This reverses all processes in time, turning evolution into devolution, Time moves backward during the second half of the Universe’s time span. So if you smash a favorite cup, try to do it as we approach the midpoint of the Universe’ s time span. You should find the cup coming together again as we cross over into the Universe’s contracting phase of its time span. Now if time is moving blackward during this contracting phase, what we (living in the expanding phase of the Universe) look forward to as the big crunch is actually a big bang to the creatures living (in reverse time) during the contracting phase. Consider the perspective of these time-reversed creatures living in what we regard as the contracting phase of the Universe. From their perspective, what we regard ad the second phase is actually their first phase, with time going in the reverse direction. So from their perspective, the Universe during this phase is expanding, not contracting. Thus, if the “Universe will eventually contract” theory is correct, it would be proper to say that the Universe is boudned in time by two big bangs, with events flowing in opposite directions in time from each big bang, meeting in the middle. Creatures living in both phases can say that they are in the first half of the Universe’s history, since both phases will appear to be the first half to creatures linging in those phases. And in both halves of the time span of the Universe, the Law of Entropy, the Law of Time and Chaos, and the Law of Accelerating Returns (as applied to evolution) all hold true, but with time moving in opposite directions.6
The End of Time
And what if the Universe expands indefinitely? This would mean that the stars and galaxies will eventually exhaust their energy, leaving a Universe of dead stars expanding forever. That would leave a big mess-lots of randomness-and no meaningful order, so according to the Law of Time and Chaos, time would gradually come to a halt. Consistently, if a dead Universe means that there will be no conscious beings to appreciate it, the both the Quantum Mechanical and the Eastern subjective viwpoints7 appear to imply that the Universe would cease to exist.
In my view, neither conclusion is quite right. At the end of this book, I’ll share with you my perspective of what happens at the ends of the Universe. But don’t look ahead.
Consider the sophistication of our creations over a period of only a few thousand years. Ultimately, our machines will match and exceed human intelligence, no matter how one cares to define or measure this elusive term. Even if my time frames are off, few serious observers who have studied the issue claim that computers will never achieve and surpass human intelligence. Humans will have vastly beaten evolution, therefore, achieving in a matter of only thousands of years as much or more than evolution achieved in billions of years. So human intelligence, a product of evolution, is far more intelligent than its creator.
And so, too, will the intelligence that we are creating come to exceed the intelligence of its creator. That is not the case today. But as the rest of this book will argue, it will take place very soon—in evolutionary terms, or even in terms of human history—and within the lifetimes of most of the readers of this book. The Law of Accelerating Returns predicts it. And furthermore, it predicts that the progression in the capabilities of human-created machines will only continue to accelerate. The human species creating intelligent technology is another example of evolution’s progress building on itself. Evolution created human intelligence. Now human intelligence is designing intelligent machines at a far faster pace. Yet another example will be when our intelligent technology takes control of the creation of yet more intelligent technology than itself.
NOW ON THIS TIME THING, WE START OUT AS A SINGLE CELL, RIGHT?
That’s right.
AND THEN WE DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING RESEMBLING A FISH, THEN AN AMPHIBIAN, ULTIMATELY A MAMMAL, AND SO ON—YOU KNOW ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES—
Phylogeny, yes.
SO THAT’S JUST LIKE EVOLUTION, RIGHT? WE GO THROUGH EVOLUTION IN OUR MOTHER’S WOMB.
Yes, that’s the theory. The word phylogeny is derived from phylum ...
BUT YOU SAID THAT IN EVOLUTION, TIME SPEEDS UP. YET IN AN ORGANISM’S LIFE, TIME SLOWS DOWN.
Ah yes, a good catch, I can explain.
I’M ALL EARS.
The Law of Time and Chaos states that, in a process, the average time interval between salient events is proportional to the amount of chaos in the process. So we have to be careful to define precisely what constitutes the process. It is true that evolution started out with single cells. And we also start out as a single cell. Sounds similar, but from the perspective of the Law of Time and Chaos, it’s not. We start out as just one cell. When evolution was at the point of single cells, it was not one cell, but many trillions of cells. And these cells were just swirling about; that’s a lot of chaos and not much order. The primary movement of evolution has been toward greater order. In the development of an organism, however, the primary movement is toward greater chaos—the grown organism has far greater disorder than the single cell it started out as. It draws that chaos from the environment as its cells multiply, and as it has encounters with its environment. Is that clear?
UH, SURE. BUT DON’T QUIZ ME ON IT. I THINK THE GREATEST CHAOS IN MY LIFE WAS WHEN I LEFT HOME TO GO TO COLLEGE. THINGS ARE JUST BEGINNING TO SETTLE DOWN NOW AGAIN.
I never said the Law of Time and Chaos explains everything.
OKAY, BUT EXPLAIN THIS. YOU SAID THAT EVOLUTION WASN’T VERY SMART, OR AT LEAST WAS RATHER SLOW-WITTED. BUT AREN’T SOME OF THESE VIRUSES AND BACTERIA USING EVOLUTION TO OUTSMART US?
Evolution operates on different timescales. If we speed it up, it can be smarter than us. That’s the idea behind software programs that apply a simulated evolutionary process to solving complex problems. Pathogen evolution is another example of the ability of evolution to amplify and focus its diffuse powers. After all, a viral generation can take place in minutes or hours compared to decades for the human race. However, I do think we will ultimately prevail against the evolutionary tactics of our disease agents.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE STOPPED OVERUSING ANTIBIOTICS.
Yes, and that brings up another issue, which is whether the human species is more intelligent than its individual members.
AS A SPECIES, WE’RE CERTAINLY PRETTY SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.
That’s often true. Nonetheless, we do have a profound species-wide dialogue going on. In other species, the individuals may communicate in a small clan or colony, but there is little, if any, sharing of information beyond that, and little apparent accumulated knowledge. The human knowledge base of science, technology, art, culture, and history has no parallel in any other species.
WHAT ABOUT WHALE SONGS?
Hmmm. I guess we just don’t know what they’re singing about.
AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE APES THAT YOU CAN TALK TO ON THE INTERNET?
Well, on April 27, 1998, Koko the gorilla did engage in what her mentor, Francine Patterson, called the first interspecies chat, on America Online.8 But Koko’s critics intimate that Patterson is the brains behind Koko.
BUT PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO CHAT WITH KOKO ONLINE.
Yes. However, Koko is rusty on her typing skills, so questions were interpreted by Patterson into American Sign Language, which Koko observed, and then Koko’s signed responses were interpreted by Patterson back into typed responses. I guess the suspicion is that Patterson is like those language interpreters from the diplomatic corps—one wonders if you’re communicating with the dignitary, in this case Koko, or the interpreter.
ISN’T IT CLEAR IN GENERAL THAT THE APES ARE COMMUNICATING? THEY’RE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM US GENETICALLY, AS YOU SAID.
There’s clearly some form of communication going on. The question being addressed by the linguistics community is whether the apes can really deal with the levels of symbolism embodied in human language. I think that Dr. Emily Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University, who runs a fifty-five-acre ape-communication laboratory, made a fair statement recently when she said, “They [her critics] are asking Kanzi [one of her ape subjects] to do
everything that humans do, which is specious. He’ll never do that. It still doesn’t negate what he can do.”
WELL, I’M ROOTING FOR THE APES.
Yes, it would be nice to have someone to talk to when we get tired of other humans.
SO WHY DON’T YOU JUST HAVE A LITTLE TALK WITH YOUR COMPUTER?
I do talk to my computer, and it dutifully takes down what I say to it. And I can give commands by speaking in natural language to Microsoft Word,9 but it’s still not a very engaging conversationalist. Remember, computers are still a million times simpler than the human brain, so it’s going to be a couple of decades yet before they become comforting companions.
BACK ON THIS INDIVIDUAL-VERSUS-GROUP-INTELLIGENCE ISSUE, AREN’T MOST ACHIEVEMENTS IN ART AND SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHED BY INDIVIDUALS? YOU KNOW, YOU CAN’T WRITE A SONG OR PAINT A PICTURE BY COMMITTEE.
Actually, a lot of important science and technology is done in large groups.
BUT AREN’T THE REAL BREAKTHROUGHS DONE BY INDIVIDUALS?
In many cases, that’s true. Even then, the critics and the technology conservatives, even the intolerant ones, do play an important screening role. Not every new and different idea is worth pursuing. It’s worthwhile having some barriers to break through.
Overall, the human enterprise is clearly capable of achievements that go far beyond what we can do as individuals.
HOW ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE OF A LYNCH MOB?
I suppose a group is not always more intelligent than its members.
WELL, I HOPE THOSE TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY MACHINES DON’T EXHIBIT OUR MOB PSYCHOLOGY.
Good point.
I MEAN, I WOULDN’T WANT TO END UP IN A DARK ALLEY WITH A BAND OF UNRULY MACHINES.
We should keep that in mind as we design our future machines. I’ll make a little note....
YES, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE MACHINES START, AS YOU SAID, DESIGNING THEMSELVES.
CHAPTER THREE
OF MIND AND MACHINES
PHILOSOPHICAL MIND EXPERIMENTS
“I am lonely and bored; please keep me company.”
If your computer displayed this message on its screen, would that convince you that your notebook is conscious and has feelings?
Well, clearly no, it’s rather trivial for a program to display such a message. The message actually comes from the presumably human author of the program that includes the message. The computer is just a conduit for the message, like a book or a fortune cookie.
Suppose we add speech synthesis to the program and have the computer speak its plaintive message. Have we changed anything? While we have added technical complexity to the program, and some humanlike communication means, we still do not regard the computer as the genuine author of the message.
Suppose now that the message is not explicitly programmed, but is produced by a game-playing program that contains a complex model of its own situation. The specific message may never have been foreseen by the human creators of the program. It is created by the computer from the state of its own internal model as it interacts with you, the user. Are we getting closer to considering the computer as a conscious, feeling entity?
Maybe just a tad. But if we consider contemporary game software, the illusion is probably short-lived as we gradually figure out the methods and limitations behind the computer’s ability for small talk.
Now suppose the mechanisms behind the message grow to become a massive neural net, built from silicon but based on a reverse engineering of the human brain. Suppose we develop a learning protocol for this neural net that enables it to learn human language and model human knowledge. Its circuits are a million times faster than human neurons, so it has plenty. of time to read all human literature and develop its own conceptions of reality. Its creators do not tell it how to respond to the world. Suppose now that it says, “I’m lonely ... ”
At what point do we consider the computer to be a conscious agent with its own free will? These have been the most vexing problems in philosophy since the Platonic dialogues illuminated the inherent contradictions in our conception of these terms.
Let’s consider the slippery slope from the opposite direction. Our friend Jack (circa some time in the twenty-first century) has been complaining of difficulty with his hearing. A diagnostic test indicates he needs more than a conventional hearing aid, so he gets a cochlear implant. Once used only by people with severe hearing impairments, these implants are now common to correct the ability of people to hear across the entire sonic spectrum. This routine surgical procedure is successful, and Jack is pleased with his improved hearing.
Is he still the same person?
Well, sure he is. People have cochlear implants circa .1999. We still regard them as the same person.
Now (back to circa sometime in the twenty-first century), Jack is so impressed with the success of his cochlear implants that he elects to switch on the built-in phonic-cognition circuits, which improve overall auditory perception. These circuits are already built in so that he does not require another insertion procedure should he subsequently decide to enable them. By activating these neural-replacement circuits, the phonics-detection nets built into the implant bypass his own aging neural-phonics regions. His cash account is also debited for the use of this additional neural software. Again, Jack is pleased with his improved ability to understand what people are saying.
Do we still have the same Jack? Of course; no one gives it a second thought.
Jack is now sold on the benefits of the emerging neural-implant technology. His retinas are still working well, so he keeps them intact (although he does have permanently implanted retinal-imaging displays in his corneas to view virtual reality), but he decides to try out the newly introduced image-processing implants, and is amazed how much more vivid and rapid his visual perception has become.
Still Jack? Why, sure.
Jack notices that his memory is not what it was, as he struggles to recall names, the details of earlier events, and so on. So he’s back for memory implants. These are amazing—memories that had grown fuzzy with time are now as clear as if they had just happened. He also struggles with some unintended consequences as he encounters unpleasant memories that he would have preferred to remain dim.
Still the same Jack? Clearly he has changed in some ways and his friends are impressed with his improved faculties. But he has the same self-deprecating humor, the same silly grin—yes, it’s still the same guy.
So why stop here? Ultimately Jack will have the option of scanning his entire brain and neural system (which is not entirely located in the skull) and replacing it with electronic circuits of far greater capacity, speed, and reliability There’s also the benefit of keeping a backup copy in case anything happened to the physical Jack.
Certainly this specter is unnerving, perhaps more frightening than appealing. And undoubtedly it will be controversial for a long time (although according to the Law of Accelerating Returns, a “long time” is not as long as it used to be). Ultimately, the overwhelming benefits of replacing unreliable neural circuits with improved ones will be too compelling to ignore.
Have we lost Jack somewhere along the line? Jack’s friends think not. Jack also claims that he’s the same old guy, just newer. His hearing, vision, memory, and reasoning ability have all improved, but it’s still the same Jack.
However, let’s examine the process a little more carefully. Suppose rather than implementing this change a step at a time as in the above scenario, Jack does it all at once. He goes in for a complete brain scan and has the information from the scan instantiated (installed) in an electronic neural computer. Not one to do things piecemeal, he upgrades his body as well. Does making the transition at one time change anything? Well, what’s the difference between changing from neural circuits to electronic/photonic ones all at once, as opposed to doing it gradually? Even if he makes the change in one quick step, the new Jack is still the same old Jack, right?
But what about Jack’s old brain and body? Assuming a noninvasive sc
an, these still exist. This is Jack! Whether the scanned information is subsequently used to instantiate a copy of Jack does not change the fact that the original Jack still exists and is relatively unchanged. Jack may not even be aware of whether or not a new Jack is ever created. And for that matter, we can create more than one new Jack.
If the procedure involves destroying the old Jack once we have conducted some quality-assurance steps to make sure the new Jack is fully functional, does that not constitute the murder (or suicide) of Jack?
Suppose the original scan of Jack is not noninvasive, that it is a “destructive” scan. Note that technologically speaking, a destructive scan is much easier—in fact we have the technology today (1999) to destructively scan frozen neural sections, ascertain the interneuronal wiring, and reverse engineer the neurons’ parallel digital-analog algorithms.1 We don’t yet have the bandwidth to do this quickly enough to scan anything but a very small portion of the brain. But the same speed issue existed for another scanning project—the human genome scan—when that project began. At the speed that researchers were able to scan and sequence the human genetic code in 1991, it would have taken thousands of years to complete the project. Yet a fourteen-year schedule was set, which it now appears will be successfully realized. The Human Genome Project deadline obviously made the (correct) assumption that the speed of our methods for sequencing DNA codes would greatly accelerate over time. The same phenomenon will hold true for our human-brain-scanning projects. We can do it now—very slowly—but that speed, like most everything else governed by the Law of Accelerating Returns, will get exponentially faster in the years ahead.