|
A
peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for
Ethics and ISSN
1541-0099 22(1)
Ð May 2013 |
Afterword:
Minds and Machines: My Mind to Your Mind: the Melding of Minds and Machines
Linda MacDonald Glenn, JD, LLM
Assistant Professor, Alden March Bioethics Institute
Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 22 Issue 1 Ð May 2013 - pgs 146-148
As
you may be able to tell from the title of this afterword, I am a Star Trek fan (aka a ÒTrekkieÓ); I was always fascinated by
the concept of the ÒVulcan mind meld.Ó And now, technologies that may enable us
to open Òa window into the movies in our mindsÓ are becoming a reality.1
Clinical trials for brain implants for patients with traumatic brain injury or
cognitive impairments due to stroke are scheduled to start in 2015,2
with the hope that trials for patients with AlzheimerÕs will start within a
year or two after that. One of our authors, Matt Lucas, examines the use of
neuroprosthetics for children with neural injuries. At the other end of the
spectrum, as the gray tsunami of aging baby boomers approaches, and they choose
to use technology to improve their quality of life, these machine-mind mergers
will become more commonplace and accepted as the standard of treatment.
This
collection of essays for JET provides a small peek into the future of humanity,
the evolution of the species that we currently call Homo sapiens, what challenges we face, and upon what questions we
need to meditate.
Author
Mark Coeckelbergh considers whether our quest for
enhancement leaves us vulnerable in ways that we had not anticipated. Physical
vulnerability is not the only vulnerability; he posits that there are
existential and psychological vulnerabilities, social and emotional
vulnerabilities, as well as ethical-axiological vulnerabilities. As he notes, ÒWhetherÉ seen as composed of elementary
particles or as relational nodes in a network-ecology, they remain vulnerable
and Ômortal,Õ however virtual they might have become.Ó He concludes that,
rather making ourselves invulnerable, we should pay heed to the lesson of
Achilles and other Greek myths, and realize that vulnerabilities are relational
and should remain an essential part of the human (and posthuman) condition.
Corry Shores reflects on whole brain emulation, the
wildly random nature of our neurons, and identity; he speculates that the ÒbrainÕs
randomness is responsible for creativity, adaptation, and free choice,Ó and
that this randomness may be the reason our personal identities cannot be
duplicated.
Mark Walker distinguishes between token and type
identity, argues persuasively that preservation of either identity is a worthy
goal, and suggests that there are considerable advantages (or at
least apparent advantages) to being uploaded, including immortality and
enhancement.
Nicholas Agar contemplates the pros and cons of a
strong AI, and argues that uploading should not replace the option to maintain
a biological substrate. If uploading the mind results in death of the
biological substrate, this denies a future in which
technologies compatible with the survival of a biological brain can rejuvenate
our bodies and enhance our powers of thought.
Jeff Buechner contends that reality
augmentation with fictional virtual beings is metaphysically impossible. He
examines Saul KripkeÕs views on reference to fictional entities, and concludes
there is an impenetrable barrier between real beings and fictional beings, and
that the conflation of contexts and the resulting Òactions performed on the
basis of the fallacious inferences could jeopardize oneÕs life in multiple ways.Ó
Kim
Lacey cogitates the cryogenic preservation of oneÕs mind via digital suspension,
as opposed to pharmaceutical suspension, and asks, ÒWhat does it mean to add to
your existing self?Ó
James
Ogilvy cautions, ÒBe careful of what you wish forÓ in terms of cognitive
enhancement, because intelligence comes in many shapes, colors, and flavors other
than simple logico-analytic or computational intelligence; for Ogilvy, human
intelligence and nonbiological intelligence are very different concepts.
Laura
Cabrera reminds us that with every new technology there are unintended
consequences. Similar to the fear that our reliance on GPS
and GIS systems is weakening our spatial literacy, Cabrera portends that increased ability to remember every event could
overflow our capacity or that some memory enhancement interventions could
impair our creativity and imaginative capabilities.
James Giordano and Roland Benedikter have some fun
with the wise old Owl of Minerva, whose flight is representative of the clarity
of hindsight. They assert that Òthe value of neuroethics is derived from
its wider vision of the human and humanity Ð
if not all sentient Ð beings in
general, as both reflecting advancements and effects of neuroscience, and in
acknowledgment of the bio-psychosocial view of organismsÕ reciprocal
interactions with their environments.Ó
And
last but not least, Ben Goertzel and Joel Pitt, in their heartening essay,
propose that an open-source AGI can and should be biased toward friendliness,
and they offer nine ways to do just that.
They take YudkowskyÕs notion of Coherent Extrapolated Volition a step further, and proffer that with human
collaboration, through a collective interactive process, Coherent Blended Volition can be designed. This
blending process is present in what the authors term ÒThe Global BrainÓ (the
composite, self-organizing information system comprising humans, computers,
data stores, the Internet, mobile phones and other communication systems) and
supports deep sharing and collective engagement among human beings. Along the
lines of Òtransparency is the best disinfectant,Ó Goertzel and Pitt recommend
that the development of the AGI be tightly linked with the Global Brain.
Other
useful suggestions include creation of an ÒAGI NannyÓ and the fostering of
deep, consensus-building interactions and commensurability between divergent viewpoints,
similar to my call made in an article published in JET in 2003, about evolving
notions of personhood.3
It
has been an honor and pleasure to co-edit this fine journal issue with my
colleague, Russell Blackford, an esteemed philosopher who has my tremendous
respect and admiration. My many thanks go to him for his patience,
perseverance, and kindness. It has also been an honor to review my colleaguesÕ
writing and I thank all of the authors for their willingness to undergo the
challenging (and sometimes, unnerving) peer review process to produce this
inspirational and stellar issue of JET. IÕm sure the readers of this journal
issue will find it both enlightening and useful.
Notes
1.
Morris, Ian. 2012. Hitler would have loved The Singularity: Mind-blowing
benefits of merging human brains and computers. Mail Online. February 6.
2.
Stat, Michael. 2013. Memory implants may start trials in 2 years. Future Leap. May 8. http://www.futureleap.com/news/memory-implants-may-start-human-trials-in-2-years/
3.
Glenn, Linda MacDonald. 2003. Biology at the margins of personhood: An evolving
legal paradigm. Journal of Evolution and
Technology 13(1) (March).