Why human colonization may be irrelevant

It occurs to me that human colonization of space will probably turn out
to be irrelevant. This is because humans aren't even close to being
optimized to live in the wide variety of conditions found in space.
Furthermore, in the time it will take to colonize space, we will also
be simultaneously advancing in the art of reverse engineering the human
body, including the brain. Indeed, the latter is likely to proceed more
quickly, even compared to the relatively near-term enterprise of
colonizing the solar system.

Because this process of reverse engineering the body is probably going
to happen more quickly than even local human space colonization, the
entities that will actually end up colonizing space won't be human at
all. They'll be modified to live, relatively efficiently, in space. The
obvious possibility seems to be AI coupled with some form of
nanotechology (beyond that, as far as specifics, who can say--we aren't
there yet).

The only way humans could still dominate the colonization is if there
was a conscious effort by society to stop the emerging reverse
engineering of the body and brain, which will probably be complete by
2050 at the very latest. Such a stop is theoretically possible, but
completely counter to present trends. Personally, I'm not sure I would
be all that unhappy with such a stop, for I am rather attached to
humanity. But I'm afraid that it seems doubtful.

Visionaries always tend to underestimate how hard their preferred
future advances will be, while at the same time assuming that current
intractable issues or tech they are cynical about will remain unsolved.
There will likely be in the order of ~100 people permanently living in
space or on the moon/Mars by 2020, then ~1000 by 2030. The biotech
advances you speak of likely will not occur until 2030-2040 at the
earliest, and those produced by such research will be few and far
between. Some may go to space to get away from luddite sentiment on
Earth, but they will not likely be even a majority there either, even
if they are capable of viable reproduction, which I doubt will be
likely til 2060-2080 at the earliest.

I'm not actually talking primarily about genetic modification of
humans. One can only go so far with that. Eventually protiens will be
left behind as building blocks and at least mostly replaced with more
general compounds. There is little reason not to expect an extremely
rapid development of such technologies after AI comes of age in the
first half of this century.

On 31 Dec 2005 20:31:22 -0800, wrote, in
part:

Because this process of reverse engineering the body is probably going
to happen more quickly than even local human space colonization, the
entities that will actually end up colonizing space won't be human at
all. They'll be modified to live, relatively efficiently, in space. The
obvious possibility seems to be AI coupled with some form of
nanotechology (beyond that, as far as specifics, who can say--we aren't
there yet).

I think it is very likely we will have nanotechnology before, say,
faster-than-light travel.

But before we can build truly intellingent AI entities, I think we'll be
able to transfer our own minds to silicon. This, at least, is *useful* -
it helps us directly, instead of creating potential competitors. Not
needing life support, they _could_ come out ahead in even the
colonization of Mars, but only if we let it lie on the shelf for several
decades.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

John Savard wrote:


But before we can build truly intellingent AI entities, I think we'll be
able to transfer our own minds to silicon.


So say we stick the old mind-reading cap on you and transfer everything
that's you into a robot or computer.
Now, assuming the process is nondestructive there are now two
repositories of that which is you; you yourself, and the electronic one.
So the electronic one leaves for the stars...and what about you exactly?
You're still here on Earth while your doppelganger is out cavorting
around the universe.
On the other hand, maybe the process _is_ destructive. So all you feel
is your mind going blank as next to you something new comes into
existence. Now that new electronic you will have all your memories, and
it will act just like you. But it won't _be_ you, as you are now the
mindless thing on the floor. In short, what makes you think that you can
somehow make your consciousness hop from one point to another seamlessly
without its former repository experiencing the transfer as its own
death? I don't give a hoot in hell if there is suddenly a shiny new
electronic Pat Flannery in the world if its creation is experienced by
me as my own extinction.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:
John Savard wrote:

But before we can build truly intellingent AI entities, I think we'll be
able to transfer our own minds to silicon.


It will act just like you. But it won't _be_ you, as you are now the
mindless thing on the floor. In short, what makes you think that you can
somehow make your consciousness hop from one point to another seamlessly
without its former repository experiencing the transfer as its own
death?

But you already do this, every day, a little at a time. Your body replaces
its atoms with new ones, until after a few years very few 'original' atoms
remain. Your current body, to all intents and purposes, shares no hardware
with the one of a few years ago. Yet you most likely feel that not only
do you still act like you, you still _are_ you. (And from a Turing test
point of view, anything that acts just like you _is_ you, by definition,
since anyone outside has only the evidence of your behavior to go on.)

Presumably, the same would hold true if you replaced your atoms all at once,
or if you replace your atoms (or neurons) with something that acts just like
your atoms( or neurons). In short, if you transfer your state into some
hypothetical robot, and it results in the destruction of the original, you
would think "Wow! That blob on the floor looks just like I used to look!"

Note that this is completely obvious, and non-controversial, for computer
programs. You can stop a program in mid-execution, move it to another machine
(or an emulator of the original machine), and start it right where it left off.
There's no reason this would not work for humans, unless you believe there
is some portion of "you" not encoded in your physical state (such as a
soul).

Lou Scheffer

Originally Posted by Louis Scheffer

Pat Flannery writes:
John Savard wrote:

But before we can build truly intellingent AI entities, I think we'll be
able to transfer our own minds to silicon.


It will act just like you. But it won't _be_ you, as you are now the
mindless thing on the floor. In short, what makes you think that you can
somehow make your consciousness hop from one point to another seamlessly
without its former repository experiencing the transfer as its own
death?

But you already do this, every day, a little at a time. Your body replaces
its atoms with new ones, until after a few years very few 'original' atoms
remain. Your current body, to all intents and purposes, shares no hardware
with the one of a few years ago. Yet you most likely feel that not only
do you still act like you, you still _are_ you. (And from a Turing test
point of view, anything that acts just like you _is_ you, by definition,
since anyone outside has only the evidence of your behavior to go on.)

Presumably, the same would hold true if you replaced your atoms all at once,
or if you replace your atoms (or neurons) with something that acts just like
your atoms( or neurons). In short, if you transfer your state into some
hypothetical robot, and it results in the destruction of the original, you
would think "Wow! That blob on the floor looks just like I used to look!"

Note that this is completely obvious, and non-controversial, for computer
programs. You can stop a program in mid-execution, move it to another machine
(or an emulator of the original machine), and start it right where it left off.
There's no reason this would not work for humans, unless you believe there
is some portion of "you" not encoded in your physical state (such as a
soul).

Lou Scheffer

A soul or not a soul? Endless question... but only a question...
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=70198
12- there is no "experience-consciousness" in a computer. At best, a computer will mime the mind... empty shell...
Rémy

Pat Flannery wrote:

On the other hand, maybe the process _is_ destructive. So all you feel
is your mind going blank as next to you something new comes into
existence. Now that new electronic you will have all your memories, and
it will act just like you. But it won't _be_ you, as you are now the
mindless thing on the floor. In short, what makes you think that you can
somehow make your consciousness hop from one point to another seamlessly
without its former repository experiencing the transfer as its own
death? I don't give a hoot in hell if there is suddenly a shiny new
electronic Pat Flannery in the world if its creation is experienced by
me as my own extinction.

By what proof are you the same person this morning as that guy who went
to bed last night? You shut down last night, and rebooted this morning.
You could have rebooted in another media or substrate. You are
hopelessly obsessed with the hardware you happen to be running in at
the moment, when in reality your mind is your software. Doesn't matter
where your hard drive is, or where you copy it to. Wherever you find
yourself, there you are.

On 31 Dec 2005 20:31:22 -0800, wrote:

It occurs to me that human colonization of space will probably turn out
to be irrelevant. This is because humans aren't even close to being
optimized to live in the wide variety of conditions found in space.

There are a wide variety of conditions on Earth humans aren't
optimized to live in; remember, we involved in Africa which is very
hot. But humans spread to every continent except Antarctica, and even
then, the environment in the artic circle isn't much better, but that
didn't stop the eskimos.

Furthermore, humans can not breathe underwater, but there are who
knows how many servicemen lving underwater right now in
nuclear-powered submaries that do not surface at all for months.
Millions of people strap air tanks to their backs to engage in
recreational SCUBA diving, and let us not forget the commercial divers
who do a lot of dangerous work around the world. When the firms
repairing the damaged oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico need repair below
the water line, they do NOT send a robot! Nor do they send
genetically engineered mer people. They send people breathing from
tanks. (NOTE: Are the 1 atmospehere Jim Suits still in use?)

The challenges facing humans traveling in space are just that,
challenges, but not show stoppers. And even then, instead of changing
people for the environments on other planets, the environments on
other planets can -- and will --- probably be changed through
terraforming.

Irrelevant? That's like saying "never," and you know how often you
should say that.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article . com,
wrote:

It occurs to me that human colonization of space will probably turn out
to be irrelevant. This is because humans aren't even close to being
optimized to live in the wide variety of conditions found in space.
Furthermore, in the time it will take to colonize space, we will also
be simultaneously advancing in the art of reverse engineering the human
body, including the brain. Indeed, the latter is likely to proceed more
quickly, even compared to the relatively near-term enterprise of
colonizing the solar system.

Because this process of reverse engineering the body is probably going
to happen more quickly than even local human space colonization, the
entities that will actually end up colonizing space won't be human at
all. They'll be modified to live, relatively efficiently, in space. The
obvious possibility seems to be AI coupled with some form of
nanotechology (beyond that, as far as specifics, who can say--we aren't
there yet).

The only way humans could still dominate the colonization is if there
was a conscious effort by society to stop the emerging reverse
engineering of the body and brain, which will probably be complete by
2050 at the very latest. Such a stop is theoretically possible, but
completely counter to present trends. Personally, I'm not sure I would
be all that unhappy with such a stop, for I am rather attached to
humanity. But I'm afraid that it seems doubtful.

But advances in AI -- particularly the economic benefits it's likely to
have -- should make it possible for mostly unmodified humans to move out
into the universe not because they're particularly well designed for it,
but just because they *want* to. If you've got superhuman AI, that's
about the only reason for humans to do *anything*, since the machines
will be presumably better at pretty much any activity that's actually
productive.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005