Is Freedom So Important? Part 1

"Natural selecton is an explosion of evitability"

So said Daniel Dennett in trying to explain that free will may not necessarily be diametrically opposed to determinism. As a 'compatibilist' he asserts that the possibility of free will evolves, in itself, over time. His explanation being that natural selection may have favoured those who were able to make choices in favour of longevity; illustrated by the example of the person who can decide to duck, to avoid being hit by a flying spear.

The problem is that if you decide on a course of action whereby you remain alive and have avoided the option that could have left you for dead, then surely you're just following nature's programmed, deterministic inclination towards survival. Put simply, because of your programming, you never had the choice to ignore instinctive reflexes and allow yourself to be killed by the spear.

Evitability in this case, Dennett explains, is synonymous with avoidability. If something is 'inevitable' then it is 'unavoidable'. Thus further problems arise when you talk about the future as being inevitable... rather it should be individual events that should be assessed as avoidable or unavoidable.

An interesting rationale for support of Dennett's propsal is given in A Case for Free Will AND Determinism, where the author helps to qualify the concept, as follows:

"Causality provides constraints, not unfreedom. Gravity limits the conditions under which a person can fly, but it does not prevent flying."

Still though there are holes here... you can't pick and choose what ares of existence are governed by causality. Picking up from the above comment, the very idea that you might be able to fly in the first place is the result of any number of preceding phenomena. In essence, the Big Bang happened... and everything since has occurred as a direct result. The development of consciousness is as bound to this as anything else.

And so to the multitude of scenarios that have been envisaged for the technologically enhanced future. Singularitarians declare 'inevitability', transhumanists engage immanentisation... the willed bringing about of the apocalypse, the eschaton, the point where all predictive theory breaks down.

No matter how it all pans out though, no matter whether our meagre brains are able to imagine the futurist's future or not, nothing is guaranteed and nothing is out of the question. But just because certain aspects of our future can or can not be avoided, there is no reason to start looking at the results as anything other than the most recent events in a chain of cause and effect that has been extrapolating for the last 14 billion years.

To be continued...

Rapture For The Geeks

It's probably safe to assume that Jesus Christ is not going to come back to earth to deliver the final judgement or that the world's going to end on 21 Dec 2012 as the Mayans reckoned. And we can only hope humanity's not going to get wiped out by interstellar projectiles, WMDs, pandemics, natural disasters or any combination thereof any time in the near future.

It might be more pragmatic, sadly, to talk about the realities of climate change, poverty and famine that are all too real for many people on this planet. Let's face it, we're not doing a very good job of looking after our Earth... or each other.

Perhaps keeping death front of mind is an unavoidable human preoccupation and theorising on the possible forms of a total apocalypse is symptomatic of this. Personally, I would hate to see the predicted singularity get put into the same bracket...

A.) Because we have proof that the preceding technological developments are actually happening right now... very frequently
and
B.) Because it could be so beautiful... climate change, poverty and famine could immediately become outmoded concepts that cease to have any sway in a world dominated by superintelligent transcendence

It's no bad thing to dream of a better reality but pay attention to the facts as they occur, otherwise you might be surprised at how different your dream was from somebody else's.

Controlling Utopia

So, we have a glimpse of the future and we have people we trust telling us that we will be able to steer our own destinies in ways that our limited imaginations can not yet fathom.

But wait... surely our passport to utopia is going to have to be rubber-stamped by the ruling bodies that usually fund and thus own technological development. Most people would accept that it is humanity's most base instincts that often lead in this respect, namely fear of domination and the motivation to strike them before you get struck. And when government agencies are in control of technological innovation, they tend to pander to these fears by looking first at defense programmes.

Following this line of thought, it's not hard to envision the network of corporate industrial concerns that lie behind manufacturing the new technology that our governments tell us our safety depends on. Basically, the latest technologies are often sponsored for military purposes and behind them is an expansive paper trail that catalogues contracts and mega-profits for captains of industry.

It's very refreshing to hear what the utopians and runaway optimists have to say... and no doubt many futurists and transhumanists would prefer to keep their heads in the sand when it comes to referencing notable technological advances of the past that were ultimately deployed with such dubious intentions.

One of the evident positives here is that the singularity will affect us both as a species and as individuals... and all of us, even global leaders and industrial chiefs, stand as individuals when it comes to facing a future that may see us relieved of the hitherto unquestioned necessities of physicality and survival. Indeed, in the accelerated age, notions of leadership, dominance and control may become distant concerns; washed away in the sudden realisation that we will have no need to fight each other to survive… as we will all be masters, with only the confines of the metaverse to hold us back.

Where do you see your self in 30 years time?

Ray Kurzweil leads a group of professional and academic voices in declaring that the next few decades will see radical changes in the way we engage with technology... even sugesting that we will eventually transcend our bodies and take control of our own evolution.

It is thought that, by 2040, advances in artificial intelligence will have led to an existence dominated by nanotechnology and brain computer interfacing. In fact, technology is predicted to have progessed to such a degree by this point that we can barely imagine the possibilities.

Whether you choose to view such postulation with enthusiasm, indifference or dread, there's no denying that our collective role in this stream of accelerated change is already being hotly debated in certain scientific circles. There's even a Singularity University teaching relevant content to those who can afford it.

If such a future is an inevitability, then surely it's important to remember that it affects us all... and that we have the right make ourselves heard, whatever our opinions may be. That is to say, it's got to be encouraging to know that the people who should be working on this stuff may already be doing so but ask yourself where you fit in to this... beacuse it's you that it will affect.

Way Beyond Human

A new blog is born!... exploring theories and attitudes surrounding the technological singularity and how we can contribute to making it a positive reality

Stay tuned