Some IEET readers have been unable to submit comments for the past several days due to a glitch with our ‘captcha’ software. That problem is now fixed. We apologize for the temporary outage in two-way communication.
Are we good enough? If not, how may we improve ourselves? Must we restrict ourselves to traditional methods like study and training? Or should we also use science to enhance some of our mental and physical capacities more directly?
DI/DO (Drop In, Drop Out) connotes a lifestyle consisting almost entirely of online activity, but in place of a focus on interaction with actual friends and family, the vast majority of time is spent engaging with artificial digital companions.
As our various electronic devices gain more and more sensory awareness, we open up the potential for entirely new forms of interaction. Not just new interfaces—tapping and shaking and whatnot—but a shift in presence. With few exceptions, we use these new technologies in rather familiar ways. We might speak instead of type, or tap instead of click, or wave a control wand instead of mash a control pad, but these are essentially the same kinds of direct input processes we’ve done for years, just dressed up in a new look.
Buddhist Geeks has up the second half of their two part interview with Ben Goertzel on his non-fiction story “Enlightenment 2.0”. This precipitates a conversation about whether consciousness is a result of the mechanisms of the brain, or whether it is fundamental. And connected to that, what are the ethical implications of creating an artificial intelligence, if we do indeed see it as having BuddhaNature? Finally, Ben shares what he has discovered while exploring the notion of “artificial wisdom”—including what difference there is between intelligence and wisdom. He also talks about the seeming incompatibility between intense scientific thinking and enlightenment, and how that might be rectified by creating a more wise and intelligent super-mind. Listen to Part One here.
Japan and Turkey form an alliance to attack the United States. Poland becomes America’s closest ally. Mexico makes a bid for global supremacy, and a third world war takes place in space. Sounds strange? It could all happen. . .
This is the sixth episode of Interior Traces, a new radio play with accompanying video works and new musical score exploring how different ways of looking at the brain change how we think about the mind, madness, and responsibility. The project was funded by the Wellcome Trust, LCACE, and UCL.
Episode 6, 2030
Mike was identified with callous and unemotional traits in childhood, and put on a life-long course of drugs and behavioural therapies to prevent him from expressing the antisocial behaviour associated with psychopathy. On reaching adulthood, he must report to a clinic every six months, to have a brain scan and be cleared to return to society. Unhappy with these restrictions, Mike becomes involved with a campaigning group who are planning to mount a legal challenge against obligatory treatment. (MP3)
Improved life expectancy across the developed and most of the developing world is one of the main triumphs of medicine. But although the expected lifetime of an individual is slowly increasing in most countries, the maximum lifespan isn’t.
Moira Gunn speaks with author and scientist James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Theory. Once controversial, it has reached mainstream acceptance. In his new book he predicts sudden and extreme shifts in global climate equilibrium, and advocates for geoengineering to attempt to prevent them. (MP3)
In 2002, I wrote Broken Dreams, a guidebook for the Steve Jackson Games “Transhuman Space” role-playing game series. Broken Dreams covered global traumas such as conflict, social disorder, economic decline, and intellectual property. Part of the book concerned how various societies reacted to the big changes underway in the world, and in that section I included a brief description of a common response: Social Transition Stress Disorder, or STSD.
This week we speak with Ben Goertzel, an artificial intelligence researcher and Zen-dabbling spiritual seeker. Ben shares with us his introduction to Zen and his on-going relationship to spiritual practice. He also explains what is meant by “strong artificial intelligence” and AGI (artificial general intelligence) and explains why he thinks a fully functioning AI may be as little as a decade away.
Finally, we explore the overlap between his work as an AI researcher and his experiences with Zen and other spiritual practices, through discussing a story he wrote entitled, “Enlightenment 2.0” about an enlightened AI being who determines that it is possible to construct a more enlightened mind, what Ben calls a “super mind”, but isn’t sure whether or not it is possible for us.
This is part 1 of a two-part series. Listen to part 2, Artificial Wisdom (airing next week).
At this blog, we often write about the ethical considerations of various issues. Sometimes, but less frequently, we’ll discuss cutting-edge transformative technologies, usually designated as Nano (advanced nanotechnology), Bio (genetic engineering and biotechnology), Info (information technology, including artificial intelligence), and Cogno (cognitive technology, including virtual reality). But since we are the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, it is important for us to do both—to connect our ethical concerns with projected technological developments.
Bioethicists might prefer to be seen as wise non-partisan sages, dispensing timeless wisdom. But now, albeit with great reluctance, they are forced to take an active role in the increasingly divided biopolitical landscape.
When it comes to other people’s views on controversial issues, they should be classified within a two-dimensional parameter space, not just on a single line of agree/disagree. The other dimension is the all-important sensible/crazy axis.
Intellectual property, like biopolitics, is not a simple left-right issue. There are arguments for and against patents on human genes, and patents in general, from both progressives and libertarians. Stephan Kinsella, for instance, is a libertarian critic of intellectual property.