimer’s patients may have their memories re-invigorated and stimulated in the manner that Rothblatt describes. They could also be used to improve the human capacity for memory, which can be extraordinarily weak.

Looking ahead, there's also the possibility that mindfiles could be used as a supplement to naturally stored memories. They could be uploaded into the mind and used in tandem with other recollections to add width and breadth to memory much like photographs or home videos do today.

So, you may wish to visit Dr. Rothblatt's website after all. Start working on that mindfile!

When Dvorsky met Minsky

2007-08-02T14:51:00Z

Cross-posted from Sentient Developments

Of all the celebrities and bigwigs I looked forward to meeting at TransVision 2007 there was only one person who I was truly nervous about running into – a person who gave me that 'I’m going to squeal like a little girl when I see him’ kind of feeling.

That individual was pioneering neuroscientist Marvin Minsky.

A friend cautioned me by claiming that he was a difficult man and not very approachable. I dismissed the warning and patiently waited for an opportunity to start a conversation with him.

I eventually got my chance. I was with two other friends when the three of us bumped into Minsky in the reception area of the conference hall. Without hesitation I approached and introduced myself. After we shook hands I told him how much I appreciated his work and how much of an honour it was for me to finally meet him. He nodded his head and didn’t say a word.

I was surprised by how old he looked. Minsky is now 80 years old and has been working in the field of neuroscience since the 1950s. Despite his age he recently published a book, The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind. Minsky just keeps on going.

Working to move the conversation along, I told him that while I was conducting research for my presentation I discovered that he was a presenter at the seminal SETI conference in 1971 in Byurakan. Minsky made waves at that conference by having the audacity to suggest that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations would likely be comprised of machine minds. It was a controversial suggestion, one that has only come into acceptance in more recent times. I asked Minsky for a first-hand account of how his idea was received back in 1971.

He stood there, just blankly looking at me, and didn’t say a single word. We all waited in silence for what seemed an eternity. I got the distinct impression that he was thoroughly disinterested in our little group.

Being a sucker for punishment I decided to move the conversation along. I unabashedly gave him the 10 second executive summary of my TV07 presentation, where I make some claims about the limitations of extraterrestrial civilizations and how this might account for the Great Silence and the problem that is the Fermi Paradox.

This finally got Minsky going. He had attended a SETI conference two weeks prior and was impressed with what he heard there. Minsky suggested that the reason we don’t see any signs of obvious megascale engineering or cosmological re-tuning by advanced ETI’s is that they have no sense of urgency to embark upon such projects. He argued that advanced intelligences won’t engage in these sorts of Universe changing exercises until the very late stages of the cosmos.

Jeez, I thought to myself, I hadn't considered that.

Leave it to Marvin Minsky to give me some serious food for thought a mere two hours before I was to give my talk. I was suddenly worried that this consideration would pierce a glaring hole in my argument.

After another minute of idle chit-chat I excused myself from Minsky's company and found a little corner where I could have my little micro-panic and contemplate his little theory.

The more I thought about it, however, the more unsatisfied I became with his answer; virtually everyone has a rather smug solution to the Fermi Paradox, and Marvin Minsky is no exception. Specifically, I was concerned with how such a theory could be exclusive to all civilizations. It seemed implausible to believe that not even one renegade civilization would take it upon itself to change the rules of the cosmos if it had the capacity to do so.

Moreover, given the power to reshape the Universe, a strong case could be made that a meta-ethical imperative exists to turn the madness that is existence into something profoundly more meaningful and safer. As Slavoj Žižek once said, existence is a catastrophe of the highest order. Timothy Leary described the Universe as an "ocean of chaos."

Waiting until the last minute to create a cosmological paradise (assuming such a thing is even possible) would seem to be both exceptionally risky and irresponsible -- not just to the members of a civilization capable of such feats, but to the larger universal community itself.

Phew. That's right, that's the answer. Ha, take that, Minsky!

So, after rationalizing a counter-argument to Minsky's suggestion, I was able to calm down and prepare myself for my presentation and deal with any follow-up questions that could be thrown my way.

And that's how I met Marvin Minsky.

Sure, he's not the most personable man I've ever met, but I got the sense that he's at a time in his life where a) he knows he owes nothing to no one and b) he'd rather engage with people who can contribute to his life's work and his ongoing struggle to solve the problem that is human cognition. And he's still as sharp as they come.

It was truly an honour.

Chatting with Alcor's Tanya Jones at TV07

2007-08-01T14:46:00Z

Cross-posted from Sentient Developments.

It’s funny how these things go. There I was at the TransVision 2007 celebrity reception last Thursday, drinking white wine, munching on hors d’oeuvres and eagerly awaiting the arrival of William Shatner. I was looking forward to a once in a lifetime opportunity.

And then I realized that I was in the company of Tanya Jones, chief operating officer for Alcor. I had never met Tanya before and I have yet to visit their facility in Arizona. I was very impressed with her TV07 presentation from earlier in the week and I was bursting with questions.

So, as we were waiting for Shatner to arrive, we began to chat.

To freeze and protect
During her talk two days prior, Tanya gave conference attendees the rundown on some of Alcor's more recent work and initiatives. It was a fascinating glimpse into the world of cryonics and what it takes to run a company on the technological and social fringe.

She noted how Alcor teams can be rushed to the bedside of dying patients as they ready for the suffusion of cryoprotectants in preparation for freezing. Without this highly engineered liquid, preservation would be completely disastrous with each cell suffering a host of problems, including ice crystallization and the eventual threat of it losing all its physical integrity upon reanimation. The cryoprotectant gel, which replaces the blood after death, essentially converts the body into a glass-like state upon contact with liquid nitrogen. The body’s informational state is thus retained at the highest level currently possible.

Consequently, getting the patient into cold storage quickly is paramount. As Tanya noted during her presentation, “time is trauma.” During the cocktail reception I asked her how long would be too long. She replied that any kind of delay is detrimental, but that after 24 hours the real serious and irrevocable damage starts to occur, namely cellular degradation and host of other neural problems as the brain begins to lose its cohesion and organization.

I asked her if Alcor has a policy for refusing the receipt of severely damaged corpses, say a body that had been terribly damaged by autopsy or by a motor vehicle accident. She answered that in such cases, where information theoretic death is all but assured, it is not up to Alcor but rather the predetermined wishes of the deceased. When an individual signs up with Alcor they specify the various extremes to which they will still agree to be cryonically preserved. Alcor unquestioningly adheres to the wishes of the patient.

Tanya also described the freezing process which is done under strictly controlled conditions. The body is slowly brought down to the optimally low temperature and is carefully monitored for fracturing. Quite frustratingly, every preservation that has ever been conducted at Alcor has suffered from fracturing of some sort. Tanya described the sound as ice-cubes popping in a drink.

I squirmed in my seat listening to this description, wondering how our high tech descendants will repair this sort of “information theoretic” brain damage.

Honesty, integrity, credibility
I was impressed with Tanya’s honesty and I told her so. By being open about current limitations, they come across as being less interested in the “sell” aspect and more concerned with creating a credible and legitimate industry. Along these lines I asked Tanya about regulation and whether or not she believes there will ever be such a thing as a monitored cryonics industry.

Not only did Tanya whole heartedly agree, she is convinced that it is inevitable and that a big battle is looming. “But Alcor,” claimed Tanya, “is ready.” She quickly outlined her plans and strategy for what she thinks will be a long and drawn out struggle to get the kind of regulation in place that would be to the benefit of Alcor and the burgeoning industry of cryonics – a battle that she believes will come sooner rather than later. As it currently stands, Alcor is 'regulated' under the Anatomical Gift Act, which makes Alcor a kind of glorified research lab and organ storage facility. Which I suppose is better than being acknowledged as a funeral parlor.

It’s this lack of recognition and backwards thinking that has arguably landed Alcor in trouble. The scandalous Ted Williams affair, which Tanya claims is finally all over and done with (including cash in hand), is an example of how a new and unrecognized industry can face undue challenges and public scrutiny. More formal and cogent regulation will not only give Alcor needed credibility as they work to create a viable business, it will also result in a safer and more effective industry.

From grave to cradle
Interestingly, while Alcor is primarily concerned with preservation, they are also looking ahead to a time when reanimation will finally become possible. They project themselves as being an all-in-one facility. Today they freeze bodies; tomorrow they hope to be the company that brings the dead back to life.

To this end they are creating a research lab in which rats will be cryonically preserved and experimented upon. This approach makes perfect sense. It will allow them to not just look ahead, but to gauge the effectiveness of current preservation procedures and technologies.

Jokingly, I complained to Tanya about their use of rats. “The thought of a little cryonics lab filled with frozen rats in tiny dewars is unsettling," I said, "Who wants to see a reanimated rat running around? Why couldn’t you guys have used cute little bunny rabbits instead – it would be much better PR to see a bunch of revived bunny rabbits hopping around.” Tanya laughed and noted how animal experimentation will in fact escalate and eventually come to involve more complex organisms such as pigs.

Cool company
I have yet to sign up for cryonics. My reasons are, admittedly, personal, complicated and even non-nonsensical. There may come a day, however, when I've reconciled my broader existential outlook with the prospect of cryonics.

Until then, however, I will laud the efforts of Alcor and continue to advocate for the right to a long life. They are certainly blazing a fascinating trail into the future.

Oh, and I totally missed the opportunity to meet William Shatner. I barely even noticed that he was in the room when I was chatting with Tanya.

Now why do you suppose I have absolutely no regrets about that?

The Drake Equation is obsolete

2007-06-04T15:32:00Z

Cross-posted from Sentient Developments.

I'm surprised how often the Drake Equation is still mentioned when people discuss such things as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence (SETI), astrobiology and problems like the Fermi Paradox.

Fairly recent insights in such fields as cosmology, astrobiology and various future studies have changed our perception of the cosmos and the ways in which advanced life might develop.

Frank Drake's equation, which he developed back in 1961, leaves much to be desired in terms of what it's supposed to tell us about both the nature and predominance of extraterrestrial life in our Galaxy.

The Drake Equation

The Drake equation states that:

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate and:

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Arbitrary at best

The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be.

Consequently, the Drake formula relies on 'stabs in the dark.' This makes it highly imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what should be considered acceptable or meaningful.

No accounting for cosmological development or time

Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time (see Cirkovic, "The Temporal Aspect of the Drake Equation and SETI").

More specifically, it does not take into consideration such factors as the age of the Galaxy, the time at which intelligence first emerged, or the presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life (such as metallicity required to form planets). The equation assumes a sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic and ever changing universe.

For example, the equation asks us to guess the number of Earth-like planets, but it does not ask us when there were Earth-like planets. And intelligence itself may have been present as long as 2 to 4.5 billion years ago.

The Galaxy's extreme age and the potential for intelligence to have emerged at disparate points in time leaves an absurdly narrow window for detecting radio signals. The distances and time-scales in question are mind-boggingly vast. SETI, under its current model, is conducting an incredibly futile search.

Detecting ETI's

Which leads to the next problem, that of quantifying the number of radio emitting civilizations. I'm sure that back in the 1960's it made a lot of sense to think of radio capability as a fairly advanced and ubiquitous means of communication, and by consequence, an excellent way to detect the presence and frequency of extraterrestrial civilizations.

But time has proven this assumption wrong. Our radio window is quickly closing and it will only be a matter of time before Earth stops transmitting these types of signals -- at least unintentionally (active SETI is a proactive attempt to contact ETI's with radio signals).

Due to this revelation, the entire equation as a means to both classify and quantify certain types of civilizations becomes quite meaningless and arbitrary. At best, it's a way of searching for a very narrow class of civilizations under very specific and constrained conditions.

Rather, SETI should continue to redefine the ways in which ETI's could be detected. They should try to predict future means of communication (like quantum communication schemes) and ways to identify these signals. They should also look for artificial objects such as megascale engineering and artificial calling cards (see Arnold, "Transit Lightcurve Signatures of Artificial Objects").

The future of advanced intelligence

Although possibly outside the auspices of this discussion, the Drake Equation does not account for the presence of post-radio capable civilizations, particularly post-Singularity machine intelligences. This is a problem because of what these types of civilizations might be capable of.

The equation is used to determine the number of radio capable civilizations as they conduct their business on their home planet. Again, this is a vary narrow view of ETI's and the space of all possible advanced civilizational types. Moreover, it does not account for any migratory tendency that advanced civs may have.

The Drake Equation does not tell us about exponential civilizational growth on account of Von Neumann probe disbursement. It does not tell us where advanced ETI's may be dwelling or what they're up to (e.g. Are they outside the Galaxy? Do they live inside Jupiter Brains? Do they phase shift outside of what we regard as habitable space? etc.). This is a serious shortcoming because the answers to these questions should help us determine not just where we should be looking, but they can also provide us with insight as to the makeup of advanced intelligence life and our own potential trajectory.

In other words, post-Singularity ETI's may represent the most common mode of existence for late-stage civilizations. And that's who we should be looking for rather than radio transmitting civs.

Are we alone?

Michael Crichton once put out a very weak argument against the Drake Equation. He claimed that SETI was a religious endeavor because it was a search for imaginary entities. He is wrong, of course; we should most certainly search for data where we think we might find it. I believe, despite the low odds, that it is reasonable to assume that our search for life on other planets is warranted. Even a negative result can be meaningful.

Consequently, SETI should keep listening, but expect to hear nothing. If we should suddenly hear something from the depths of space, then we will have to seriously re-evaluate our assumptions.

At the same time we should find better ways to detect advanced life and tweak the Drake Equation in such a way as to account for the missing variables and factors I mentioned earlier.

Again, and more generally, we should probably adopt the contact pessimist's frame. Back in the 60's and 70's, when the contact optimists like Sagan, Shklovskii and Drake ruled the Earth, it was not uncommon to think that N in the equation fell somewhere between 10x6 to 10x9.

These days, in the post Tipler and Hart era of astrosociobiology, cosmologists and astrobiologists have to take such factors into consideration as Von Neumann probes, the Fermi Paradox, the Rare Earth Hypothesis, stronger variants of the anthropic principle and catastrophism.

Put another way, as we continue to search for advanced ETI's, and as we come to discover the absurdity of our isolation here on Earth, we may have no choice but to accept the hypothesis that advanced life does not venture out into space for whatever reason (the most likely being self-destruction).

Our other option is to cross our fingers and hope that something radical and completely unpredictable lies on the other side of the technological Singularity.