Panpsychism claims that everything is sentient and that there are either many separate minds, or one single mind that unites everything that is. The concept of the unconscious, made popular by the psychoanalysts, made possible a variant of panpsychism that denies consciousness from some entities while still asserting the ubiquity of mind.
Panexperientialism, as espoused by Alfred North Whitehead is a less bold variation, which credits all entities with phenomenal consciousness but not with cognition, and therefore not necessarily with fully-fledged minds.
Panprotoexperientialism is a more cautious variation still, which credits all entities with non-physical properties that are precursors to phenomenal consciousness (or phenomenal consciousness in a latent, undeveloped form) but not with cognition itself, or with conscious awareness.
Five quick points of panpsychism:
1) Modern panpsychism accepts the reality of qualia; to posit consciousness in all things, one must first posit consciousness in oneself.
2) According to modern panpsychism, consciousness simpliciter—not self-consciousness, emotion, desire, belief, cognition, or even really awareness as we would understand it, but bare subjectivity—is a fundamental force of our universe, analogous to gravity and (especially) electromagnetism.
3) The analogy to gravity runs as follows: wherever there is mass, however inconceivably negligible, there is gravitation. Unlike gravity, however, consciousness does not simply accrete; the bare subjectivity of matter remains discrete and at its lowest natural level (subatomic scale? quark scale? Planck scale?) until organized into a conscious system, and hence gains nothing from merely being glommed together as a grain of sand, pebble, rock, mountain, planet, star, etc.
4) The analogy to electromagnetism runs as follows: while electromagnetism is a fundamental force (as Wikipedia says,“the one responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity”), its most interesting effects occur when complex conditions obtain, e.g., an electrical circuit. Electromagnetism is undoubtedly present in an electron or rock, but not the way it is in a thermostat, hair dryer, computer, or human brain; these latter constitute electromagnetic systems in a way the electron and rock do not. Likewise, modern panpsychism says, with consciousness. (Indeed, perhaps, in some Spinozan way, consciousness is identical to electromagnetism, though modern panpsychism certainly isn’t committed to this.)
5) In light of the above, one might state the modern panpsychist position as follows: consciousness is present in everything, but not everything is a conscious system.
IEET Links:
Protopanpsychism and the consciousness conundrum, or why we shouldn’t assume uploads
Quantity of Experience: Brain-Duplication and Degrees of Consciousness
Sources:
An international space program that includes Moon and Mars exploration needs to be supported. Space exploration can both increase civilizational resilience and yield important discoveries, furthering scientific understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. In addition to the Moon and Mars, asteroids and Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are key targets of exploration and could provide important resources.
Space exploration both serves as a source of inspiration for future generations of scientists, and encourages society to look upwards to see the wonders of the universe.
Benefits and costs of space exploration
While space exploration is an important part of our spirit of exploration and discovery, its direct practical benefits are often overlooked. According to the Coalition for Space Exploration, space exploration helps the economy while advancing innovation and environmental and medical technology. For instance, in addition to contributing to knowledge about the Earth and its climate, space technology has led to rainwater purification systems used in developing nations. Numerous medical devices and treatments have their roots in the space program.
Particularly in the current financial crisis, some say that space is too expensive or that there are more pressing concerns. However, America spends far more money on less important things, and providing money for space exploration does not have to mean taking it away from other worthy programs.
Currently, NASA is facing “temporary” budget cuts. However, these cuts could easily become permanent or act as a baseline budget, and should be opposed. We cannot let current hardships unduly distract from developing science and technology to prepare for the future.
More cost-effective strategies for space exploration, such as the Mars Society’s Mars Direct plan, should also be explored. The Mars Direct plan, if implemented immediately, could see humans on Mars as early as December 2016, and would not be an undue drain on government or NASA resources.
International collaboration
International projects such as the International Space Station and international partnerships between space agencies are important steps in preventing national rivalry and potential conflicts over resources. Furthermore, a fully international approach helps in ensuring a fair and open distribution of the knowledge and resources that can be gained from space. The establishment of more international bodies is important for working out the specifics of expansion into space.
Private vs. governmental space programs
While it has been argued that private space entrepreneurs could make untethered progress in space without the interference of organizations like NASA, the role of governments cannot be so easily discarded. Although the private sector will continue to have a role to play in space, the way to improve the space program is not to eliminate NASA, but to improve the quality of its programs, streamline operations, and ensure adequate funding.
Government can mobilize the funding and resources need for an effective, comprehensive space program. Furthermore, government resources can permit achievements as inspirational as the Moon landing 40 years ago.
Preventing the militarization of space
Space must not become militarized. A space war poses a global catastrophic risk, as even today the generation of space junk alone would cripple key satellite infrastructure. No single nation should be dominant in space or be the primary nation to reap the rewards of space exploration. Space should be undertaken as an international effort with the benefits distributed among all nations.
Transnational governance would be an important step to limit space conflict.
Space treaties
Strong international agreements are crucial to preventing the militarization of space. It is important that currently proposed or agreed to treaties are ratified by all countries and enforced. The Outer Space Treaty places limits on weaponry in space and prevents private claims to celestial bodies and resources. However, not all countries have ratified the Outer Space Treaty and a few have not even signed it. Enforcement is also key, as ratification will be relatively insignificant if when the drive towards space militarization becomes stronger agreements are simply ignored.
The Outer Space Treaty bars countries from placing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space. It prohibits the use of celestial bodies for military purposes, such as establishing military bases or installations, and forbids any government from claiming a resource such as a planet or NEO. However, a limitation of the treaty is that it does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, which still have an enormous capacity to wreak devastation.
A more comprehensive agreement is the Space Preservation Treaty (SPT). The SPT is a proposed international treaty to fully ban space weapons, as an expansion of the Outer Space Treaty. The SPT would establish a peacekeeping and monitoring agency to enforce the ban on space-based weapons. The SPT’s companion, the Space Preservation Act, was introduced for the fourth time by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich in 2005.
Robotic vs. human space exploration
Both human and robotic exploration of space have advantages and disadvantages, and both have an important role to play. Robots can be designed to endure conditions and make observations that humans cannot. Humans can perform a much broader range of tasks than a particular robot and are much more adaptable than current robots. However, both robots and humans will improve to overcome their limitations.
Converging technologies for human enhancement will allow for safer and cheaper space programs. Bioengineering, nanotechnology, and molecular nanotechnology in particular could allow for not only healthier humans, but far safer space ships and stations.
Long-term survival of intelligent life
Expansion beyond a single planet limits the risk of extinction events, and is essential to the long-term survival of humanity or posthumanity. The impact of large NEOs, for example, would no longer be an irrecoverable disaster, although some risks to the species would still exist beyond Earth. Some priority must be given to developing space colonies that are resilient enough to be capable of rebuilding civilization, should humanity on Earth be destroyed. However, spreading intelligent life beyond Earth is a long term project and should not distract from other efforts to minimize species risks.
Technoprogressive Links & Resources:
The Global Exploration Strategy-The International Space Exploration Coordination Group’s cooperative, international strategy for exploration involving both humans and robots.
Text of the Outer Space Treaty
U.N. Resolution to prevent a space arms race
List of products derived from space exploration
Essays:
Still Relevant (and Important) After All These Years: The case for supporting the Outer Space Treaty
How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?
Sources:
Coalition for Space Exploration: The Benefits of Space Exploration
]]>Property rights are the cornerstone of modern liberal democracies, and since the Enlightenment, democracies have funded their defense through taxation for the purpose of promoting innovation. However, the concept of “intellectual property” is an artifact of a 1980’s campaign to lump distinct legal regimes (copyright, patent, and trademark) into a purposely misleading concept that is fundamentally dissimilar to physical property rights. A patent, for example, is a purely negative right, it confers the power to exclude others, creating neither the obligation, nor the guaranteed ability for the holder to practice the invention in question or bring it to market.
Paradoxically, situations arise where mutually blocking patent claims can prevent anyone from utilizing an innovation. “Submarine” companies, also known as “patent trolls” exist, whose sole business model is to sue productive businesses. For most of history, economists and policy makers honestly acknowledged that the granting of a monopoly right for innovation was a temporary and necessary evil, a special case exception that must meet a stringent test, not a routine case of “property.”
During the 1980’s a few judicial decisions, with no public or policy deliberation whatsoever, opened the floodgates to an exponential expansion in the filing of patents covering new subject matter and technologies that were never anticipated in the industrial age during which the patent system evolved. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that the unchecked proliferation of patents is perversely out of touch with, and downright inimical to, the collaborative, cumulative, and interdependent essence of innovation in the 21st century’s networked knowledge economy.
Thanks to lax oversight, patents are now being filed around the world for nearly everything under the sun, no matter how obvious, undeserved, or harmful. Thus, the original purpose of patenting, innovation, is being perverted. We have everything from “business method” patents to software patents to patents upon the human genome itself. Such patents cannot be considered “intellectual property” in any reasonable sense of the term, and are merely government-sponsored entitlements. Yet, these entitlements differ categorically from other sorts of entitlements because they have the potential to disrupt the future technological progress of civilization itself. Considering the accelerating pace of change, this issue is more urgent than ever.
Biology and genetics are increasingly being removed from their rightful place in the commons, and placed into private ownership regardless of the best interests of the public. Instead of free and open innovation, we are left with stagnant monopolies. Instead of working towards renewable resources, the incentive structures promote artificial scarcities which hold us back from ever reaching an otherwise attainable post-scarcity future.
To reverse these trends, a number of public policy changes must be implemented.
Patent Reform
Patent reform must be implemented which prevents egregious patents from ever being granted. The recent Bilsky ruling should help limit some of the egregious “business method” patents, but the percentage of the human genome which has been stolen from the commons grows every day. The same is true of genomes of other species. Software patents cannot be allowed either. Software must be considered like any other mathematical algorithm, and not be patentable, but merely limited to standard copyright protections.
Copyright Reform
It is ridiculous that people must go out of their way to place things in the commons. Instead of copyrights being granted automatically, works should default to the commons unless a copyright is explicitly specified. So called “orphan works,” where it is impossible to identify the owner, should be released to the public domain. A registration fee to maintain copyrights could be implemented, growing increasingly expensive the closer the terms came to expiration. Authors (to the extent that they rather than middlemen) capture most of the value of a work in the first few years of publication, and thus the extra time in which copyright applies adds little to no incentive for production, and merely stifles creativity and innovation.
Intellectual Property Taxes
Intellectual property which isn’t egregious should become more similar to other types of property. Patent holders should pay a user fee, in the form of a tax, as they would for any other property, for the privilege of the government-sponsored monopoly on an idea. This would have the side benefit of incentivizing the development of the commons.
Prevention of Artificial Scarcities
Outright bans on terminator seeds would be a reasonable measure. Other policies which discourage artificial scarcities must be considered. Networked, global “civil disobedience”, subversion of, and blatant disregard for (“piracy”) of unjust restriction technologies is a viable tactic, as the recent political success of the Pirate Party demonstrates.
Support of the Technological Commons
Acquiring information is not a zero-sum game. If I share an idea with you, I am not deprived of the idea. Now, with the Internet, massive amounts of information can be shared perfectly, instantaneously, and collaboratively. Why, then, do we continue to spend all our time propping up outmoded systems of production? The benefits of decentralized production methods like Open Source are clear. We should foster the technological commons from all angles: the government, civil society, and the private sector. Not just for software. We must support Open Manufacturing, DIY Biotechnology, Open Source Medicine, DIY Electronics. These are the areas which offer the most promise for a technoprogressive future.
]]>Open source clinical trials are one aspect of open science, along with open source software and the core components of open science: open access to scientific journals, open data, and transparent research methodologies.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Open Source Clinical Trials
Like all study designs, open source trial designs have strengths and weaknesses. The costs of open source trials can be distributed amongst many participants and people, making larger sample sizes feasible. Furthermore, open source trials do not require the approval of a government or drug company. On the other hand, open source study designs can be challenging to randomize or adequately control.
Open-source trials are capable of bypassing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other bureaucracy, avoiding delays in getting promising treatments to those who need them, albeit with less guarantee of their efficacy and safety. This option is particularly appealing to cancer patients or others with terminal illnesses, who have little to lose by experimentation. IEET Board of Directors member Giulio Prisco has written:
”Nobody has any right to prevent dying patients to experiment on their own health at their own cost and without damaging others. Not so much ‘ethics’ please, and some more compassion and especially common sense.”
Open source trials allow much easier study of a greater number of people. Whereas a regular scientific longitudinal study would incur large financial overhead for each person it followed, an open source trial can be designed where each participant is responsible for tracking themselves. The open nature of these trials allows for far more participants, and greater numbers of participants can add power to a study. However, it matters little how large a sample size is if a study places too much importance on unreliable and subjective self reporting.
While open source designs have promise for opening up access to promising drugs that the FDA refuses to approve because of the risk of negative press if there are unforeseen side effects, they have several methodological issues that need to be overcome and pitfalls that must be avoided in order to remain firmly science-based.
IEET Links:
DIY Cancer Therapy: Should dying people be allowed to experiment?
Sources:
Tim Ferriss and Kevin Rose on Open Source Clinical Trials
p2pfoundation Category:Science
Curetogether.com
External Links:
Open Source Medicine
DIY H+
The open science registry
Structural unemployment is caused by a mismatch between jobs offered by employers and potential workers. This may pertain to geographical location, skills, and many other factors. For example, in the late 1990s there was a tech bubble, creating demand for computer specialists. In 2000-2001 this bubble collapsed. A housing bubble soon formed, creating demand for real estate workers, and many computer workers had to retrain to find employment.
Structural unemployment is usually a result of structural change, and as such it can be permanent unless structural changes are made.
Automation
As robots and AI become increasingly adept at performing tasks that once required a human, the need for human labor will be drastically reduced. After a Singularity this problem would likey be far more pronounced.
IEET Fellow Marshall Brain spoke on his projections of widespread structural unemployment as a result of automation, and the need for a basic income guarantee, at the Singularity Summit in San Jose, CA on October 25th, 2008.
Market fundamentalists do not accept the possibility that the Singularity could result in anything but a global catastrophe or a utopia, believing that the forces of the free market will create jobs for humans, even when there are artificial intelligences that are far better suited for performing them.
Alternatively, technoprogressives want to adapt our economies to this new social structure and implement policies such as a basic income guarantee and universal health care. From the technoprogressive perspective, less need for work should not lead to economic devastation, but should rather allow opportunities for the pursuit of more leisure activities and the development of flourishing personality.
Social philosopher and economist André Gorz argues that structural unemployment could be permanent and that a basic income could be a solution:
“The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet- unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less…From the point where it takes only 1,000 hours per year or 20,000 to 30,000 hours per lifetime to create an amount of wealth equal to or greater than the amount we create at the present time in 1,600 hours per year or 40,000 to 50,000 hours in a working life, we must all be able to obtain a real income equal to or higher than our current salaries in exchange for a greatly reduced quantity of work…The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and workbased society is thrown into crisis.”
—André Gorz
Sources:
Libertopian Doublethink on the Singularity
Wikipedia on Structural Unemployment
Wikipedia on Unemployment
Introduction
Technoprogressive Platform
Encyclopedia of Terms and Ideas
Documents Underlying Technoprogressive Thought
FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions
While many futurists and transhumanists speculate on the possibility and nature of this technological development, Singularitarians believe it is not only possible, but desirable if, and only if, guided safely. Accordingly, some dedicate their lives to acting in ways they believe will contribute to its safe implementation.
The term “Singularitarian” was originally defined by Extropian Mark Plus in 1991 to mean “one who believes the concept of a Singularity.” This term has since been redefined to mean “Singularity activist” or “friend of the Singularity”; that is, one who acts so as to bring about the Singularity.
Ray Kurzweil, the author of the book The Singularity is Near, defines a Singularitarian as someone “who understands the Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own life”.
In his 2000 essay, “Singularitarian Principles”, Eliezer Yudkowsky writes that there are four qualities that define a Singularitarian:
*A Singularitarian believes that the Singularity is possible and desirable.
*A Singularitarian actually ‘‘works’’ to bring about the Singularity.
*A Singularitarian views the Singularity as an entirely secular, non-mystical process — not the culmination of any form of religious prophecy or destiny.
*A Singularitarian believes the Singularity should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.
Whereas transhumanism is sometimes signified by the symbol H+, S^ can be used to denote Singularitarianism.
Singularitarianism is presently a small movement, although many believe a technological Singularity is possible without adopting Singularitarianism as a moral philosophy.
In June 2000 Eliezer Yudkowsky, Brian Atkins and Sabine Atkins founded the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence to work towards the creation of self-improving Friendly AI. Singularitarians believe that reaching the Singularity swiftly and safely is the best possible way to minimize net existential risk.
With the support of NASA, Google and a broad range of technology thought leaders and entrepreneurs, Kurzweil’s Singularity University is scheduled to open in June 2009 at the NASA Research Park in Silicon Valley with the goal of preparing the next generation of leaders to address the challenges of accelerating change.
Many mainstream critics ridicule the Singularity as “the Rapture for nerds,” and have dismissed Singularitarianism as a pseudoreligion of fringe science. Singularitarians point out the many differences between the idea of the Rapture and Singularitarianism.
IEET Links:
Waiting for the Great Leap…Forward?
Millennial Tendencies in Responses to Apocalyptic Threats
Libertopian Doublethink on the Singularity
Sources:
Wikipedia on Singularitarianism
Black Belt Bayesian: Rapture of the Nerds, Not