Digital Soul: Intelligent Machines and Human Values, by Thomas Georges (2003)
by Thomas Georges
When asked by ImmInst to express his views on the possibility of physical immortality, Georges replied that Chapter 18 of Digital Soul (Extinction or Immortality?) "pretty much expresses my views on immortality". Yet, Georges also wanted to add a few words for the benefit of ImmInst members as follows:
I have been reflecting on the recent death of Bob Hope at age 100. I knew him when I was a kid and played with his children Tony and Linda. Even then, 50 years ago, he looked old to me. He certainly lived as full a life as anyone could, and at 100, I think he must have longed for the peaceful rest he received.
When considering the prospect of physical immortality, I think the important question is not "Can we?" but "Would we want to?" Technology will no doubt soon allow us to greatly extend out lives, both by genetic engineering and by piecewise replacement of failing organs. We can even imagine an end to the ravages of aging as we know it. But what would we do with a Bob Hope who is perpetually stuck at age 35? Or anyone else, for that matter? Perhaps humanity could benefit from greatly extending the lives of geniuses like Mozart or Einstein, but why burden them (and the world) with physical immortality? As Robert Ettinger said, "To be born human is an affliction. It shouldn't happen to a dog."
If it is the knowledge and experiences of geniuses that we want to perpetuate, then there are other ways to preserve them without continuously patching up failing physical bodies. Furthermore, even if we could achieve physical immortality, we would still be limited in our ability to share and pass along knowledge and experience to future generations. But if, as most scientists believe, knowledge is independent of the container it comes in, then why not focus instead on more durable containers? Going a step further, imagine communal containers that pool and perpetuate the contents of individual minds, free of the burdens of aging bodies.
For more information about 'Digital Soul', the author, and how to purchase, visit: http://digitalsoul.home.comcast.net
Also, George Dvorsky from Betterhumans.com has an excellent review of 'Digital Soul' here.
Excerpt From Ch. 18: Extinction or Immortality?
To the person-on-the-street, the most troubling question about AI is: If we build machines that are smarter than we are, then what will become of human beings? Science-fiction has come up with many possible, even plausible, scenarios, ranging from extinction to immortality, with various states in between. A popular sci-fi theme has predatory war machines in charge of a post-apocalyptic Earth, hunting down and exterminating the last of the rebellious humans (Terminator). Another has humans living in harmony with many kinds of intelligent but subservient robots (Star Wars). Still others portray humans that have escaped their carbon-based vessels and exist as disembodied or communal minds in more durable containers (Star Trek). (Notice that the status quo is not considered an interesting option.) Are the next steps in human and machine evolution more likely to take us down the path to extinction or to immortality? Or is there really any difference? ...
In 1986, psychologist Robert Ornstein asserted that, for all practical purposes, our biological evolution is at an end. Our bodies and brains evolved to suit the world of 20,000 years ago, and neither has changed significantly since then. We are basically the same people who were designed to live in small groups that roamed the savannahs of East Africa and faced daily threats from wild predators. Those same bodies and brains are now trying to meet the challenges of a world that changes dramatically in a lifetime. In a process that Ornstein called conscious evolution, we both create and adapt to these changes, using technology to greatly amplify and extend the capabilities of our muscles, our senses, and our minds. So our tools are getting smarter, but we are not!
We even use technology to extend our own life-spans, by controlling disease and by replacing aging organs with borrowed human ones and even mechanical ones. Still, only a very few people live more than 100 years, and no one we know of has lived 150 years, even with mechanical organs. Will we eventually be able to extend life indefinitely by replacing more and more worn-out body parts with synthetic equivalents, until we get something like The Six-Million Dollar Man - a kind of homo cyberneticus?
But wait! Instead of tedious piecewise replacement, why not just replace a whole worn-out body with a stronger, better designed, and longer-lasting one that acts as a container for the brain? Brand new and improved limbs and sensors would be connected to the same old personality and "self" in our brains! We wouldn’t even need hearts, livers, kidneys and gall bladders - they would be replaced with more reliable electro-mechanical systems. The messy part would be preventing the natural deterioration of the brain. Do we really need that? A common sci-fi theme supposes that our human intellects-the entire electrical contents of our brains-could be "downloaded," bit by bit, into a more durable machine, allowing our minds and consciousness to far outlive our biological bodies.
Get rid of the idea of biological bodies altogether! Robotics scientist Hans Moravec believes that one day we will be able to replicate an entire human being - or for that matter, a whole community of human beings - in a computer simulation. We can’t imagine today how such downloads would work. We know, for example, that the brain is an electro-chemical system, not just an electrical one. Perhaps some kind of high-resolution neural tomography-a vastly more sophisticated kind of brain scan than present-day CAT and PET scans-could map the electro-chemical activity of the brain on a cellular level and from millisecond to millisecond. But even if we do figure all that out, would the resulting entities in any sense be human? Suppose you were downloaded into a computer. Just think for a minute about how you might spend your time. So for now, the question about this kind of immortality is not only Is it possible? but also Would we even want to? For my money, preoccupation with this sort of immortality for the benefit of a few wealthy humans would be a waste of time and scientific resources. There are just too many more fruitful ways to improve the human condition.
Another road to immortality takes more direct and conscious control of our biological evolution using genetic engineering. Once we figure out what the structure of our DNA means and how our genetic program works, we should be able to develop new cancer drugs, find ways to grow replacement organs, control aging, and discover new ways to prevent disease and birth defects. An advantage of genetic engineering is that we could simulate all these processes on a computer, before trying them out on living people, thereby reducing the chances of huge genetic blunders!
So here are two seemingly distinct paths to immortality: one where we supplement and eventually replace our organic parts - perhaps including our brains - with mechanical ones, and the other, by which we control and even design the configuration of our own organic bodies and minds from scratch. It seems likely that these biological and mechanical paths will eventually merge, as nanotechnology matures, permitting us to manipulate and supplant our organic parts on cellular and molecular levels. Then we should be able to engineer any kind of organic modifications we wish - even design entirely new human beings!
But once we get into this business of playing God, why stop there? If we are able to design human beings, why make any more of the greedy, violent, barbaric, self-absorbed kind? Why not nicer, testosterone-free, super-human beings? Or entirely different kinds of intelligent life altogether? There is certainly no shortage of examples of desirable human attributes and powers in mankind’s history to draw upon. This is where the difference between extinction and immortality blurs.
More 'Digital Soul' Chapter Excerpts
About The Author
Thomas M. Georges is a retired physicist living in Boulder, Colorado. From 1963 until 2000, he worked as a research scientist, first at the National Bureau of Standards, then at the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, and finally with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. His research produced more than 100 publications on environmental science and remote sensing, as well as a book about scientific and technical writing. His education includes a B.S. from Loyola-Marymount University, an M.S. from U.C.L.A., and a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, all in Electrical Engineering. See a complete list of publications here..
Additional Note:
For any members in the Denver area, Georges will speak at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science on 6 August. See: http://www.dmns.org/...s/lectures.html
