|
Human Body Version 3.0.
I envision human body 3.0—in the 2030s and 2040s—as a more fundamental redesign.
Rather than reformulating each subsystem, we (both the biological and nonbiological portions of our thinking, working
together) will have the opportunity to revamp our bodies based on our experience with version 2.0. As with the
transition from 1.0 to 2.0, the transition to 3.0 will be gradual and will involve many competing ideas.
One attribute I envision for version 3.0 is the ability to change our bodies. We'll be able to do that very easily in
virtual-reality environments (see the next section), but we will also acquire the means to do this in real reality. We will
incorporate MNT-based fabrication into ourselves, so we'll be able to rapidly alter our physical manifestation at will.
Even with our mostly nonbiological brains we're likely to keep the aesthetics and emotional import of human
bodies, given the influence this aesthetic has on the human brain. (Even when extended, the nonbiological portion of
our intelligence will still have been derived from biological human intelligence.) That is, human body version 3.0 is
likely still to look human by today's standards, but given the greatly expanded plasticity that our bodies will have,
ideas of what constitutes beauty will be expanded upon over time. Already, people augment their bodies with body
piercing, tattoos, and plastic surgery, and social acceptance of these changes has rapidly increased. Since we'll be able
to make changes that are readily reversible, there is likely to be far greater experimentation.
J. Storrs Hall has described nanobot designs he calls "foglets" that are able to link together to form a great variety
of structures and that can quickly change their structural organization. They're called "foglets" because if there's a
sufficient density of them in an area, they can control sound and light to form variable sounds and images. They are
essentially creating virtual-reality environments externally (that is, in the physical world) rather than internally (in the
nervous system). Using them a person can modify his body or his environment, though some of these changes will
actually be illusions, since the foglets can control sound and images.
26
Hall's foglets are one conceptual design for
creating real morphable bodies to compete with those in virtual reality.
B
ILL
(
AN ENVIRONMENTALIST
):
On this human body version 2.0 stuff, aren't you throwing the baby out—quite
literally—with the bathwater? You're suggesting replacing the entire human body and brain with machines.
There's no human being left.
R
AY
:
We don't agree on the definition of human, but just where do you suggest drawing the line? Augmenting the
human body and brain with biological or nonbiological interventions is hardly a new concept. There's still a lot
of human suffering.
B
ILL
:
I have no objection to alleviating human suffering. But replacing a human body with a machine to exceed human
performance leaves you with, well, a machine. We have cars that can travel on the ground faster than a human,
but we don't consider them to be human.
R
AY
:
The problem here has a lot to do with the word "machine." Your conception of a machine is of something that is
much less valued—less complex, less creative, less intelligent, less knowledgeable, less subtle and supple—than
a human. That's reasonable for today's machines because all the machines we've ever met—like cars—are like
this. The whole point of my thesis, of the coming Singularity revolution, is that this notion of a machine—of
nonbiological intelligence—will fundamentally change.
B
ILL
:
Well, that's exactly my problem. Part of our humanness is our limitations. We don't claim to be the fastest entity
possible, to have memories with the biggest capacity possible, and so on. But there is an indefinable, spiritual
quality to being human that a machine inherently doesn't possess.
R
AY
:
Again, where do you draw the line? Humans are already replacing parts of their bodies and brains with non
biological replacements that work better at performing their "human" functions.
B
ILL
:
Better only in the sense of replacing diseased or disabled organs and systems. But you're replacing essentially
all of our humanness to enhance human ability, and that's inherently inhuman.
R
AY
:
Then perhaps our basic disagreement is over the nature of being human. To me, the essence of being human is
not our limitations—although we do have many—it's our ability to reach beyond our limitations. We didn't stay
on the ground. We didn't even stay on the planet. And we are already not settling for the limitations of our
biology.
B
ILL
:
We have to use these technological powers with great discretion. Past a certain point, we're losing some
ineffable quality that gives life meaning.
R
AY
:
I think we're in agreement that we need to recognize what's important in our humanity. But there is no reason to
celebrate our limitations.
. . . on the Human Brain
Is all what we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?
—E
DGAR
A
LLEN
P
OE
The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is the lawgiver. No playwright, no
stage director, no emperor, however powerful, has ever exercised such absolute authority to arrange a stage or
a field of battle and to command such unswervingly dutiful actors or troops.
—J
OSEPH
W
EIZENBAUM
One windy day two monks were arguing about a flapping banner. The first said, "I say the banner is moving,
not the wind." The second said, "I say the wind is moving, not the banner." A third monk passed by and said,
"The wind is not moving. The banner is not moving. Your minds are moving."
—Z
EN PARABLE
Suppose someone were to say, "Imagine this butterfly exactly as it is, but ugly instead of beautiful."
—L
UDWIG
W
ITTGENSTEIN
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
