Wednesday October 17, 2007
My consciousness course rolls on, and this week we are talking about the question of AI and machine consciousness. So when I was looking through the New Scientist a few days ago, I noticed the name of Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of the AI labs at MIT over in the States. The article, on closer inspection, was a damned curious one. The subject was one about which I confess I know little: transhumanism, which Wikipedia calls “an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, ageing and involuntary death.” Stupidity, suffering, disease, ageing and involuntary death: that’s quite a list.
The New Scientist article was reporting from the World Transhumanist Association meeting in Chicago. The meeting is clearly a forum for a discussion of ideas that are deliberately provocative and outlandish (solving the problem of the population explosion by “uploading” ten million people onto 50-cent computer chips, anyone?), and so it should perhaps be understood in this light; but at the same time it was curious, not to say disturbing, reading. It may be that suffering, stupidity, disease, ageing and involuntary death are undesirable. The jury, however, must remain out at the moment on the matter of whether they are unnecessary.
The author of the article, Danielle Egan, spoke with Professor Minsky in an attempt to throw a bit more light upon what this whole transhumanist business is about. After all, when we’ve sorted out the minor problem of death (not to mention stupidity, disease etc. etc.), then we have to wonder about what to do with the eternal life we are left with. “Ordinary citizens,” the Professor said, “wouldn’t know what to do with eternal life… The masses don’t have any clear-cut goals or purpose”. That would include me, I suppose. After all, what would I do with eternal life? Spend an eternity reading Husserl? Not on your life! Go for lots of long walks. That would pall. Learn to play the sitar. That would be nice for a few decades, perhaps, but after that, I’d get a bit tired. Write more books? Probably. Get myself into even more trouble than I already do? Almost certainly. Anyway, I don’t need to worry about this, because as Professor Minsky says, as one of the masses, I’m not really cut out for it. Only scientists, he goes on to claim, those who are chewing away at important problems that can take years and years to solve, might be in need of eternity.
What is more worrying, is that Professor Minsky also claimed in the interview not only should scientists be exempt from death, but also from the kinds of fragile understandings and agreements that bind us together at all. “Scientists shouldn’t have ethical responsibility for their inventions,” he boldly asserts, “they should be able to do what they want. You shouldn’t ask them to have the same values as other people”.
Scientists should be allowed to do what they want? Is this as scientists? Or is it as human beings? Either way, I’m unconvinced. Scientists are not a breed apart who live divorced from the world. They are a part of a complex world of social interactions. They take money from funding bodies to do various kinds of work that is more or less of benefit to mankind. These funding bodies may have more or less wholesome agendas. If chairman of ACME Torture Instruments Plc. offers me a nice, comfortable job to explore human responses to pain stimuli, or if the board of Bomb-U-Like Ltd. employ me to find a way of wiping out an entire nation, intelligently stopping this destruction at some pre-programmed geographical border, then I can hardly claim that my research is ethically neutral.
Transhumanism, or at least Minsky’s brand of Transhumanism, is the kind of thing that gives science a bad name, and that fuels the popular myth – one that many scientists lament – of the deranged scientist in his or her (although, in the mental image we have, it is usually his ) lair, pressing buttons, playing with steaming test-tubes and cackling insanely over having found the elixir of immortality, without a moment’s thought about the ethical consequences of their actions.
But, having said that, I’m not sure it that Minsky is talking about science at all, even if he thinks he is. Immortal life, the ending of suffering, the overcoming of death, the salvation of humanity, the attainment of a state free from our ordinary, human stupidity, and a priesthood who are curiously exempt from the ethical standards of the rest of mankind… This, Professor Minsky, sounds more like bad religion than it sounds like good science.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
This mind, this mind...: Wednesday April 25, 2007
The mind’s chaos…
East is East and West is West: Monday August 7, 2006
Thinking between Levinas and Shantideva, East and West.
Putting Shantideva to the Test: Thursday March 27, 2008
Happiness and ethics – a simple experiment.
A Retreat Haiku: Tuesday November 1, 2005
A short retreat haiku
Miscommunication: Tuesday March 20, 2007
The Buddha’s first, failed teaching.
Lose Weight: Convert to Buddhism: Tuesday September 26, 2006
Forget that diet – change your religion instead!
Pick and Mix: Friday August 26, 2011
Western Buddhists and the spiritually sweet-toothed.
History as Natural History: Tuesday August 15, 2006
From the social contract to the natural contract.
Is this it?: Tuesday September 16, 2008
Surely there must be more to life…?
On Advertising: Wednesday January 14, 2009
“There are a lot of things in this world / You are going to have no use for…” Tom Waits.
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.