FutureTimes.net

It's been a long, long time since I've written anything for this blog due to other interests taking a front burner. In fact I really should be doing something else right now. But I was just sitting here thinking about a personal issue and I noticed I was thinking about myself and how I make decisions. I thought, that's odd. Seems like one part of the brain is aware of the processes going on in another the same way it would be aware of a sound or a smell. That's self-awareness.

That got me thinking about consciousness and the question whether or not consciousness can be created in a computer or uploaded. I've always leaned towards the argument that it cannot. I've also always taken the side of the argument that animals have consciousness. Being a spiritual person (not religious in the least) my suspicion is that consciousness is something entirely different than brain activity and that it could never be achieved by a machine. But now I'm not so sure. Here's why:

As a ravenous follower of future news and opinion I keep running into the idea that machine consciousness and/or super-human-level machine intelligence are a prerequisite or obvious symptom of The Singularity.  I can't agree less.  Consciousness does not by itself imply super-intelligence, nor does super-intelligence imply consciousness.  Yes, The Singularity would result in an artificial intelligence explosion.  But that does not inherently imply a consciousness explosion.

With the advent of the industrial revolution the quality of just about everything had been on the rise.  Printing went from black and white movable type to high tech digital color.  Audio went from recording on wax cylinders to hi-fi stereophonic sound, radio went from mono AM to hi-fi stereo FM, film went from silent films to Technicolor color and surround sound, black and white broadcast TV gave way to color and then cable TV and then satellite TV.  And manufacturing costs went down while quality went up on just about everything.  But the computer revolution, albeit a boon for mankind, has brought with it an ironic reduction in the quality of media.  And very soon a similar reduction in quality is about to befall everyday things.

Where once the lowly mouse and keyboard were the leading ports of human intention in cyberspace, the world of computer interface is opening up to offer a variety of more natural ways to get into the mind of the computer such as touchscreens voice commands and gestural systems like Kinect.  But the ideal situation would be for the computer to get into our minds and determine our intentions.  This hasn't proved to be easy technology to develop.  Brains signals on the surface of the skull are weak, and BCI's typically require extremely focused intention or meditation, but new software is being developed that separates operator intentions from other thoughts allowing users to multitask.  With the power of consumer BCI hardware and software rising and prices dropping we're heading quickly toward a day when all you'll have to do to operate a computer - or a car for that matter - is put on your thinking cap and your wish will be the computer's command.

Star Trek got it all wrong - and so did every other space-fi movie

There's a blatantly politically incorrect racial joke that goes like this:  "Why aren't there any _____ on Star Trek."  (Fill in the blank with your most feared enemy's ethnic group.)  The punchline goes, "Because it takes place in the future."  Just in case one or two of you missed the joke, it's implying that they were wiped out at some point in the nearer future.  But there's a much, much deeper irony built into this joke that's being obscured by our mistrust of one another.  While our puny cerebellums are fearfully squabbling over our selfish interests, a collabortive of neo cortexes is planning our collective evolution - or some might say extinction!  We humans as a race should be pondering a more serious riddle:  "Why are there any humans on Star Trek at all if it takes place in the future?"