new drawing
db 2011
words for hollis
sketch at 140bpm
the singularity is near, or is it?
At the beginning of the first chapter of Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology is a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer: “Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.” That it is Schopenhauer, of all people, to whom Kurzweil turns to christen his argument—which states that humans will soon leave their bodies behind to become increasingly (and inevitably) merged with advanced technology—is both ironic and telling. After all, Schopenhauer’s most notable gift to Western philosophy was the importance he gave to corporeal embodiment and sensory experience, proclaiming that “the highest forms of knowledge are granted through the body, [and] that expanding awareness of the stirrings of the body is required if one is to attain knowledge of the ultimate.”[i] Such a reference not only reveals the degree to which Kurzweil is willing to stoop to find material that will help to bolster the strength of his argument—turning even to branches of philosophy which contradict outright many of his notions—but it furthermore displays his tactics of dealing with potential criticism: re-contextualization, trivialization, and ultimately (much like the Borg of Star Trek), assimilation.
The doctrine of ‘resistance is futile’ seems unfortunately to be a truth one must face to a certain degree when dealing with Kurzweil, his theories, and the cult which surrounds them, because his books clearly are not directed at audiences familiar with the ideas of Schopenhauer (let alone the likes of Martin Heidegger or Kurt Gödel). This is despite the fact that he has been awarded 17 honorary degrees from major North American universities in his career, which began with synthesizers and progressed to AI.[ii] Perhaps his assumed ignorance of his readers is what allows him to misquote Marshall McLuhan[iii], among scores of others; to describe quanta as “essentially fragments of information,”[iv] though Heisenberg himself certainly would be dismayed with such naiveté towards the essential lack of attainability of said “information,” as a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle (despite Kurzweil’s repeated championing of “modern physics”); and to craft seemingly complex charts plotted on logarithmic axes that “countdown” evolution towards the Singularity, while cherry-picking his data and glossing over major technological developments that would require hundreds of thousands of years to implement—for example, the use of stone tools, or development of speech—as a single “event.”
Because Kurzweil prides himself as a harbinger of new ideas, he is quick to encourage his readers from the start that other opinions or information are simply not as well informed or accurate as his perspective is, given the contemporary context. While such instances of (seemingly) willful conceptual violence deployed by Kurzweil to construct his argument in the absence of critical thought might be taken as merely humourous (though in all fairness, it is possible to find the occasional genuine insight), the broader social implications of his work reveal the potential emergence of a much darker narrative. And no, I am not referring to the “grey-goo” potential scenario of nanobot takeover.
When Kurzweil discusses “humanity”, and expresses his belief that no child born today will die of illness[v], one wonders about the humanity of which he speaks. Certainly, his message of technological salvation is directed as an open invitation to his readers, but, judging from the quotes on the back cover (Bill Gates, Marvin Minsky), and its size and impressive character, these are not children in Libya, but rather, represent the global financial and technocratic elite. I often found myself while reading Kurzweil’s book reflecting curiously on what fate his predictions will hold for the workers at FoxComm, the Asian manufacturer of many major Western computing firms, whose notorious conditions led one worker to recently die from exhaustion immediately upon completing a 34-hour long shift on an iPhone assembly line.[vi]
Kevin Kelly notes that an “informed response” is precisely what is demanded by such a work as The Singularity is Near, since “the book’s claims are so footnoted, documented, graphed, argued, and plausible in small detail, that it requires the equal in response.”[vii] Since a fully adequate critique of this book might necessarily end up easily rivaling its 653-page length, I will be forced to limit myself within the confines of this essay to addressing only a few principle claims made within the book’s first section (but which can, however, be said to summarize the work as a whole).
But before doing so, I would like to turn to comments made by author Douglas Hofstadter regarding some of the aforementioned contradictions in Kurzweil’s writing:
“If you read Ray Kurzweil’s books and Hans Moravec’s, what I find is that it’s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad. It’s an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it’s very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they’re not stupid.”[viii]
The idea of a “Singularity” is not new territory in itself in the history of 20th century thought. R. Bruce Elder notes that much of the recent theoretical discourse surrounding forms of new media demonstrate a worldview based on formations similar to Gnosticsm (though more than not, unconsciously so). The Gnostics preached the duality of mind and matter, and sought to immanentize the eschaton (bring forth the end of days) through knowledge (gnosis) as salvation in order to deliver oneself from the world of existence, which was conceived of as the creation of a demiurge.[ix] Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest whose conception of the “noosphere” substantially influenced McLuhan and can be cited as an early attempt to theorize the Internet, also discussed the concept in terms of an “omega point” in The Phenomenon of Man (1959). Another priest, Georges Lemaître, coined the even more widely influential and known theory of the ‘Big Bang,’ which posits a singularity as the beginning event in the creation of the Universe —an event not dissimilar to the Act of Creation in the Book of Genesis. The psychedelic guru Terrence McKenna proposed an event he referred to as “Timewave Zero,” based on calculations he conducted via the I Ching that corresponded with calculations for the end of the 13th b’ak’tun of the Mayan calendar in December 2012, an idea that has since been further popularized by authors such as Jose Arguilles and Daniel Pinchbeck.
Proponents of a technological singularity can be perhaps be traced backwards to information theorist Johann von Neumann’s comment in the 1950s that technology “gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.”[x] Within the current community of “Singulatarians” (as they choose to be called) there are three variations on the theory, which emphasize accordingly: the principle of accelerating returns, the concept of a technological ‘event horizon,’ and an ‘intelligence explosion’ or feedback cycle between human and machine processes.[xi] Kurzweil’s doctrine, which emphasizes accelerating returns, goes as follows:
What, then, is the Singularity? It’s a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed […] within several decades information-based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself… The Singularity will allow us to transcend […] limitations of our biological bodies and brains.”[xii]
Human existence within a post-Kurzweilian Singularity will have no clearly definable distinctions between human and machine intelligence. Indeed, from the perspective of the remaining “unenhanced biological humanity,” this state of affairs “will appear to rupture the fabric of human history.”[xiii] In basing his convictions upon the principle of the “law of accelerating returns,” otherwise known as exponential growth, Kurzweil foregrounds a dilemma currently affecting human society for perhaps the first time in full ramifications on a macro (global) scale: rapidly developing technological and industrial agendas are beginning to substantially compromise our planet’s environment, even transfiguring the very concept of an environment itself in new and uncharted directions. Insofar as Kurzweil does this, he has a point worthy of further examination.
In a popular YouTube video meme, Dr. Albert Bartlett suggests, “the greatest inability of the human race is to understand the exponential function.” Such a mathematical function is deceptive in the sense that while it begins gradually, it eventually expands in rapid ways that were not initially discernable. An anecdote given to illustrate its potential is of that of the inventor of the game of chess. Upon presenting his new creation to the king, the inventor was given his choice of reward. Smiling wryly, he extended what appeared initially as a simple request: to place one grain of wheat on the first square of the board, followed by double that amount on the second square, and so on, until all the squares has been filled—the total amount would be his reward. The king at first laughed at such a menial request, but since the calculations were exponential it required that at each successive interval more material than the sum of all of what is already present be added to the board. This eventually resulted in the total request, after all 64 squares were to be filled, being exactly 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of wheat—roughly 400 times the 1990 world wheat harvest—quite possibly more wheat than humans have ever gathered in the history of the Earth.[xiv] The hidden power of the exponential curve lies in the fact that its growth comes sudden and sharp, especially in the “second half of the chessboard”.
Kurzweil bases his theory of accelerating returns upon the confluence of exponential theory with what is known as Moore’s Law, a prediction made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 that processing power would double consistently approximately every 18-24 months. The curve of technological development offered by this algorithm led Kurzweil to develop many predictions in his previous books, The Age of Intelligent Machines (1990), and The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999), that, according to him, have all since been fully verified. Kurzweil observes that, in the contemporary era, these patterns have come to accelerate in ever-increasing fashion—now doubling every 12 months—and that information technologies are undergoing “exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth,” due to factors of increasing cost-effectiveness. This leads him to propose that by the end of the current decade, supercomputers will have the capacity to fully emulate human intelligence. From this, he determines that it is only a matter of time—2045, to be precise—before the total processing power of all computers exceeds that of all human brains.
At this point, Kurzweil contends it will be possible, through sophisticated brain-scanning technology, to virtually map the brain of an individual, thus allowing their consciousness to carry on for all of eternity happily inside the machine. But Kurzweil’s vision is more complex than this single proposition of neural scanning, for by this time computers will also have entered the human body itself in the form of nanotechnologies that will maintain, heal, and cure all illnesses, including aging itself. The primary narrative thrust of The Singularity Is Near is thus not only of the technological developments that awaits us; it is also Kurzweil’s meditation on his fear of death, an event he finds “unacceptable.”[xv] Kurzweil is actively petitioning against death via a daily regimen of 150-250 supplements, 8-10 glasses of alkaline water, 10 cups of green tea, and regular blood transfusions[xvi] with the intention of living to experience the Singularity in 2045, thus realizing his goal of immortality.
In the history of the development of new media, claims to immortality can be seen to coincide with new inventions—first the printing press, and again with recorded sound and the cinema. As civilization has shifted with each technology, so have these manifestations engendered in us the idea that we will become increasingly more immortal. There is a certain truth in this assertion, inasmuch that we can each be said to die multiple deaths—not only the death of our individual biology and our decomposition and return to the earth, but also in our deaths within the memory of others. The ability for preservation of memory is what led earlier recording technologies to be considered in terms of an increase in immortality, however, Kurzweil posits that it will soon be actual subjects themselves who are destined to enter the site of the record for future preservation. Yet how such codification is meant to capture, embed, or represent the consciousness of a person is left to the unclear realm of immersive virtual environments, which necessarily brings forth a variety of paradoxes of all shapes and sizes. (I must admit to my surprise in finding no entry for ‘paradox’ within the Index of The Singularity Is Near, apart from an explanation given to the Fermi paradox that asserts that since we have heretofore had no history of communication with advanced extraterrestrials we must therefore logically be the most intelligent form of life in the observable cosmos!)
While Kurzweil is more convincing with regards to his analysis of present and increasing dependencies on broad forms of AI[xvii], his arguments concerning immortality are based upon concepts of reverse engineering from the future backwards. This is quite specious in several regards. First of all, contention is added to the mixture when one considers that the existing technological body implants Kurzweil discusses so reverently are, in almost every case, examples of a patient requiring prosthesis not to achieve new levels of ability, but to compensate for losses in functions which are never fully replaced. Biologist PZ Meyers notes that not only is information in Kurzweil’s evolutionary charts immeasurably distorted and constrained to a particular canon of knowledge (for example: where do dolphins, whose brains developed 20 million years ago, fit?), but that his fundamental premise is biased upon the false conceit of a functioning brain model entirely encoded and pre-existent within the human genome. (So, if a rice genome has more base pairs than a human genome… what does this say about human intelligence?) Meyers views such a notion as necessarily impossible due to the fact that the nature of protein sequences contained in the genome are “dependent on the environment and the history of a few hundred billion cells, each plugging along interdependently.”[xviii] While this information does not preclude the possibility of building a computer with capacities comparable in processing speed to that of the human brain, it does contend that human brains are not just simply mere computing power alone. After all, we are not only rational animals, but social animals as well. As the sociologist George Herbert Mead observed, our identities and behaviours emerge out of inter-subjective relationships that are formed through our experiences of the world.
In investing the future of consciousness within schemes of “data dumping”—from genome sequencing to brain scans—Kurzweil reveals his theoretical underpinnings as operating within a transmission model of communication rooted in the Shannon-Weaver model of information theory (1948). Such an understanding of communicative action was essentially derived from and encoded by the language of the telegraph and radio, and by and large was a simplistic response to attempt to categorize and define the new modes of encoded communications offered by these modern technologies. McLuhan’s dictum “the medium is the message” offers a substantial critique of this model by referring to the noise inherent within the system as representing environments that shape, distort, and affect all information transmitted within the communication process.
The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus and physicist Roger Penrose have further argued against the view that our minds operate according to solely complex algorithmic processes, since we rely on unconscious instincts in order to possess intelligence and expertise, and can also arrive at truths beyond the reaches of a logical system. (The Beatles were right, love really is all you need.) Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem states no formal system of logic can be both consistent and complete without simultaneously being in turn self-contradictory, and furthermore that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an ‘effective procedure’ (essentially a computer program) is capable of proving all facts about all natural numbers (essentially the natural world). Gödel’s assertion that every set is necessarily described within the operations of a higher set offers a necessary and relevant insight into not only what might be termed possible operational limitations for any artificial intelligence constructed by human consciousness, but also in situating such technological advances within an existing political economy.
Further issues are raised by the question of ‘biological limitations’ invoked by Kurzweil as reason for oraganic ‘obsolescence’ in the face of technology. Is it not possible to conceive of intelligence as a quality which is infinitely expandable of its own accord, via experience? What about those who prefer analog media (of which I am one)? If the only necessary qualification required for machine intelligence to surpass human intelligence is through an arbitrator such as the Turing Test, than is all that is required to effect Kurzweil’s Singularity is to merely produce a successful enough imitation. The test itself is highly problematic in that it is based entirely on a common agreement of the necessity for deception. While Kurzweil makes much of his previous prediction that computer intelligence would defeat a human chess master (it even happened one year early—the Deep Blue/Kasparov match was in 1997, Kurzweil had it pegged at 1998), he does not mention anywhere that equivalent AI programs have only been able to reach the level of intermediate amateur at playing Go (a game whose possible iterations exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe, yet humans somehow learn to master through strategy).[xix]
Part of Kurzweil’s argument is based in treating the initial acceptance and belief of the idea of living forever as a given necessity—that we must strive for the idea, and through our belief (or perhaps the clicking of our heels) it will somehow become manifest. To this extent, Kurzweil has popularized his message through any available media outlet (even appearing on the Glenn Beck show), consulted for many high-profile institutions (including the US Army), created a feature film of The Singularity Is Near, and, in 2009, founded The Singularity University. But ultimately, a mathematical singularity is illusory—as Zeno’s paradox of motion can attest to. It is always arriving, and always about to happen. Indeed, there is nothing more abstract or unnatural than the idea of ‘infinity’ itself, especially from our situated perspective in a world whose sole persistent characteristic is the eventual dissolution of all materials that form it. It is thus no wonder that the Greek word for it also meant mess.[xx] Even with every possible atom in the observed universe computing at the maximum possible speed provided for by Bremermann’s limit, the sum total of efforts would still be less than infinite. In fact, there would still remain an infinite distance between such computing output and true infinity. Like Zeno asserts, one never gets any closer when traversing infinite space. Kurzweil sees the post-Singularity goal of humanity as one of “waking up the universe,” and infusing the cosmos with intelligence. But, we have already started that process in an undesirable fashion: the first broadcast television image sent out into space was that of Hitler opening the 1936 Olympic Games. In many of his lectures, the philosopher Alan Watts remarked upon the relationship between vibration and consciousness (a Bergsonian gambit), noting that all matter vibrates to some degree, and that therefore we can posit all matter is in some sense conscious. I would like to submit the proposal that space rocks have no need for our intelligence to saturate their being—if anything, the reverse statement is more accurate.
Belief in the Singularity, at least in the manner Kurzweil describes it, is hard to come by through any analysis that delves beyond its superficial promise (at least within my own semi-stable pattern of energy), without inducing an element of fear from forces of imperialistic coercion, especially when any consideration in his totalizing discourse towards such contemporary issues as the manufacturing of technology, the finite terrestrial resources involved in production, the relating issues of energy (especially oil, which serves additionally as a primary resource for manufacturing all plastics, and manipulating all precious metals) and issues of the environment, or any economic or philosophical context or consequence is kept at bay by a sophistic, utterly avoidant cry directed towards the magical powers of reverse engineering. If it is true that we are to progress onwards in this new century, “doomed to the comically convergent task of dismantling the universe and fabricating from its stuff an artifact called The Universe,”[xxi] moving in the process “from beings of flesh to objects of metal,”[xxii] then I must end this paper with the following declaration from the poet Michael McClure, invoked in response to horror of the Vietnam War decades ago, but even more relevant today:
I AM NOT GUILTY. I AM A MEAT CREATURE.
Notes:
[i] R. Bruce Elder, The Films of Stan Brakhage in the American Tradition of Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein and Charles Olson. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press, 1998. p. 29.
[ii] Kurzweil has also been called the “rightful heir to Thomas Edison” (source: Wikipedia), and “the ultimate thinking machine” by Forbes Magazine, though I feel this latter accolade must be primarily due to his ability to repeat himself endlessly in monotone.
[iii] On Page 14, Kurzweil begins his section on “The Six Epochs” with the following quote attributed to McLuhan: “First we build the tools, then they build us.” I cannot find this within any other source, and must therefore conclude it is likely a paraphrasing of “We shape our tools, and then afterwards they shape us.” While similar, the two variations contain arguably different underlying assumptions about the nature of being, as inherently constructed in nature versus developing organically. (A relatively minor point, but nonetheless worth taking note of—especially considering how often McLuhan is misquoted and misrepresented as a ‘technological determinist’ or even as a technological enthusiast, in the Kurzweilian sense.)
[iv] Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Group, 2005. p. 14.
[v] Interviewed by Glenn Beck, May 30, 2008.
[vi] See: http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/foxconn-worker-dies-of-exhaustion-focus-on-working-hours/. Also: Joel Johnson, “1 Million Workers. 90 Million iPhones. 17 Suicides. Who’s to Blame?” in Wired Magazine, February 28, 2011. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/
[vii] Kevin Kelly, “The Singularity is Near Accelerating into utopia.” January 18, 2006. http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001094.php
[viii] Douglas T Hofstadter interviewed by American Scientist, January 2007: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/douglas-r-hofstadter
[ix] R. Bruce Elder, “First, Bodies! Notes on the Firstness of Our Physicality” in Ensemble Ailleurs/Together Elsewhere, Esthétique des Arts Médiatheques, eds. Louise Poissant, Pierre Tremblay. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2010. p. 159.
[x] Kurzweil, p. 10.
[xi] Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Three Schools” in http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools
[xii] Kurzweil, p. 7.
[xiii] Kurzweil, p 9.
[xv] Daniel Lyons, “I, Robot” in Newsweek, May 16, 2009.
[xvi] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
[xvii] Agence France-Presse article published on The Raw Story website: “Scientists warn of ‘dangerous over-reliance’ on GPS,” March 8, 2011.
[xviii] “The genome is not the program; it’s the data. The program is the ontogeny of the organism, which is an emergent property of interactions between the regulatory components of the genome and the environment, which uses that data to build species-specific properties of the organism.” PZ Meyers, “Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php
[xx] David Foster Wallace, Everything and More: A Concise History of ∞. New York City: W.W. Norton, 2004. p. 24.
lighthouse series – march 18th 2011
on groundedness
One of the few learning experiences I still remember from elementary school was a safety presentation in the school library when we were all sat on the floor to watch a video about the dangers of electricity.
I distinctly remember the message (construed as a warning within the context) that electricity always sought, first and foremost, to connect with the earth. A deep male baritone voice would chant “Ground!” whenever various actors, caught in situations of electrical mishaps, made a wrong move (grabbing a loose wire, stepping one foot out of an electrified car, etc etc).
It occurs to me that this moment stood out so clearly because it contained a high level of wisdom, revealed by a property of Nature, from which humans could learn a great deal. Just as electrical currents seek constant (re-)connection with earth, we humans would benefit to remember our own analogical constant connection — by asking and observing how it is that we can remain grounded in whatever situations we may find ourselves.
This may be represented though a variety of means particular to a given individual — some connect directly to the earth, or its manifestation through Nature, or perhaps to the lineage of their ancestors, a tradition of thought, forms of embodied physical gesture, or even through an awareness of embodiment itself. Transcendental experience can provide the door, but it is always open out of necessity (even if the path is disguised). Those who understand the principle utilize any and all means available. In doing so, they connect to a force beyond their finite self.
Theory and ideology is always necessarily grounded (though often theorists who espouse it do not understand how, or in what capacity). It must be situated in experience so as to not inevitably become a glorious mansion that is praised, but left uninhabited. We must understand all perspectives through embodied forms. The practical use of theory is best compared to the parable of three blind men who attempt to explain an elephant: the first, feeling its torso, declares it is a boulder; the second, touching a leg, thinks it is like a tree; the third, grasping the tail, considers it a snake. In overlapping theories, we may triangulate perspective and gain a greater understanding of the processes described through the art of storytelling (language instead of discourse). Such references are the only possible means we have to describe the position of anything in experiential space.
When we remain grounded, we remain aware of the necessity of (our) perspective, and perhaps we can recall that since perspective is a necessity we should align in accordance with it, instead of fighting with it. We also, in such moments, recall a perspective beyond our own, and might even intuit that our perspective (and that of all Others) will inevitably return to the earth, dissolve into space, like everything else, always returning to a higher set about which very little (if anything) can be said.
db February 17, 2011
untitled (seine)
db 2006/2009
