Hamlet’s Transhumanist Dilemma: Will Technology Replace Biology?

Yo Socrates - nice Shakespearean mass-up asking the potent questions. As a work in process it would be a good next step to perhaps have a performance staged with an actor filmed with some human elements of setting and background sound … should/ could it be staged with a cyber-punk Hamlet addressing Dr. Ray's head? “to be or not to be” a digital circus YouTube query from the Singularity Weblog?

That is a great idea James. I think I may know just the right people for it

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

Ah, we haven't got any further than Shakespeare did on this question. Have we? And I'm happier with his quill-driven words than any push-button techno-philosophy. Thanks, Will!

Hi Pamela,

and thank you for your contribution.

One thing is for sure — I am no Shakespeare .

However, it seems to me only natural that as the times change, the questions that we face will inevitably change also. Thus, since in my opinion we live in an era with unparalleled and accelerating changes (and that is only the beginning), then I believe that the most fundamental questions we ask are going to be either radically new, at the very least, get re-focused and restated in a fundamentally different, new way.

Shakespeare asked: To be or not to be?

Socrates said: Know thyself!

Just one of the old questions that I believe will take on a radically new meaning from now on is:

What is to be human?

There are many more…

For, example:

Is it better (especially in the moral and ethical sense) to run on DNA or binary code?

Will technology replace biology?

Should we choose biology or immortality?

Hi Pamela,

and thank you for your contribution.

One thing is for sure — I am no Shakespeare .

However, it seems to me only natural that as the times change, the questions that we face will inevitably change also. Thus, since in my opinion we live in an era with unparalleled and accelerating changes (and that is only the beginning), then I believe that the most fundamental questions we ask are going to be either radically new, at the very least, get re-focused and restated in a fundamentally different, new way.

Shakespeare asked: To be or not to be?

Socrates said: Know thyself!

Just one of the old questions that I believe will take on a radically new meaning from now on is:

What is to be human?

There are many more…

For, example:

Is it better (especially in the moral and ethical sense) to run on DNA or binary code?

Will technology replace biology?

Should we choose biology or immortality?

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] Will technology replace biology? [...]

[...] have been looking for a better slogan to replace my original, but rather obscure Will Technology Replace Biology? and think that we may have found a good [...]

Why are we afraid to loose what we don’t know? Because we live in a state of fear. Every thought, feeling, idea and action is all derived from fear. Maybe it would be wise to first understand this cyber reality before we try to create another. Is it not possible that if fear can control us within a human brain then fear is also building the technology via our unaware selves to create a permanent place for itself using us as a convenient fuel source. Maybe this whole drive for eternal life in the Singularity world is possibility the ultimate statement of human stupidity - at least until we wake up and take charge of this vehicle in which we are currently housed.

Hi David,

Fear is indeed a powerful motivator. It is, however, certainly not the only one. Thus other motivators such as hope, love, hate, jealousy, compassion, scientific curiosity, ethics, aesthetics, religion, humanitarian and humanistic commitment (etc) can all be as strong a motivator as fear, if not more so. Thus I believe that claiming that technology is motivated by fear is a gross oversimplification. We live in a multi-causal world and therefore single cause explanations are not very plausible since all other things are also constantly and dynamically changing…. Take for example Dean Kamen’s invention of water purification machine — is that technology motivated by fear too? And what about the technology of music? The piano? There are countless other examples…

Going back to my little piece above, I believe that my attitude towards the singularity and transhumanism is a mixture of emotions and while fear is certainly one of them, it is more of an after-thought rather than the primary motivator. It is more of an acknowledgment that where there is an opportunity there is also risk. Ultimately, without fear there can be no courage, but courage is not motivated by it. But by hope and the unshakable belief that tomorrow can be better than today…

To some degree of course it will. But lets not avoid the question that will determine how this manifests - will we learn to develop beyond the intellectual restrictions imposed by fear in the human brain. Currently everything is a creation of fear - so if fear creates technology it will not be a the bright future you paint. It will house consciousness in a more advanced system than the human brain currently does. I think the Singularity stuff is great but all of the people I come across seem to ignore human nature and the energy that currently guides our thoughts…that seems a little dumb to me. Having said that they are the smartest group I have come across but still don’t get how to unleash intelligence, creativity and compassion from within - NOW! So that is the dumb bit! Or Naive maybe.

Fear is the creator of all our human emotions - not just the unpleasant ones. Only fear requires a perceptual reality founded on points of comparison to exist. So of course if we can feel love then we can also feel hate and so on it goes. A very restrictive way to exist. Look at all living creatures…they all function the same way. I am suggesting that fear, or where it derives from, is in fact the creator of this whole universe and is the energy that communicates between all atoms - hence creating this rather observable and predictable reality we try to be happy in!

I predict we will inevitably create a machine (strong AI) we do not understand because we are using tools (our own minds) we do not understand.

Good point! But it depends how exactly we design the AI though. One way suggested by Kurzweil and others is first to map out and simulate the whole human brain. Then we use that knowledge to design an AI. Another way is Ben Goertzel’s method which is completely different approach and AI architecture, totally disconnected from the human brain simulation. Thus the former approach may provide evidence against your claim while the latter may support it…

Both methods seem potentially dangerous, IMO. A human brain-based AI may yield an entity with grossly magnified human foibles. Even foibles we could not see in ourselves because either we are biased or the foibles are inconsequential on a small (human) intelligence scale. A non-human brain-based AI may yield an entity with goals we may not even be able to fathom at this point, if ever. People seem to forget our human brains are just that- “human,” and limited. I hope we don’t open an AI Pandora’s Box.

I know some form of strong AI is inevitable (if we don’t blow ourselves up first). And while IMO strong AI is a dangerous pursuit, I still choose to embrace the future instead of fearing it. Who knows, maybe I’m pessimistic and the strong AI we create will do nothing more than help us on our own benevolent terms.

Hi friend,
Like you I am concerned about the dangers of developing AI… And, again, like you I choose to embrace the future rather than fear it… Let us hope that is enough…

Intelligence is essentially the ability to fill in the… It came about as a response to the evolutionary pressures on our DNA to remain relevant. Indefinite replication is the primary function of DNA. Indefinite replication is the primary function of DNA. Indefinite replication is the primary function of DNA.

We are human. It is vital to our sense of selves, the subjective nature of our minds, our very psyche’s, to acknowledge that “the map is NOT the territory”. The fact that we are fragile, flawed, and limited is what makes us able to feel, and regardless of whether that is the product of a quantifiable system, it is the fountain of meaning to me.

We are what we are. We are the territory.

Currently technology is the cartographer, and when it maps every process that describes us and we are fully quantified does it actually become us? Or is it merely a map of every process that we are?

Before we can grow into technology it will need to grow into us.