The Singularity Is Near_ When Humans Transcend Biology Part 19

If it is possible to engineer new universes and establish contact with them, this would provide yet further means for an intelligent civilization to continue its expansion. Gardner's view is that the influence of an intelligent civilization in creating a new universe lies in setting the physical laws and constants of the baby universe. But the vast intelligence of such a civilization may figure out ways to expand its own intelligence into a new universe more directly. The idea of spreading our intelligence beyond this universe is, of course, speculative, as none of the multiverse theories allows for communication from one universe to another, except for pa.s.sing on basic laws and constants.

Even if we are limited to the one universe we already know about, saturating its matter and energy with intelligence is our ultimate fate. What kind of universe will that be? Well, just wait and see.

MOLLY 2004: So when the universe reaches Epoch Six {the stage at which the nonbiological portion of our intelligence spreads through the universe], what's it going to do? So when the universe reaches Epoch Six {the stage at which the nonbiological portion of our intelligence spreads through the universe], what's it going to do?

CHARLES DARWIN: I'm not sure we can answer that. As you said, it's like bacteria asking one another what humans will do. I'm not sure we can answer that. As you said, it's like bacteria asking one another what humans will do.

MOLLY 2004: So these Epoch Six ent.i.ties will consider us biological humans to be like bacteria? So these Epoch Six ent.i.ties will consider us biological humans to be like bacteria?

GEORGE 2048: That's certainly not how I think of you. That's certainly not how I think of you.

MOLLY 2104: George, you're only Epoch Five, so I don't think that answers the question. George, you're only Epoch Five, so I don't think that answers the question.

CHARLES: Getting back to the bacteria, what they would say, if they could talk- Getting back to the bacteria, what they would say, if they could talk- MOLLY 2004: -and think. -and think.

CHARLES: Yes, that, too. They would say that humans will do the same things as we bacteria do-namely, eat, avoid danger, and procreate. Yes, that, too. They would say that humans will do the same things as we bacteria do-namely, eat, avoid danger, and procreate.

MOLLY 2104: Oh, but our procreation is so much more interesting. Oh, but our procreation is so much more interesting.

MOLLY 2004: Actually, Molly of the future, it's our human pre-Singularity procreation that's interesting. Your virtual procreation is, actually, a lot like that of the bacteria. s.e.x has nothing to do with it. Actually, Molly of the future, it's our human pre-Singularity procreation that's interesting. Your virtual procreation is, actually, a lot like that of the bacteria. s.e.x has nothing to do with it.

MOLLY 2104: It's true we've separated s.e.xuality from reproduction, but that's not exactly new to human civilization in 2004. And besides, unlike bacteria, we can change ourselves. It's true we've separated s.e.xuality from reproduction, but that's not exactly new to human civilization in 2004. And besides, unlike bacteria, we can change ourselves.

MOLLY 2004: Actually, you've separated change and evolution from reproduction as well. Actually, you've separated change and evolution from reproduction as well.

MOLLY 2104: That was also essentially true in 2004. That was also essentially true in 2004.

MOLLY 2004: Okay, okay. But about your list, Charles, we humans also do things like create art and music. That kind of separates us from other animals. Okay, okay. But about your list, Charles, we humans also do things like create art and music. That kind of separates us from other animals.

GEORGE 2048: Indeed, Molly, that is fundamentally what the Singularity is about. The Singularity is the sweetest music, the deepest art, the most beautiful mathematics.... Indeed, Molly, that is fundamentally what the Singularity is about. The Singularity is the sweetest music, the deepest art, the most beautiful mathematics....

MOLLY 2004: I see, so the music and art of the Singularity will be to my era's music and art as circa 2004 music and art are to ... I see, so the music and art of the Singularity will be to my era's music and art as circa 2004 music and art are to ...

NED LUDD: The music and art of bacteria. The music and art of bacteria.

MOLLY 2004: Well, I've seen some artistic mold patterns. Well, I've seen some artistic mold patterns.

NED: Yes, but I'm sure you didn't revere them. Yes, but I'm sure you didn't revere them.

MOLLY 2004: No, actually, I wiped them away. No, actually, I wiped them away.

NED: Okay, my point then. Okay, my point then.

MOLLY 2004: I'm still trying to envision what the universe will be doing in Epoch Six. I'm still trying to envision what the universe will be doing in Epoch Six.

TIMOTHY LEARY: The universe will be flying like a bird. The universe will be flying like a bird.

MOLLY 2004: But what is it flying in? I mean it's everything. But what is it flying in? I mean it's everything.

TIMOTHY: That's like asking, What is the sound of one hand clapping? That's like asking, What is the sound of one hand clapping?

MOLLY 2004: Hmmm, so the Singularity is what the Zen masters had in mind all along. Hmmm, so the Singularity is what the Zen masters had in mind all along.

CHAPTER SEVEN.

Ich bin ein Singularitarian

The most common of all follies is to believe pa.s.sionately in the palpably not true.-H. L. MENCKEN Philosophies of life rooted in centuries-old traditions contain much wisdom concerning personal, organizational, and social living. Many of us also find shortcomings in those traditions. How could they not reach some mistaken conclusions when they arose in pre-scientific times? At the same time, ancient philosophies of life have little or nothing to say about fundamental issues confronting us as advanced technologies begin to enable us to change our ident.i.ty as individuals and as humans and as economic, cultural, and political forces change global relations.h.i.+ps.-MAX MORE, "PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY"

The world does not need another totalistic dogma.-MAX MORE, "PRINCIPLES OF EXTROPY"

Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots.-GIULIO GIORELLI Substrate is morally irrelevant, a.s.suming it doesn't affect functionality or consciousness. It doesn't matter, from a moral point of view, whether somebody runs on silicon or biological neurons (just as it doesn't matter whether you have dark or pale skin). On the same grounds, that we reject racism and speciesism, we should also reject carbon-chauvinism, or bioism.-NICK BOSTROM, "ETHICS FOR INTELLIGENT MACHINES: A PROPOSAL, 2001"

Philosophers have long noted that their children were born into a more complex world than that of their ancestors. This early and perhaps even unconscious recognition of accelerating change may have been the catalyst for much of the utopian, apocalyptic, and millennialist thinking in our Western tradition. But the modern difference is that now everyone notices the pace of progress on some level, not simply the visionaries.-JOHN SMART

A Singularitarian is someone who understands the Singularity and has reflected on its meaning for his or her own life.

I have been engaged in such reflection for several decades. Needless to say, it's not a process that one can ever complete. I started pondering the relations.h.i.+p of our thinking to our computational technology as a teenager in the 1960s. In the 1970s I began to study the acceleration of technology, and I wrote my first book on the subject in the late 1980s. So I've had time to contemplate the impact on society-and on myself-of the overlapping transformations now under way.

George Gilder has described my scientific and philosophical views as "a subst.i.tute vision for those who have lost faith in the traditional object of religious belief."1 Gilder's statement is understandable, as there are at least apparent similarities between antic.i.p.ation of the Singularity and antic.i.p.ation of the transformations articulated by traditional religions. Gilder's statement is understandable, as there are at least apparent similarities between antic.i.p.ation of the Singularity and antic.i.p.ation of the transformations articulated by traditional religions.

But I did not come to my perspective as a result of searching for an alternative to customary faith. The origin of my quest to understand technology trends was practical: an attempt to time my inventions and to make optimal tactical decisions in launching technology enterprises. Over time this modeling of technology took on a life of its own and led me to formulate a theory of technology evolution. It was not a huge leap from there to reflect on the impact of these crucial changes on social and cultural inst.i.tutions and on my own life. So, while being a Singularitarian is not a matter of faith but one of understanding, pondering the scientific trends I've discussed in this book inescapably engenders new perspectives on the issues that traditional religions have attempted to address: the nature of mortality and immortality, the purpose of our lives, and intelligence in the universe.

Being a Singularitarian has often been an alienating and lonely experience for me because most people I encounter do not share my outlook. Most "big thinkers" are totally unaware of this big thought. In a myriad of statements and comments people typically evidence the common wisdom that human life is short, that our physical and intellectual reach is limited, and that nothing fundamental will change in our lifetimes. I expect this narrow view to change as the implications of accelerating change become increasingly apparent, but having more people with whom to share my outlook is a major reason that I wrote this book.

So how do we contemplate the Singularity? As with the sun, it's hard to look at directly; it's better to squint at it out of the corners of our eyes. As Max More states, the last thing we need is another dogma, nor do we need another cult, so Singularitarianism is not a system of beliefs or unified viewpoints. While it is fundamentally an understanding of basic technology trends, it is simultaneously an insight that causes one to rethink everything, from the nature of health and wealth to the nature of death and self.

To me, being a Singularitarian means many things, of which the following is a small sampling. These reflections articulate my personal philosophy, not a proposal for a new doctrine.

We have the means right now to live long enough to live forever.2 Existing knowledge can be aggressively applied to dramatically slow down aging processes so we can still be in vital health when the more radical life-extending therapies from biotechnology and nanotechnology become available. But most baby boomers won't make it because they are unaware of the accelerating aging processes in their bodies and the opportunity to intervene. Existing knowledge can be aggressively applied to dramatically slow down aging processes so we can still be in vital health when the more radical life-extending therapies from biotechnology and nanotechnology become available. But most baby boomers won't make it because they are unaware of the accelerating aging processes in their bodies and the opportunity to intervene.In this spirit I am aggressively reprogramming my biochemistry, which is now altogether different than it would otherwise be.3 Taking supplements and medications is not a last resort to be reserved only for when something goes wrong. There is already something wrong. Our bodies are governed by obsolete genetic programs that evolved in a bygone era, so we need to overcome our genetic heritage. We already have the knowledge to begin to accomplish this, something I am committed to doing. Taking supplements and medications is not a last resort to be reserved only for when something goes wrong. There is already something wrong. Our bodies are governed by obsolete genetic programs that evolved in a bygone era, so we need to overcome our genetic heritage. We already have the knowledge to begin to accomplish this, something I am committed to doing.My body is temporary. Its particles turn over almost completely every month. Only the pattern of my body and brain have continuity.We should strive to improve these patterns by optimizing the health of our bodies and extending the reach of our minds. Ultimately, we will be able to vastly expand our mental faculties by merging with our technology.We need a body, but once we incorporate MNT fabrication into ourselves, we will be able to change our bodies at will.Only technology can provide the scale to overcome the challenges with which human society has struggled for generations. For example, emerging technologies will provide the means of providing and storing clean and renewable energy, removing toxins and pathogens from our bodies and the environment, and providing the knowledge and wealth to overcome hunger and poverty.Knowledge is precious in all its forms: music, art, science, and technology, as well as the embedded knowledge in our bodies and brains. Any loss of this knowledge is tragic.Information is not knowledge. The world is awash in information; it is the role of intelligence to find and act on the salient patterns. For example, we have hundreds of megabits of information flowing through our senses every second, the bulk of which is intelligently discarded. It is only the key recognitions and insights (all forms of knowledge) that we retain. Thus intelligence selectively destroys information to create knowledge.Death is a tragedy. It is not demeaning to regard a person as a profound pattern (a form of knowledge), which is lost when he or she dies. That, at least, is the case today, since we do not yet have the means to access and back up this knowledge. When people speak of losing part of themselves when a loved one dies, they are speaking quite literally, since we lose the ability to effectively use the neural patterns in our brain that had self-organized to interact with that person.A primary role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization-that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing. Malcolm Muggeridge articulates the common view that "if it weren't for death, life would be unbearable." But the explosion of art, science, and other forms of knowledge that the Singularity will bring will make life more than bearable; it will make life truly meaningful.In my view the purpose of life-and of our lives-is to create and appreciate ever-greater knowledge, to move toward greater "order." As I discussed in chapter 2, increasing order usually means increasing complexity, but sometimes a profound insight will increase order while reducing complexity.As I see it the purpose of the universe reflects the same purpose as our lives: to move toward greater intelligence and knowledge. Our human intelligence and our technology form the cutting edge of this expanding intelligence (given that we are not aware of any extraterrestrial compet.i.tors).Having reached a tipping point, we will within this century be ready to infuse our solar system with our intelligence through self-replicating nonbiological intelligence. It will then spread out to the rest of the universe.Ideas are the embodiment and the product of intelligence. The ideas exist to solve most any problem that we encounter. The primary problems we cannot solve are ones that we cannot articulate and are mostly ones of which we are not yet aware. For the problems that we do encounter, the key challenge is to express them precisely in words (and sometimes in equations). Having done that, we have the ability to find the ideas to confront and resolve each such problem .We can apply the enormous leverage provided by the acceleration of technology. A notable example is achieving radical life extension through "a bridge to a bridge to a bridge" (applying today's knowledge as a bridge to biotechnology, which in turn will bridge us to the era of nanotechnology).4 This offers a way to live indefinitely now, even though we don't yet have all the knowledge necessary for radical life extension. In other words we don't have to solve every problem today. We can antic.i.p.ate the capability of technologies that are coming-in five years or ten years or twenty-and work these into our plans. That is how I design my own technology projects, and we can do the same with the large problems facing society and with our own lives. This offers a way to live indefinitely now, even though we don't yet have all the knowledge necessary for radical life extension. In other words we don't have to solve every problem today. We can antic.i.p.ate the capability of technologies that are coming-in five years or ten years or twenty-and work these into our plans. That is how I design my own technology projects, and we can do the same with the large problems facing society and with our own lives.

Contemporary philosopher Max More describes the goal of humanity as a transcendence to be "achieved through science and technology steered by human values."5 More cites Nietzsche's observation "Man is a rope, fastened between animal and overman-a rope over an abyss." We can interpret Nietzsche to be pointing out that we have advanced beyond other animals while seeking to become something far greater. We might regard Nietzsche's reference to the abyss to allude to the perils inherent in technology, which I address in the next chapter. More cites Nietzsche's observation "Man is a rope, fastened between animal and overman-a rope over an abyss." We can interpret Nietzsche to be pointing out that we have advanced beyond other animals while seeking to become something far greater. We might regard Nietzsche's reference to the abyss to allude to the perils inherent in technology, which I address in the next chapter.

More has at the same time expressed concern that antic.i.p.ating the Singularity could engender a pa.s.sivity in addressing today's issues."6 Because the enormous capability to overcome age-old problems is on the horizon, there may be a tendency to grow detached from mundane, present-day concerns. I share More's antipathy toward "pa.s.sive Singularitarianism," One reason for a proactive stance is that technology is a double-edged sword and as such always has the potential of going awry as it surges toward the Singularity, with profoundly disturbing consequences. Even small delays in implementing emerging technologies can condemn millions of people to continued suffering and death. As one example of many, excessive regulatory delays in implementing lifesaving therapies end up costing many lives. (We lose millions of people per year around the world from heart disease alone.) Because the enormous capability to overcome age-old problems is on the horizon, there may be a tendency to grow detached from mundane, present-day concerns. I share More's antipathy toward "pa.s.sive Singularitarianism," One reason for a proactive stance is that technology is a double-edged sword and as such always has the potential of going awry as it surges toward the Singularity, with profoundly disturbing consequences. Even small delays in implementing emerging technologies can condemn millions of people to continued suffering and death. As one example of many, excessive regulatory delays in implementing lifesaving therapies end up costing many lives. (We lose millions of people per year around the world from heart disease alone.) More also worries about a cultural rebellion "seduced by religious and cultural urgings for 'stability' 'peace' and against 'hubris' and 'the unknown' "that may derail technological acceleration.7 In my view any significant derailment of the overall advancement of technology is unlikely. Even epochal events such as two world wars (in which on the order of one hundred million people died), the cold war, and numerous economic, cultural, and social upheavals have failed to make the slightest dent in the pace of technology trends. But the reflexive, thoughtless ant.i.technology sentiments increasingly being voiced in the world today do have the potential to exacerbate a lot of suffering. In my view any significant derailment of the overall advancement of technology is unlikely. Even epochal events such as two world wars (in which on the order of one hundred million people died), the cold war, and numerous economic, cultural, and social upheavals have failed to make the slightest dent in the pace of technology trends. But the reflexive, thoughtless ant.i.technology sentiments increasingly being voiced in the world today do have the potential to exacerbate a lot of suffering.

Still Human? Some observers refer to the post-Singularity period as "posthuman" and refer to the antic.i.p.ation of this period as posthumanism. However, to me being human means being part of a civilization that seeks to extend its boundaries. We are already reaching beyond our biology by rapidly gaining the tools to reprogram and augment it. If we regard a human modified with technology as no longer human, where would we draw the defining line? Is a human with a bionic heart still human? How about someone with a neurological implant? What about two neurological implants? How about someone with ten nan.o.bots in his brain? How about 500 million nan.o.bots? Should we establish a boundary at 650 million nan.o.bots: under that, you're still human and over that, you're posthuman? Some observers refer to the post-Singularity period as "posthuman" and refer to the antic.i.p.ation of this period as posthumanism. However, to me being human means being part of a civilization that seeks to extend its boundaries. We are already reaching beyond our biology by rapidly gaining the tools to reprogram and augment it. If we regard a human modified with technology as no longer human, where would we draw the defining line? Is a human with a bionic heart still human? How about someone with a neurological implant? What about two neurological implants? How about someone with ten nan.o.bots in his brain? How about 500 million nan.o.bots? Should we establish a boundary at 650 million nan.o.bots: under that, you're still human and over that, you're posthuman?

Our merger with our technology has aspects of a slippery slope, but one that slides up toward greater promise, not down into Nietzsche's abyss. Some observers refer to this merger as creating a new "species." But the whole idea of a species is a biological concept, and what we are doing is transcending biology. The transformation underlying the Singularity is not just another in a long line of steps in biological evolution. We are upending biological evolution altogether.

Bill Gates: I agree with you 99 percent. What I like about your ideas is that they are grounded in science, but your optimism is almost a religious faith. I'm optimistic also. I agree with you 99 percent. What I like about your ideas is that they are grounded in science, but your optimism is almost a religious faith. I'm optimistic also.

RAY: Yes, well, we need a new religion. A princ.i.p.al role of religion has been to rationalize death, since up until just now there was little else constructive we could do about it. Yes, well, we need a new religion. A princ.i.p.al role of religion has been to rationalize death, since up until just now there was little else constructive we could do about it.

BILL: What would the principles of the new religion be? What would the principles of the new religion be?

RAY: We'd want to keep two principles: one from traditional religion and one from secular arts and sciences-from traditional religion, the respect for human consciousness. We'd want to keep two principles: one from traditional religion and one from secular arts and sciences-from traditional religion, the respect for human consciousness.

BILL: Ah yes, the Golden Rule. Ah yes, the Golden Rule.

RAY: Right, our morality and legal system are based on respect for the consciousness of others. If I hurt another person, that's considered immoral, and probably illegal, because I have caused suffering to another conscious person. If I destroy property, it's generally okay if it's my property, and the primary reason it's immoral and illegal if it's someone else's property is because I have caused suffering not to the property but to the person owning it. Right, our morality and legal system are based on respect for the consciousness of others. If I hurt another person, that's considered immoral, and probably illegal, because I have caused suffering to another conscious person. If I destroy property, it's generally okay if it's my property, and the primary reason it's immoral and illegal if it's someone else's property is because I have caused suffering not to the property but to the person owning it.

BILL: And the secular principle? And the secular principle?

RAY: From the arts and sciences, it is the importance of knowledge. Knowledge goes beyond information. It's information that has meaning for conscious ent.i.ties: music, art, literature, science, technology. These are the qualities that will expand from the trends I'm talking about. From the arts and sciences, it is the importance of knowledge. Knowledge goes beyond information. It's information that has meaning for conscious ent.i.ties: music, art, literature, science, technology. These are the qualities that will expand from the trends I'm talking about.

BILL: We need to get away from the ornate and strange stories in contemporary religions and concentrate on some simple messages. We need a charismatic leader for this new religion. We need to get away from the ornate and strange stories in contemporary religions and concentrate on some simple messages. We need a charismatic leader for this new religion.

RAY: A charismatic leader is part of the old model. That's something we want to get away from. A charismatic leader is part of the old model. That's something we want to get away from.

BILL: Okay, a charismatic computer, then. Okay, a charismatic computer, then.

RAY: How about a charismatic operating system? How about a charismatic operating system?

BILL: Ha, we've already got that. So is there a G.o.d in this religion? Ha, we've already got that. So is there a G.o.d in this religion?

RAY: Not yet, but there will be. Once we saturate the matter and energy in the universe with intelligence, it will "wake up," be conscious, and sublimely intelligent. That's about as close to G.o.d as I can imagine. Not yet, but there will be. Once we saturate the matter and energy in the universe with intelligence, it will "wake up," be conscious, and sublimely intelligent. That's about as close to G.o.d as I can imagine.

BILL: That's going to be silicon intelligence, not biological intelligence. That's going to be silicon intelligence, not biological intelligence.

RAY: Well, yes, we're going to transcend biological intelligence. We'll merge with it first, but ultimately the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate. By the way, it's not likely to be silicon, but something like carbon nanotubes. Well, yes, we're going to transcend biological intelligence. We'll merge with it first, but ultimately the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate. By the way, it's not likely to be silicon, but something like carbon nanotubes.

BILL: Yes, I understand-I'm just referring to that as silicon intelligence since people understand what that means. But I don't think that's going to be conscious in the human sense. Yes, I understand-I'm just referring to that as silicon intelligence since people understand what that means. But I don't think that's going to be conscious in the human sense.

RAY: Why not? If we emulate in as detailed a manner as necessary everything going on in the human brain and body and instantiate these processes in another substrate, and then of course expand it greatly, why wouldn't it be conscious? Why not? If we emulate in as detailed a manner as necessary everything going on in the human brain and body and instantiate these processes in another substrate, and then of course expand it greatly, why wouldn't it be conscious?

BILL: Oh, it will be conscious. I just think it will be a different type of consciousness. Oh, it will be conscious. I just think it will be a different type of consciousness.

RAY: Maybe this is the 1 percent we disagree on. Why would it be different? Maybe this is the 1 percent we disagree on. Why would it be different?

BILL: Because computers can merge together instantly. Ten computers-or one million computers-can become one faster, bigger computer. As humans, we can't do that. We each have a distinct individuality that cannot be bridged. Because computers can merge together instantly. Ten computers-or one million computers-can become one faster, bigger computer. As humans, we can't do that. We each have a distinct individuality that cannot be bridged.

RAY: That's just a limitation of biological intelligence. The unbridgeable distinctness of biological intelligence is not a plus. "Silicon" intelligence can have it both ways. Computers don't have to pool their intelligence and resources. They can remain "individuals" if they wish. Silicon intelligence can even have it both ways by merging and retaining individuality-at the same time. As humans, we try to merge with others also, but our ability to accomplish this is fleeting. That's just a limitation of biological intelligence. The unbridgeable distinctness of biological intelligence is not a plus. "Silicon" intelligence can have it both ways. Computers don't have to pool their intelligence and resources. They can remain "individuals" if they wish. Silicon intelligence can even have it both ways by merging and retaining individuality-at the same time. As humans, we try to merge with others also, but our ability to accomplish this is fleeting.

BILL: Everything of value is fleeting. Everything of value is fleeting.

RAY: Yes, but it gets replaced by something of even greater value. Yes, but it gets replaced by something of even greater value.

BILL: True, that's why we need to keep innovating. True, that's why we need to keep innovating.

The Vexing Question of Consciousness

If you could blow the brain up to the size of a mill and walk about inside, you would not find consciousness.-G. W. LEIBNIZ Can one ever remember love? It's like trying to summon up the smell of roses in a cellar. You might see a rose, but never the perfume.-ARTHUR MILLER8 At one's first and simplest attempts to philosophize, one becomes entangled in questions of whether when one knows something, one knows that one knows it, and what, when one is thinking of oneself, is being thought about, and what is doing the thinking. After one has been puzzled and bruised by this problem for a long time, one learns not to press these questions: the concept of a conscious being is, implicitly, realized to be different from that of an unconscious object. In saying that a conscious being knows something, we are saying not only that he knows it, but that he knows that he knows it, and that he knows that he knows that he knows it, and so on, as long as we care to pose the question: there is, we recognize, an infinity here, but it is not an infinite regress in the bad sense, for it is the questions that peter out, as being pointless, rather than the answers.-J. R. LUCAS, OXFORD PHILOSOPHER, IN HIS 1961 ESSAY "MINDS, MACHINES, AND G.o.dEL"9 Dreams are real while they last; can we say more of life?-HAVELOCK

Will future machines be capable of having emotional and spiritual experiences? We have discussed several scenarios for a nonbiological intelligence to display the full range of emotionally rich behavior exhibited by biological humans today. By the late 2020s we will have completed the reverse engineering of the human brain, which will enable us to create nonbiological systems that match and exceed the complexity and subtlety of humans, including our emotional intelligence.

A second scenario is that we could upload the patterns of an actual human into a suitable non biological, thinking substrate. A third, and the most compelling, scenario involves the gradual but inexorable progression of humans themselves from biological to nonbiological. That has already started with the benign introduction of devices such as neural implants to ameliorate disabilities and disease. It will progress with the introduction of nan.o.bots in the bloodstream, which will be developed initially for medical and antiaging applications. Later more sophisticated nan.o.bots will interface with our biological neurons to augment our senses, provide virtual and augmented reality from within the nervous system, a.s.sist our memories, and provide other routine cognitive tasks. We will then be cyborgs, and from that foothold in our brains, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will expand its powers exponentially. As I discussed in chapters 2 and 3 we see ongoing exponential growth of every aspect of information technology, including price-performance, capacity, and rate of adoption. Given that the ma.s.s and energy required to compute and communicate each bit of information are extremely small (see chapter 3), these trends can continue until our nonbiological intelligence vastly exceeds that of the biological portion. Since our biological intelligence is essentially fixed in its capacity (except for some relatively modest optimization from biotechnology), the nonbiological portion will ultimately predominate. In the 2040s, when the nonbiological portion will be billions of times more capable, will we still link our consciousness to the biological portion of our intelligence?

Clearly, nonbiological ent.i.ties will claim to have emotional and spiritual experiences, just as we do today. They-we-will claim to be human and to have the full range of emotional and spiritual experiences that humans claim to have. And these will not be idle claims; they will evidence the sort of rich, complex, and subtle behavior a.s.sociated with such feelings.

But how will these claims and behaviors-compelling as they will be-relate to the subjective experience of nonbiological humans? We keep coming back to the very real but ultimately unmeasurable (by fully objective means) issue of consciousness. People often talk about consciousness as if it were a clear property of an ent.i.ty that can readily be identified, detected, and gauged. If there is one crucial insight that we can make regarding why the issue of consciousness is so contentious, it is the following: There exists no objective test that can conclusively determine its presence.

Science is about objective measurements and their logical implications, but the very nature of objectivity is that you cannot measure subjective experience-you can only measure correlates of it, such as behavior (and by behavior, I include internal behavior-that is, the actions of the components of an ent.i.ty, such as neurons and their many parts). This limitation has to do with the very nature of the concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity." Fundamentally we cannot penetrate the subjective experience of another ent.i.ty with direct objective measurement. We can certainly make arguments about it, such as, "Look inside the brain of this nonbiological ent.i.ty; see how its methods are just like those of a human brain." Or, "See how its behavior is just like human behavior." But in the end, these remain just arguments. No matter how convincing the behavior of a nonbiological person, some observers will refuse to accept the consciousness of such an ent.i.ty unless it squirts neurotransmitters, is based on DNA-guided protein synthesis, or has some other specific biologically human attribute.

We a.s.sume that other humans are conscious, but even that is an a.s.sumption. There is no consensus among humans about the consciousness of nonhuman ent.i.ties, such as higher animals. Consider the debates regarding animal rights, which have everything to do with whether animals are conscious or just quasi machines that operate by "instinct." The issue will be even more contentious with regard to future nonbiological ent.i.ties that exhibit behavior and intelligence even more humanlike than those of animals.

In fact these future machines will be even more humanlike than humans today. If that seems like a paradoxical statement, consider that much of human thought today is petty and derivative. We marvel at Einstein's ability to conjure up the theory of general relativity from a thought experiment or Beethoven's ability to imagine symphonies that he could never hear. But these instances of human thought at its best are rare and fleeting; (Fortunately we have a record of these fleeting moments, reflecting a key capability that has separated humans from other animals.) Our future primarily nonbiological selves will be vastly more intelligent and so will exhibit these finer qualities of human thought to a far greater degree.

So how will we come to terms with the consciousness that will be claimed by nonbiological intelligence? From a practical perspective such claims will be accepted. For one thing, "they" will be us, so there won't be any clear distinctions between biological and nonbiological intelligence. Furthermore, these nonbiological ent.i.ties will be extremely intelligent, so they'll be able to convince other humans (biological, nonbiological, or somewhere in between) that they are conscious. They'll have all the delicate emotional cues that convince us today that humans are conscious. They will be able to make other humans laugh and cry. And they'll get mad if others don't accept their claims. But this is fundamentally a political and psychological prediction, not a philosophical argument.

I do take issue with those who maintain that subjective experience either doesn't exist or is an inessential quality that can safely be ignored. The issue of who or what is conscious and the nature of the subjective experiences of others are fundamental to our concepts of ethics, morality, and law. Our legal system is based largely on the concept of consciousness, with particularly serious attention paid to actions that cause suffering-an especially acute form of conscious experience-to a (conscious) human or that end the conscious experience of a human (for example, murder).

Human ambivalence regarding the ability of animals to suffer is reflected in legislation as well. We have laws against animal cruelty, with greater emphasis given to more intelligent animals, such as primates (although we appear to have a blind spot with regard to the ma.s.sive animal suffering involved in factory farming, but that's the subject of another treatise).

My point is that we cannot safely dismiss the question of consciousness as merely a polite philosophical concern. It is at the core of society's legal and moral foundation. The debate will change when a machine-nonbiological intelligence-can persuasively argue on its own that it/he/she has feelings that need to be respected. Once it can do so with a sense of humor-which is particularly important for convincing others of one's humanness-it is likely that the debate will be won.