The Post-human Distinction

The topic of what makes a post-human came up in the recent meeting and, like any good discussion, no consensus was reached.

A wolf-dog hybrid

Rob brought up a biological distinction: if one group of beings can trace their lineage back to humans, but can no longer reproduce with humans, then they are post-human. In evolutionary terms, this is speciation (like humans from ancient apes); it takes millions of years, therefore irrelevant to my interest. Even if we work hard at it, through selective breeding practices, it would still take many thousands of years. A poodle can breed with a mastiff. A dog can breed with a wolf with little loss in fertility.

What if a group of people have the technology to alter their bodies in a way that they can no longer have reproduce with un-altered humans? If they have the means to do that, then they can certainly find a way to enable what the techies call "backward compatibility". Use artificial sperm or external gestation chambers if they have to.

So what makes someone post-human?

Will enhancements make us post-human? No. Go through the list of comic book superheroes. Which one is post-human? None of them! If you can describe someone as "human with this special ability" then he or she is still human. Even Superman.

This is a man with superpowers.

Being stronger or smarter doesn't make you post-human. Seeing in the dark? No. Can fly? No. Doesn't age? Nope. Teleport? No but getting closer. Shapeshifter? Almost, but not quite. A cat that talks and thinks and acts like a human is not a cat. That's just a human who looks like a cat.

What is human anyway? Describe to an alien what it's like to be human. Tell them what their medical sensors can not detect: the human experience. We see in colors and shapes and shades, hear sounds and tones and words, touch hot and cold and textures; we feel pain and pleasure, smell coffee and the rain. We can love and hate and be sad or happy. We can remember things that happened in third grade English class. We forget to water the plants. We make terrible mistakes and regret them. We can learn and think and imagine, and we can express ourselves in so many ways. That's what makes us human. It doesn't matter if we are made of cells and DNA, or if we are bits of code in the Matrix. The human experience is platform-independent.

This is a post-human. Not her, the blue one.

Dr. Manhattan (from The Watchmen) is probably the most well known example of a post-human in the media. Here he is, having sex with Laurie. He's in two bodies for double the fun! But he's also in the lab working at the same time. He's also on Mars. I can tell you what he's doing, but nobody can tell you what it is actually like to be in those multiple bodies at the same time. You can't even imagine that experience; try it. Oh, he is also in the future and in the past. Not just see the future and the past - anybody can imagine that. The future-self and past-self are all one single perspective. So he's actually having sex with Laurie in multiple time-instants, simultaneously!

Being post-human is about having experiences that can not be shared by regular humans. Try describing Picasso's paintings to someone who has always been blind. Tell a deaf person what a piano sonata sounds like. Futile! Every time we talk, we assume the other person is hearing, thinking, feeling; we just take for granted that they see life mostly in the same way we do. From a slightly different perspective, sure, but most of it is the same. A blind person can still hear, and taste, and get lonely. What happens if a huge part of your experiences can not be communicated to others, because they simply can't comprehend it? You'd be a post-human.

It doesn't mean that you have to give up any human senses or emotions. They would just be a small fraction of your life. Compare a dog's life with mine: we can both run around and get tired; we can both feel hungry or full. I didn't give up any of those animal urges. But I spend my time working, and thinking, and planning. And I can laugh at jokes. If a dog can laugh at jokes, it will be a post-dog.

Review of Mr. Green: why sci-fi needs to grow up

Remember my post about giving people the power of photosynthesis? Someone already made a short film about it; Mr. Green by Greg Pak is a movie from the site Future States, and it's been described as "thoughtful, intelligent sci-fi". I disagree. At best, it's a poorly-researched and misguided attempt at environmental activism; at worst, it's the kind of fear-mongering that we've all seen in the machine-uprising movies, but without any cool robots.

Recap (Spoilers ahead): Climate change is real, and it's too late to fix it.. Attractive female scientist just lost funding for her project, so she seduces the head of the appropriate government agency, takes him to her hotel room, drugs him (why the date rape undertone here?), infects him with a virus that gives him plant-like powers. He finds out next morning when he sees that his hair is starting to turn green. So he confronts her, and she convinces him by spewing irrelevant data and showing him how nice it is to be a plant. Having been recruited, he spreads the green virus to other important government figures.

The poorly-researched: Sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than 1 meter until 2100. Even if it does by the year 2020, the US will be fine; we can wall it off like in New Orleans (hopefully without Katrina type failures). Besides, once past the tipping point, carbon emissions will be the least of our worries, and might not make much difference at all.

The misguided: "End the consumption of meat in America and you reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by..." What kind of selfish, America-centric thinking is this? So much of the world won't even have food, let alone meat. The poorest countries will be the hardest hit by climate change. Low-lying regions like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India might lose access to farmland and fresh water, and without ability to rebuild their infrastructure, millions could starve. On the other hand, America will continue to have plenty of food, since our grain and corn belts are far inland and the Mississippi River does not originate from a glacier.

Her technology can ensure that the less fortunate will never face starvation. Her cause should be a humanitarian one, not environmental. I don't care if it will make people feel more connected to nature.

The fear-mongering: Bio-terrorism is not the best way to push an environmental agenda. If her tech is so amazing, why didn't she tell people about it, give them a choice, sell it to them? So it worked on that guy she met at the bar; does she really think that the President will be happy if someone tampers with his genes? No; she'd be arrested and the CDC will take away one of the most important inventions ever. She can wave that Nobel Prize goodbye.

Is the filmmaker confusing angst with idealism? Or does he think that scientists are entirely unaware of ethics? What is the message here?

And if the movie is actually a warning about the dangers of bio-engineering, well, I've had enough of "beware the new technology" stories, especially ones with the stereotypical misguided mad scientist. At least Terminator had badass robots. The transhumanist technology in Mr. Green has the potential to save millions of lives; don't fuck it up with a juvenile and misguided message.

From scratch: algorithmic complexity

I feel like reiterating a point from my last post. The code that describes a human being has very little impact on the actual complexity of a mature human being. Here's a math example for you:

Circumference divided by diameter.

Those four words encode the infinite number of digits of pi (perhaps you've seen videos of a 10th grader reciting it out to 10 thousand digits). Four words precisely and uniquely defines an object of infinite length, which has an infinite amount of data in it. The length of that description is called Kolmogorov complexity, or algorithmic complexity.

You can write a finite length computer program (less than 100 lines of code) that will calculate pi out to arbitrary length. It will run on its own without any additional input, and spit out millions and millions of digits. Human beings, while inside the womb, develop the same way! That genetic code of the baby will unfold itself and generate something far more complex: bones, muscles, organs, integrated nervous system, brain, blood vessels, all of it.

(Heck, we're all probably described in the digits of Pi somewhere. Infinity is a funny thing.)

From scratch

Internet arguments, the best kind of arguments! Transhumanists rallied to defend Kurzweil after PZ Meyer's harsh assault on his blog post "Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain". Kurzweil himself responded with a thoughtful analysis.

The argument centers on one question: "how much information is needed to (reverse) engineer a brain?" Kurzweil guesses about 50 megabytes. Myers says that 50 meg is not enough because A) brain function is very complex and we don't understand most of it; B) the brain is made of billions of cells that all interact with each other, with proteins and other chemicals, and those interactions can not be compressed digitally to a small size.

Point A is silly: we don't need to know how something works to build it. Even Kurzweil made this mistake in his reply. The Wright brothers, who built the first airplane, were high school drop-outs and bicycle mechanics; they probably have never heard of Bernoulli's principle of fluid dynamics, nor did they need to. The first humans who built boats did not need to know why they float. Mothers do not need to know how a brain works to gestate a fully-functional human brain (and the baby!) in 9 months.

For point B, Myer is attacking a strawman; he didn't see Kurzweil's full presentation and assumed that the claim was about an adult brain. Think of the distinction as the difference between an out-of-the-factory computer, and the one you have in front of you. The argument brings up a very good question though: how much information is required to build a brain from scratch? How long would that recipe be?

Let's look at how babies are made. Sperm meets egg to form a complete genetic blueprint. That's all that Kurzweil's analysis covers, and it brings us to 50 megs of data. How much more data goes into brain development between fertilization and birth? What about all the proteins and fluids and chemical gradients? Chemical change is slow, on the order of minutes at least. I'll guestimate around 1000 different chemicals and proteins in the mother's womb / blood, each of which can change its concentration in 10 minutes. That gives a bitrate of 2^10 (number of chemicals) * 20 (bits needed to describe gradient levels) / 2^10 (seconds) = 20 bit/sec. That times 9 months gives a total of 50 megs sent, through chemical signaling, to the fetus.

Does the fetus get information in any other way? There are no nerves in the umbilical cord, so the fetus's brain is not connected to the mother's in any way. The only other way for a fetus to gain information is from its own senses. Are the fetus's senses active? It would not see or smell anything. But what about touch and sound? 9 months of aural input would add up to a lot of data. Here, we have to limit the input to what is specified by the mother's biology; that means music is not required for brain development. What about the mother's heartbeat and breathing sounds? Maybe. But that repetitive noise only adds minimal amounts of data.

What about all the complex chemical reactions inside individual cells? They don't matter. Treat the fetus's brain as one complete entity; the amount of information in its design is equal to the amount of information that goes into it, either from the original gametes, or from the environment of the womb. Everything else, the fetus does on its own. From scratch means we don't have to look any deeper than chemicals and proteins and genes. Put these components together in this specific way: sperm + egg + chemical environment = healthy, functional baby. No quantum physics required!

Let's look computers now and compare; how much information is required to create the latest gadget?  The blueprint of the latest gen Iphone, I'm guessing, is about 10 meg to 100 meg (I've seen cpu design docs around 1 meg uncompressed). Well I can't build one with just the design blueprint; I need the right parts! Add the docs for CPU, LCD screen, antenna, etc. I'll still need the right machines to build all those things! Add blueprints for the machines and the factory. What about the materials? How do I get a hold of germanium? Add in mining equipments, refining processes, prospecting, transportation, etc etc. Where does this end? From scratch means we can just stop there. Sure, there's probably an entire library of physics and engineering books that outline the operating principles of mobile phones and computers, but that's not needed to build one. All we need is the chain of blueprints that will get us from rock to phone.

Carrying capacity

"Carrying capacity, at its most basic level, is about organisms and food supply, where "X" amount of humans need "Y" amount of food to survive. If the humans neither gain or lose weight in the long run, the calculation is fairly accurate." - Wikipedia

Because I adore this kind of calculation, here is the theoretical maximum capacity of Earth, if everybody became vegan:

(1.74000 × (10^17) W * 0.05) / (2000 (kilocalories per day)) = 8.98279159 × 10^13

First number is the total power from sunlight. 5% is the efficiency of photosynthesis for growing plants. 2000 Calories a day is how much energy each person eats. Well over ten trillion people.

If we discount any genetic engineered plants that can grow in the oceans (which would require massive ecosystem changes) and only count arable land (41.4 million square kilometers):

(((((1.36600 kilowatts) per square meter) * (41.4 million square kilometers)) /
2) * 0.05) / (2000 kilocalories per day) = 1.45976558 × 10^13

The first number is the solar constant (amount of light per sq meter). Divide arable land mass by 2 to account for day/night cycle. Rest of calculation is the same. Still about 10 trillion people.

I've totally ignored factors like the supply of fresh water that's required to grow crops. The water factor places a hard limit on the amount of plants that can grow, unless:
(a) Genetically modify plants to use salt water.
(b) Cheaper desalinization.
(c) Create more rainfall.
There's significant research into both approaches.

Australia

(A dialogue with a friend)

"Did you know that eucalyptus oil is hallucinogenic?"
"Bullshit, they sell that stuff in vitamin stores."
"No no, it doesn't work for humans. It's only hallucinogenic to koala bears. It's some kind of evolutionary adaptation. They chew on the eucalyptus leaves and get high all day long. Haven't you seen them, just chilling up in the trees doing nothing? They're like the stoners of the animal kingdom."
"Right, of course you would know about that."
"No, it's true! My friend from Australia told me..."
"Ha! Australia. Australia isn't real."
"What?"
"Australia is just a place made up for those silly TV shows and movies. 'Adventure Down Under!' or some BS like that. 'A mysterious, lost continent in the middle of the Pacific ocean, full of wonderful, fantastic animals and hallucinogenic plants! Aboriginal natives with strange costumes... errr, and customs!' Didn't I read something about people finding dinosaurs there once? Ha!"
"There WERE dinosaurs in Australia, millions of years ago."
"Oh yes, truly a land before time!"
"Don't be silly. Look on any map. Australia, it's there."
"Being on a map doesn't mean it's true. There were maps that showed dragons in those oceans. Columbus sailed using a map that showed China and India in the place of the Americas. Even today there are maps that show Greenland as bigger than the United States. Maps are horribly distorted. Can't rely on them."
"Haven't you seen pictures of Sydney? What about the opera house?"
"Pssh, pictures can be faked so easily. As for the Opera house... Did you know there's an Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas? There's a Statue of Liberty in Paris."
"I know, but the Eiffel Tower in Vegas isn't the REAL Eiffel Tower."
"Oh, it's real. I've been to Vegas."
"No, I mean it's not THE Eiffel Tower. It's just a reproduction."
"What makes it any less Eiffel than the one in Paris?"
"Because it... look, we're going off topic here. How about kangaroos? Koala bears? Those animals don't live anywhere else in the world!"
"The only kangaroos I've seen live right here, at the city zoo. I've never seen koala bears. They could be midgets in fursuits for all I know."
"Fine. The fact is, Australia is a country where millions of people live. Real people."
"Have you met all those millions of people in Australia?"
"Yes! I mean no, not all, but I have a friend who grew up in Australia. The one I told you about."
"You mean he TOLD you he grew up in Australia. You weren't with him when he was growing up, were you?"
"She, but why would she lie to me? She even has an accent."
"Oy! G'day mate! Like that?"
"Sure but not fake sounding."
"Is she the only Australian you know personally?"
"Mm, yes."
"Then how can you be sure she has a genuine Australian accent?"
"Well, I've seen Australian actors in movies. Russell Crowe is Australian."
"He didn't have any accent in Gladiator. In 3:10 to Yuma he had an American cowboy drawl. Does that make him a genuine American?"
"Sigh... So you going to tell me next that the Moon landing is fake? That it was just a movie filmed on a sound stage in Hollywood?"
"No, I believe the Moon landings happened. But all the 'Australian' scenes in movies and shows are filmed elsewhere. Maybe New Mexico, or Nevada. You know, like how those early Clint Eastwood movies are called 'Spaghetti Westerns' because they were shot in Italy."
"I see what you're doing here. You say you don't believe Australia exists. You want me to prove it. Well, I've given you all this evidence already..."
"You've given me second and third-hand information. I would hardly call that evidence."
"... and there's way more evidence for Australia than the moon landings. Look, look at this, they have Fosters beer here, exported from Australia. So how can you believe in the moon landings and not Australia?"
"I rather like the idea of human beings walking on a celestial body."
"What does your personal preference have to do with existence or reality? You're acting like ostriches that bury their head in the sand."
"My friend Jimbo, he learned all about evolution from school. He doesn't believe it though, despite all the scientific evidence. He was raised Christian and prefers the Bible."
"Oh please, you don't have any friends called Jimbo. And if Jimbo is real you'd be as stupid as he is."
"Come on now! Jimbo would be hurt! He's a cool guy; he said he's Australian."

"OK, isn't there any authority on the matter that you would trust? What about geography lessons in school? Don't you trust your teachers? How about an encyclopedia? There are articles about Australian history and economy and culture, filled with verifiable facts. Surely you can trust that! "
"There is an article about the history, government and culture of the Klingon Empire too, probably with more pictures and references than the Australian article. And the Klingon have their own language. You can buy Hamlet, the original Klingon version. The people who made up Australia didn't even bother to give them a language. All they got were some stoned animals and a crappy beer."
"Australians speak English because it was an English prison colony."
"Very convenient."
"What about Occam's Razor? Is it likely that almost everybody in the world share this delusion of an imaginary continent? Or, more simply, you are the one who's delusional and you're the one in stubborn denial?"
"Occam's Razor is hardly a proof. You can't even use that in court. All you've shown me is that most people believe in the existence of Australia (and I can question your claim there). Someone once said that he would believe in a miracle if it is more miraculous for the report to be false. What if your friend told you that in Australia, rocks can float on water? You would think he is joking. What if two friends told you that? What if everyone you know tells you about floating rocks? Now, the majority of Americans believe in miracles and angels. Most human beings believe there is an afterlife, whether it be heaven, hell, reincarnation, whatever. And I'm guessing none of them have been to heaven."
"But that's different..."
"Personally, I do not believe in miracles, or angels, or an afterlife. As I see it, if the majority of people are deluded about heaven and hell, what makes them any more trustworthy on the subject of Australia? It would be completely arbitrary for me to trust people in one testimony and not the other. Why do some subscribe to the teachings of Jesus instead of Mohammed or Confucius? Why do they believe in the Christian God and not Xenu? Why Australia and not Heaven? It all comes down to faith, a personal belief, a preference. "
"You can't compare Australia to Heaven. People have actually been to Australia and come back. You can go visit Australia yourself, right now if you want. Get a plane ticket, fly over, convince your damned, sacrilegious self."
"I can go to Heaven right now too, or more likely, Hell. I prefer to stay right here though. Besides, I can't afford to fly anywhere; I'm just a poor writer."

Hedonism and Utopia

What is utopia? Not the fake ones in stories like Brave New World, but one that you personally want to live in. Here's what I imagine (somewhat in line with David Pearce's neo-hedonism and Yudkowsky's Fun Theory):

It's a typical day; you're walking down the street. You feel happy, safe, comfortable, free. You're going to meet someone to start a new and interesting project together. The weather is beautiful, and you walk a little bit faster because you feel empowered, like there's nothing you can't do. Yes. Suddenly you hear someone whistling, and you recognize that it is your favorite song. You feel an instant connection to that person, and your day just got a hundred times better.

Let's savor that for a moment before I start breaking down the different components.

Typical day: It's not a good life if we are miserable 364 days a year, and then have 24 hours of ecstasy. I'm not saying we should be happy all the time, but the typical, normal mode of being should feel good.

Walking, happy, safe, comfortable, free: These are the basics. Physically fit and mobile. Not depressed. Not anxious, threatened, or feel danger. Not in physical pain. Not oppressed or coerced to do things we don't want to do. You'd be surprised how many so-called utopia fail one or more of these. Except for the "free" part, all these needs can be reinforced medically. 

Rob mentioned that as he gets older, the looming mortality starts to cause more anxiety; so yes, death is a threat to any utopia.

Meet someone: We should have support and feedback from friends, colleagues, loved ones; we are social creatures. More than emotional support, we need someone who can understand us and understand what we care about. There are drugs that help social anxiety disorders.

New and interesting project: We need goals, something to get us out of bed in the morning, something to look forward to. It doesn't have to involve making anything; learning a new skill or going to see a concert or beating a game can easily suffice. There are drugs that can raise the level of focus and motivation. Yudkowsky proposed that the tasks and goals need to be complex to be fun. I won't make that restriction though; some people find a lot of pleasure in repetitive tasks.

Empowered: It is important to feel in control of one's life, and beyond that, to make a difference in the world, to contribute and leave a mark. Motivation and empowerment are closely related to the dopamine pathways in the brain; cocaine and meth both stimulate these circuits, as do some ADHD medication.

Weather, whistling, favorite song: Whatever stimulates our senses should feel better, shinier, more enjoyable, or different in an interesting way. Those who had taken Ecstasy (MDMA) or LSD can testify. There's a connection here to art and creativity as well.

Instant connection: Empathy (and emotional connections in general) should be required for any utopia; we definitely don't want a society full of psychopaths. Greater empathy leads to better relationships and may even cure that modern plague of loneliness and alienation. Watch the movie Equilibrium for an example of a future without empathy.

So how is this transhumanism? I feel that one of the weaknesses of a progressive transhumanist stance is the lack of qualitative goals. Sure, it would be easy to point at progress made in life-extension, or intelligence augmentation, or cybernetics. But what would you say if someone asks that dreaded question: "how would that make our lives better?" or simply "Why?"  How can you even answer that without knowing what a "better life" involves? Let's figure this out!

Some drink to remember, some to forget

Looks like I can't be too dismissive of the subtleties of drugs. According to this article, alcohol helps us focus our attention on what's in front of us. It lets us sink into anguish when drinking alone; it lets us indulge in the pleasure of company. It frees us from distractions like our insecurities, inhibitions, indecisiveness, and the whole litter of personal demons that nag at a sober mind. I think Homer Simpson said it best: "To alcohol: the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

Let's generalize what we want from drugs, because that will help us look past chemical solutions.

Escape: When trapped under pain, suffering, oppression, depression, it's natural to look for a way out. If there's a button you can push to make it stop, you'd push it. That's simple enough, but I'm sure you've heard of the saying "treating the symptom and not the cause."

Change. How can we treat the causes then? We change ourselves and mold our environment, so instead of  just feeling better, we will become better. We learn and build and make things work the way we want; that effort makes us feel empowered and gives us a sense of purpose.

What will happen when drugs (and other technologies) offer us shortcuts? Will it undermine our effort and erode our identity as human beings? There may be more practical concerns too: will shortcuts that let us alter our own goals lead to mental instability?

Feel. "Stop and smell the roses" sounds cliche, but it points to one of the main factors for happiness. Drugs can give us a new appreciation of our senses. Instead of always chasing after an ideal, we take the time to enjoy the things we have.

Control. So much stress and anxiety comes from feeling out of control, not only of external circumstances, but also of your own mental and emotional state. The Penfield Mood Organ from Philip K Dick's famous Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep enables a user to tweak his own mind with incredible precision. Though  that kind of control may not be possible with drugs, we will definitely see a trend in neuropharma toward greater diversity and narrower focus of effects (just because that will be bring in more profits).

Bandwidth of your brain

How much bandwidth does it take to run a completely convincing virtual environment for one person? The answer is surprisingly small. In Consciousness Explained, Dennett claims that an "interactive smello-feelo television would have an astronomical bandwidth" (6); he didn't bother to estimate how astronomical. If you've ever studied physics, you'd be familiar with this kind of estimation: a Fermi problem. Let's play:

A Blu-ray disk outputs a maximum of 40 Mbit/s; it's the best quality video for the general consumer, and it's just about as good as our eyes can see. Blu-ray has surround-sound audio too, so the 40 Mbit/s covers two of our senses: sight and hearing.

Smell and taste are both slower and less sensitive than hearing, and way less than vision. We can distinguish something that's flashing once per second from something that's flashing once per half second. We can easily tell when a musician switches from one time signature to another. But have you ever smelled something that pulsates every second? 10 Mbit/s should cover both smell and taste, and that's being generous.

Proprioception is even simpler. The body has 200ish bones and a similar number of joints. At each moment we are aware of the angle of each of those joints. We are also aware of how tense each of  those skeletal muscles are. A virtuoso piano player can hit about 20 notes per second, and she must know exactly where her fingers are; that gives 20*200*16 = 64 kbit/s, with the 16 bits encoding the angle.

That just leaves touch: pressure, pain, and heat. Skin is the biggest sensory organ in the body, but is it more sensitive than sight? We can feel tiny vibrations and locate pressure with pin-prick precision, especially near our hands and lips. I think 50 Mbit/s would suffice for the entire body (including those extra sensitive parts :)

What about output? The only interesting way of sending information is through our muscles. Yes, I'm going to exclude any excretion of bodily fluids. We have 600ish skeletal muscles which can be moved at about 20 times per second, with varying levels of contraction. That's only about 1 Mbit/s. It's not surprising that our sensory input is 100 times greater than output. You'll probably find the same ratio if you look at your computer's network usage.

So that adds up to about 100 Mbit/s, give or take a factor of 10. In comparison, the current wireless LAN protocol (802.11n) has a max data rate of 600 Mbit/s: more than enough to saturate every one of our senses. All we need is a modem to convert digital signal to the right impulses, and splice it into our nerves.

 Yes, you can kick ass in the Matrix through an 802.11n wireless network.

What about Dennett's other objection, that interactive simulations will take more bandwidth? That is actually a mistake; I have already covered all the input and output channels of a human brain, and analyzed the total bandwidth. Interactivity with the environment is a result of the laws of physics: gravity, thermodynamics, light, solids and liquids, etc. Calculating the result of you throwing a rock into a pond will not demand any more bandwidth; this simulation only requires processing power. Today, we have graphics chips (from nVidia and ATI)  that can produce real-time, nearly realistic rendering of scenes; these chips use specialized circuits to compute the way light interacts with matter. Those same companies are also making specialized physics chips that can simulate how pieces of matter interact with each other.

What's the hold-up then? Why aren't we hooking our brains up to virtual worlds yet?

Oh, right.

The Dating Algorithm

Dating, or pursuing a relationship, is an example of a stochastic search with simulated annealing algorithm. You work on improving your relationship, but sometimes you get stuck in a rut, in a local optimum. There might be new and wonderful experiences out there, but you can't see past what's in front of you. So, once in a small probability, you shake things up and take a risk. You try something new: different person, different place, different activity. The probability, related to the "temperature" parameter, decreases as you get older, until finally you stop taking those risks and settle down to that life, for better or worse.

(Note to self: I should make an animation of this algorithm.)

This post is a sneak peek at the next part of the hedonism series: Relationship engineering.

Soma madness!

Let's imagine the perfect drug.

(This is part 2 of the hedonism series. Put your party hats on!)

First, it shouldn't have any unwanted side effects. No physical impairment (drunk), no addiction or physical dependence (heroin), no long term impact on your body (cancer from smoking), no bad trips, no risk of overdose, no withdrawal symptoms, no buildup of tolerance.

Thanks to advances in biochemistry, we know why these side effects occur. For example, a chemical called dynorphin blocks the reward pathway in your brain, inhibiting you from feeling the same pleasure over and over. If you use cocaine repeatedly, your brain makes more dynorphin and you won't get the same high you got when you started. Addiction is more complicated, but there's no reason why we can't figure out a cure.

So the perfect drug has no nasty side effects, but what can it do for you?

The pleasure drugs: These are the ones that directly stimulate the reward centers of your brain: new forms of heroin, oxycotin, morphine, drugs that wash away pain and turns your pleasure dial up beyond what is natural. It doesn't have to be a chemical substance either; scientists have successfully hooked up electrode to the spinal nerve of disabled patients and use it to trigger orgasms. If possible, electrical brain stimulation (wireheading) may provide a safer and cleaner high than chemicals.

But getting high is boring, one-dimensional. It's a solitary and selfish experience; you can't share it with other people in any meaningful way. Press a button, take a dose, and you'll be checking out of reality, floating through outer space, alone. There's not much else you can do when the intense artificial pleasure eclipses all other feelings. What might that do to your psyche? Look:

A portrait of loneliness: Kurt Cobain spent his last years struggling with heroin addiction; this was him on a good day.

The mood drugs: These drugs affect you in subtler, but more diverse ways. Unlike the pleasure pills, you'll stay grounded in reality, but your mood, personality and motivations are shifted in the designed direction.

Shown here in a common delivery device, caffeine is the second most popular drug in the world.

They can make a depressed person happier (Zoloft, Prozac), calm your anxieties and ease your stress;  they can make you friendlier (Ecstasy), more open and empathic, lower your inhibitions (alcohol); they can make you more motivated, focused (Ritalin, Adderall), raise your alertness (caffeine); they can make you feel safer and more secure, more trustful (oxytocin), increase your libido (testosterone), and even make you fall in love.

Yes, love; read the wireheading article and take note: "Repetition of these stimulations made the patient more communicative and flirtatious, and she ended by openly expressing her desire to marry the therapist." Dr. Paul Zak has also found link between the chemical oxytocin and feelings of social trust and attachment to lovers, to friends, to children, to God.

So you can become fitter, happier, more productive, comfortable, but is there an upper limit? That's what David Pearce asks, and he postulates a future where our level of well-being far exceeds what we feel today, a sublime happiness. What that would be like I can barely imagine. But I know that in the future, "not in the mood" will no longer be a hindrance; I can be in the mood, any mood, as long as I want to. That's freedom of self-expression.

But mood drugs are imprecise; they depend on the action of chemicals like serotonin that paints a broad spectrum of effects. It won't engage any higher-level mental concepts, only your gut-feelings. No wistful reminiscence, no bittersweet goodbyes, no victorious thrills. Though these drugs can prime you to enjoy living, you still have to go outside and actually do it. That brings us to the third kind...

The sensory drugs: These can make what you do feel better by enhancing and distorting your senses. In addition to their positive effects on mood, MDMA (Ecstasy) and methaqualone (quaaludes) can enhance your sensations of touch, making sex more pleasurable and intense. Mushrooms , mescaline, LSD, and other hallucinogens can change your perception in profound ways. Some color-blind people have even reported being able to see color while under the effects of LSD.

Depiction of the very first LSD trip: chemist Albert Hofmann biked home after taking ten times the regular dose.

So imagine that special occasion when you want the food and wine to taste a bit more delicious, the lights and the smile to look more vivid, the touch and the kiss to be more sensual, and everything basking in the soft glow of a heightened appreciation for reality. Think of a dance party, the music, the rhythm and movement. Think of running or swimming or biking and the incredible sense of freedom and speed you can get from just normal, everyday activities. You won't have to jump off mountains get that thrill!

You may have noticed that I've skipped over something between getting in the right mood and experiencing enhanced sensations. In this giant gap of the story is where we actually live our lives, where we work and learn and play. In here lies the difference between the false utopia of Brave New World, and the rich, varied, and fulfilling future you and I want to live in. And that's where I'll explore in the next part of Hedonism for the Transhuman.

Random thoughts and links:

• You know what I want? A reset button: something that can roll back your brain to a saved state. That way I can satisfy my curiosity on whatever I wish to try without worrying about any adverse and unforeseen effects. I get to keep all memories, but my emotional outlook, preferences, and goals can be safeguarded against unforeseen consequences. It's pure fantasy though.
  
  
• There's a major obstacle to what kind of chemicals we can put into our brains: the blood-brain barrier. It stops most cells, bacteria and large chemical molecules from entering the brain.
  
  
• Erowid.org has a comprehensive collection of facts, advice, and anecdotes about drug use.
  
  
• Neuroscientist Anjan Chatterjee has raised some ethical concerns about the future of pharmacological enhancements. I'll have to think about some of his objections to a drug-fueled society.

Transhumanist hedonism: or, let's party like it's 2099.

What's the point of living longer if you're not having any fun? I wouldn't want to do the same old same old for another 40 years, let alone for the kind of lifespan that de Grey envisions. So, How do we extend the range and depth of the human experience? According to sci-fi canon, futuristic recreation will come along the big three: drugs, sex, and videogames.

But lets go back to the original mythology for a moment: what is heaven like? Not the afterlife that's held out as a reward for the religious faithful; I'm talking about the general concept of an ideal, perfect existence. Transcendental well-being, without bounds.

It seems to me that the traditional Christian version of Heaven is not nearly as well-depicted as the Christian Hell, the fire and brimstone. I can easily imagine an eternity of suffering, but what is the opposite of that? Is it just an eternity of happiness with your family and loved ones?

Don't get me started on the whole 72 virgins thing for Islam; what happens when you run out of virgins?? (Most people don't believe this anyway, like the Christian imagery of clouds and angels and harps.)

A perpetual drug-like high, the kind that's induced by opium or heroin? Everlasting orgasm?

Pure blissful happiness, forever? Wouldn't that get boring? 
 


Here, Picard and Kirk are stuck in the Nexus, which makes real all their dreams and desires. The best starship captain in the galaxy only wants a fancy Christmas dinner with well-dressed children and a carousel? Chopping wood by a mountain cabin? Please. Besides, any place that you wish to leave is inadequate as heaven.

Maybe heaven is conflict? Drama and adventure, battles and challenges, pain and sacrifice, love and loss, defending the galaxy, thrilling in victory, forever striving and achieving?

What do you want in your personal heaven?

Famed transhumanist David Pearce proposes to bring about heaven on Earth using technology, what he calls paradise engineering. First eliminate pain and suffering, then boost our baseline sense of well-being. The possible methods: designer drugs, wireheading, genetic engineering.

It's a noble goal, but like our visions of heaven, it is one-dimensional and incomplete. Transhumanism should aim to expand the scope of human experience, and that does not simply stop at happiness.

So what else is a hedonist to do? Stay tuned!

Green sea slugs and dryads

Here's a fascinating creature: a sea slug that stole the ability of photosynthesis from algae, turning itself into an animal/plant hybrid. Not only does it incorporate chloroplasts (tiny organelles inside plant cells) into its own cells, it has also appropriated the right genes from algae to make the symbiosis work.

Think of the advantages for the slug! A creature that's notorious for being slow and vulnerable now has all the food it can desire, produced right inside its own cells. Free food for life! And all it needs is sunlight.

If you're a transhumanist, you'd be thinking how we can get that ability for ourselves. Imagine: solving world hunger with a vaccine. It's clear to me that world hunger can not be solved by simply giving people food - it's a complex social and economic and political problem. But what if we have the technology to bypass all that mess, and inject the genes into those who are starving, so they and their children would never have to be hungry again?

Of course there would be side effects. Your skin turns green. Wearing clothing will block the sunlight. You'll need more surface area than what your skin can provide to get enough energy - leafy hair should do the trick. So there might be new forms of prejudice. But I think naked green-skinned people with leafy hair would be totally awesome:

Some interesting factoids:

• Most of the population suffering from hunger live near equatorial regions where sunlight is plentiful year-round: India and Africa.
  
• Plants are less efficient than broad spectrum solar panels. In plants, chlorophyll don't absorb green frequency light, instead reflecting it and giving leafs their familiar color. But, whereas solar panels produce electricity, the photosynthesis process in plants produces sugar, which can be used directly by our bodies.
  
• Dryads are creatures in Greek myth, also known as tree nymphs.

Story from:
Leaf-like sea slug feeds on light
PNAS journal article: Horizontal gene transfer of the algal nuclear gene psbO to the photosynthetic sea slug Elysia chlorotica
Picture credit: http://www.presidiacreative.com/23-spectacular-examples-of-digital-art-by-artemis-kolakis/

"Reinventing Humanity"

Neil Tyson mentioned in a recent talk that the main obstacle between academia and the public is a lack of good soundbites: short, quotable phrases that are easy to remember and easy to retell. For example: "Supernova, the biggest explosions in the cosmos!"

The shortest bits are catch-phrases that has great meme potential. People in marketing and propaganda know the power of these catch-phrases: "Yes we can", "Can you hear me now?". I propose "Reinventing humanity" for transhumanism. You can put that on a pin, on a sticker, on a poster. It's unique. When you google it, you'll find this article by Kurzweil. Perfect 10-second soundbite.

Now we need a slightly longer explanation that will help people understand the concept. A sentence or two, no longer than that, leading into a 5 minute conversation. Instead of a description, I would ask a question: "If you had the power to redesign and remake human beings, what would you change? How would you make us better?" This question will empower the imagination of the listener, and it provides a great segue into examples of medical and technical advances. (I hope you have a few of these ready! If not, keep following my blog :) Show them why reinventing humanity is not hypothetical, and why the answer is important to us now.

If you still have their attention, you can bring up the more abstract, yet more important aspects of transhumanism. Why "reinventing humanity" instead of "reinventing human"? Our experiences, our lives, are not limited to the physical body; changes ripple outward and reshape our society and culture. How will technology change the way you live? What would the world be like if we can stop aging, if we can modify our genes, if we can record everything we see and hear, if we can enhance our minds and bodies for a price, if we can transfer our minds into other bodies and other forms, if we can alter our moods at the press of a button? These what-ifs show why transhumanism requires more than science and technology, and points out the great demand it has for humanities research too: sociology, psychology, philosophy, ethics, economics. Hours of discussion can follow.

So next time you speak to someone about transhumanism, just remember:

"It's about reinventing humanity."

Fire

A man is washing his feet by the river. Another man runs up to him, and says between heaving breaths, "Please, sir, help me, my house is on fire! Everything I have is burning down!"

The first looks up and says to the second, "Look to your left and look to your right. The entire city is on fire."

The second man insists, "You have to help me, please, do something!"

Two men are washing their feet by the river.

Usability (A short story)

God damn, how can we even consider releasing something like this? We should just scrap him.

We can't. The dev team will go nuts; they've spent years on this one; all those delays, the resources...

Doesn't mean we can't cut our losses now. Forget about this and reassign the programmers to someone more promising.

Promising? We all thought he was going to be the next big thing! The RL Chiang of the West; heck, he was suppose to crush the Chinese models. Everybody bought the hype. Maybe that was the problem. The devs worked on the hype instead of on what's in front of them. Their managers should have kept their heads down, instead of blabbering about him on all the forums.

Who cares what went wrong? He's still a completely unusable piece of crap.

You have the formula. Give it to me now.

Longevity has been one of the main goals of transhumanism. We all want to live long enough to see the Future. What if someone tells you that you can live longer without waiting for gene mods, nanobots, or symbiotes? Too easy, right? No, we don't need technology to live longer, better lives. It can be as easy as changing your diet, and we can do that right now.

I'm not trying to sell any diets; there's too much controversy on which one works, and which one is pseudoscientific bullshit. I don't even buy the natural, or traditional diet, the one that Michael Pollan pushes: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I know most of the processed foods have all kinds of icky preservatives in them, and I know soda will rot you from the inside. But why worship the traditional diet? Traditionally, the average life-span is shorter than it is today. Show me a culture that lives to 120 and I will eat whatever they are having.

Aside: lobsters show negligible senescence and can live to well over 100. Too bad for them they are so delicious. Too bad for us we don't get that longevity by eating them.

140 yr old lobster about to be interrogated on the secrets of its longevity.

The point remains: whether you are anti-fat, pro-carbs, or pro-starving-yourself, you can live better just by tweaking your lifestyle. A bit of exercise is good. Learn to cook, or dance, or play Guitar Hero. Be happy and free yourself from stress. Hang out with friends. Fall in love. It could work. Even if these things don't work, and they don't make you live any longer, well, at least you had fun living.

Merry Christmas. See you in the Future.

Apocalypse!

As civilization grows toward dizzying heights, we become increasingly aware of how far we have to fall. We dote on collapse, destruction, and survival, because of the uneasiness we feel living in a world too complex to understand. Its machinery has evolved beyond our control, and we are all trapped in lives that we call normal. The sub-genre of science fiction that deals with apocalyptic (and post-apocalyptic) scenarios appeals to this dread, and offers a second chance - to blow away the fluff, to reduce civilization to its imaginary core values, and, maybe, to design and rebuild it better than before.

The futurist is concerned with rebounding from this collapse and rebuilding a technological society. After survival is assured, we'd like to skip past all the grime and pollution that came with the Industrial Revolution and go directly into clean, renewable structures. At the last H+ meeting, there was a great deal of discussion on these two ends of the spectrum: basic survival needs like agriculture, medicine, metal-working, tool-making, and sustainable solutions like solar and wind power.

But how do we connect the two? How do we go from subsistence to prosperity and beyond? Are there any shortcuts? There are, but it has less to do with technology than with the propagation of ideas and social structures (at the meeting, interesting analogies were drawn to the role of technology in developing countries). We'd have to consider what resources are available, and how to take the most advantage of them. Let's talk about the end of the world:

Scenario: Biological catastrophe

This broad category includes scenarios of destruction targeted at the human population: any disaster that kills off most of the people without damaging the things we built.  It includes pandemic (The Stand), reproductive failure (Children of Men), gendercide (Y: The Last Man), zombies (28 Days Later, I am Legend), famine due to climate change, ecological collapse, gamma rays and ozone depletion.

Though most of the infrastructure will deteriorate in a decade or less, our most precious resource can last for much longer: the wealth of knowledge stored in books, hard drives (inactive), and optical media. First priority will be the protect repositories of knowledge - libraries, datacenters, and universities - against looting and environmental damage.

As people begin to repopulate and rebuild, we'll need to distribute knowledge to far away communities. The people with access to life-saving information (for example, how to grow food and maintain greenhouses, how to survive cholera or perform an appendicitis) have a responsibility to share it with everyone. Without people operating the network of communication satellites, the easiest way to send information around the world is shortwave radio (around 10 MHz). These radios can be operated by individuals and many are built independent of the electric grid.

Education should be a prime focus. When people become scarce, each person must be encouraged to develop to his or her fullest potential. The problems that caused the disaster, whether pandemic or famine, may prevent any progress until we can find a fix. And that can't be done until we train enough engineers, researchers, and scientists to replace the ones lost in the catastrophe.

Technology level follows the standard decay curve - crumbling quickly as nobody is around to maintain it, but eventually levels off so all that's left are Twinkies, Spam, and those plastic things that hold six-packs together. Population level, following the initial collapse, will slowly grow to a level that's limited by the technology (agricultural, infrastructure, medical, etc) - a logistic curve. Units in the following graphs are arbitrary.

Here is a model of the worst case scenario: nobody bothers to rebuild or maintain the tech, so people keep exploiting what was left from the catastrophe until everything runs down. Buildings crumble to dust, cities turn into wilderness, forests spread across the land. The survivors band together in small tribes and live a hand-to-mouth existence. Even worse: there is no guarantee that we would ever return to a pre-collapse level of civilization.

The recovery model: we preserve enough knowledge to rebuild and use the existing structures to speed up the process. Note that technological decline is reversed quickly and the population limit rises as a result. There's a feedback process here: the more technology and infrastructure we save, the faster people can recover their former lives and become productive (and reproductive!). Optimistically, we'll restore the electric grid in 10 years and networks in 30. Recovery is a race against time - the longer we wait, the more we lose to decay, and the harder it will be to fix things up.

Resources for survivors:
Download the offline version of Wikipedia

Library of Congress in Washington D.C.

National Library of Medicine at Bethesda, Maryland

Research libraries at Harvard, MIT, UC Berkeley, Stanford, etc.

Google datacenters

Too cynical

You know this quote from Niemöller ?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Of course. Every high school teaches it. It's suppose to be a call to action, asking us to speak out and defend our fellow human beings. But why, according to this poem, why should I care about the communists and the unionists and the Jews? Because when they come for me, when it's my own butt on the line, I want the communists and the socialists and the Jews to save me. Not exactly altruistic.

My interpretation sounds terribly cynical and selfish (as I like to call it "rational self-interest"). Why do I care about the research for Parkinson's or blindness or aging? Is it because I want to reduce the suffering of other people, or because these bad things can one day happen to me?

Morality of genetic enhancement: How will it change relationships?

With nature: Sandel's main objection revolves around humility and what he calls "the gifted aspect of life". If we can't accept who we are and what we are given, if seek to control our own nature, then we lose appreciation of who we are. He bases this argument on the ancient concept of hubris: we shouldn't play god. I will give the standard transhumanist response: people don't build skyscrapers and bridges and dams out of humility. We didn't take flight and land on the Moon out of humility. We didn't split atoms and peer into the infinity of space out of humility. We did those and other things because we wish to better ourselves, and because we can. That's who we are. To ignore this restless impulse would be to deny our very nature. Through out human history, we've been striving to increase our dominion over the world around us. It is only logical to extend that will inward, toward our own bodies and minds.

With our bodies: How do you see yourself? Is there a sacred boundary around our own bodies and our minds, one that makes them off-limits to our willful control? The boundary is becoming more and more fuzzy: most people accept vaccinations and nutritional supplements, contact lenses and pacemakers. We drink coffee and alcohol and take other mind-altering substances. We read and learn and expand our minds. While these modifications are not as permanent as genetic enhancements, they do cross over any bodily boundary.

With our children: "We do not choose our children." Sandel sees having children as an unbidden, surprising, humbling experience. Some parents choose not to learn the sex of the child before birth, because knowing would ruin that experience. Children are gifts (he shied away from using the religious term "blessing"). A parent's love should not depend on the attributes of the child. But it is because of that parental love, that some parents wish to give the best to their child. The proper analogy is not designing specific traits for an offspring like one would order a Whopper at Burger King (no mayo, no tomatoes, extra lettuce), but of three wise men bringing gifts to a new-born child.

With our parents: Will genetic enhancement burden the parents and the children with too much responsibility for their choices? A short child today can only wish that he were taller, but in the future, he might grow to resent his parents for not making him taller, or better looking, or fitting whatever fad the culture dictates. A child that's engineered to be perfect might feel inadequate if she does not succeed. We are not wholly responsible for the way we are, Sandel says, and that relieves us of some pressure. To me, that's a child-like attitude. We as adults take responsibility for the choices we make, for what we learn or fail to learn, for how we behave. People today already deal with the choices that parents made for them, like circumcision, home-schooling, and religious practice. We can blame personal problems on how we were born, or we can learn to overcome them.

In the end, these considerations should be done on a personal level. Each of us learn and grow and figure out our own identities. The government should not make policies based on these objections.

Next post will deal with how enhancement will change society as a whole.