

A sixth path towards the singularity? (response to Vernor Vinge) - pygy
http://neurocrank.blogspot.com/2008/06/sixth-path-towards-singularity.html

======
pygy
Blogger/Blogspot is down half of the time ATM... Sorry about this.

Here's the full text :

Vernor Vinge recently reviewed various singularity scenarios advanced by
experts in the field in the latest issue of the IEEE Spectrum magazine:

 _\- The AI Scenario: We create superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) in
computers.

\- The IA Scenario: We enhance human intelligence through human-to-computer
interfaces—that is, we achieve intelligence amplification (IA).

\- The Biomedical Scenario: We directly increase our intelligence by improving
the neurological operation of our brains.

\- The Internet Scenario: Humanity, its networks, computers, and databases
become sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being.

\- The Digital Gaia Scenario: The network of embedded microprocessors becomes
sufficiently effective to be considered a superhuman being._

He gives lots of insights, but I think there's an option missing which has
never discussed as far as I know. I already posted this as a comment on the
journal page, but I think it's worth it's own entry.

Here's the idea: what would be the implications of using micro-electrode
arrays currently used for BCI to implement direct, bidirectional brain to
brain communication?

Since it has never been tried, even in animals, and since we have no idea if
it could ever work, the following points are strictly speculative (yet not
gratuitous, but very exciting as it's often the case with speculative stuff
;-).

Here are a few topics worth envisioning, assuming the feat is possible:

Technical issues.

\- Avoid triggering epilepsy because of the new neuronal circuits (duh...)

\- Where to put electrodes? A priori I'd put the arrays on the fronto-parietal
associative networks of the convexity. Connecting medial (self related), or
prefrontal, volitional structures could also be interresting, as would
connecting together areas naturally unrelated to each other (even in a single
brain, this could enable great synesthesia... yum!). \- Learning to
communicate at a low level should't be problematic. The fundamental function
of any cortical module is to communicate with another cortical module. I don't
think that they would be affected by being located in different heads.

Ethical / transhuman issues.

\- Higher level cooperation: assuming that communication is really possible,
would we become smarter or dumber? Would we be able to cooperate, or would it
be distracting, disruptive, and in the end ineffective? Would we simply
tolerate the process?

\- First person experience / phenomenal consciousness: Would we experience
another person's perception/cognition? What about a non delusional influence
syndrome?

\- Identity and individual self. Would this create a human "super-being", or
two superhuman beings?

\- Trans-species, hybrid communication (assuming some animals are better than
us at processing some kind of specialized information).

\- Developing a Brainternet? Could it be possible to scale B2B communication
beyond a one to one setting, allowing global cognition?

... all of this assuming that the monkeys we'll use for preliminary
experiments don't outsmart then extinguish us ...

 _runs away_

------
stcredzero
This is just the IA scenario.

~~~
pygy
IA is based on a hypothetical man-machine symbiosis, with direct brain to
computer interfaces.

Here we tap into the power of other's people minds, and of what would happen
if we could think collaboratively.

This is more of a mix between the IA and the internet scenario, except it's
technically possible to implement it right now (ethical issues aside, of
course).

