I’m kind of looking forward to the ability to download information to the brain. How soon will this be around?

I recently read Radical Evolution by Joel Garreau, which addressed some of these issues, so I have a lot of thoughts on the subject. I don’t have time to express them all, so I will respond, in no particular order, to some of your questions.

Could the Singularity be the mechanism for the ushering in of the Millenium?

I believe so. But it could also be the mechanism for the utter destruction of mankind. The biggest weakness of the singularity theory is that it is strictly technologocal; it has no economic or moral component. Any technology that can be developed, will be developed and might be used for evil in the absence of moral constraints.

Of course, that has been the case all along, and we have so far managed not to blow ourselves up. But in the singularity, it will happen much faster, and avoiding catastrophic consequences will require different safety mechanisms than we have in place now.

Economically, the singularity could greatly increase inequality. We will have the capability to enhance intelligence and lengthen life, but just like higher education and health care now, they will be expensive. Many will be left behind unless we find some alternative distribution system.

And you thought blogging was addictive… But this raises some real concerns about how we’ll interact, and what the boundaries might be.

Don’t laugh. This is going to be a huge, huge issue that will make internet porn look tame by comparison. And I’m not just talking about virtual sex, but the whole gamut of virtual intimacies.

You could choose to die and have several copies keep on living. Will these copies have spirits of their own?

You’re talking about cloning here, and it bears repeating that clones are just identical twins separated by time. Of course each will have its own spirit.

I have a hard time crediting any theory that relies on sustained exponential growth.

LL,

I agree that the lack of an economic or moral component is interesting. Thus my questions about how Mormons will deal with it. It seems that structures that we have in place today will either use the expanded intelligence to deal with the changes, collapse, or try to exist outside the changes.

On the copies vs cloning question, there are some differences here that make this situation a bit novel. The copies won’t just be physical copies, they will be able to include a brain dump, so the copy will have your same memories, mental capacity, and any other attributes that come from such a brain dump. Second, some of the copies would be non-biological, which is very different from a cloning scenario. Would Mormons be opposed to either? Why?

This is all quite sci-fi to me … but on we go.

If medical technology allowed people to integrate their physiology with data sources (downloading information to the brain, so to speak) then I can imagine the medical procedures involved could be quite expensive — though they might become cheaper with time.

However, I would imagine that any ’software’ or ‘downloads’ could be free. With open-source being what it is, I see no reason why that aspect of technology wouldn’t continue to grow.

I have no idea why a clone would necessarily have its own soul.

In a sense, if it were possible to download information directly to the brain … I would imagine that would make the educational process a lot cheaper.

However, what I’m wondering is whether there would be an opt-out movement that would assure people didn’t have to have these procedures performed.

There’s also the issue of actually hacking into a system that involves use of a person’s body.

John, I do work in the computer industry and the big problem with Kurtzweil is that for every trend there is an end. I suspect computers are fast approaching a big slow down in speed increases. (Actually we’re already in it in some ways) To simply assume exponential growth is a mistake in general for any trend.

I think medicine will improve but one never knows what road blocks will appear. Remember all the commotion made back in the 90’s about gene therapy and what came of it. I think there’s tremendous opportunity for stem cells but there is still an amazing amount of ignorance of what is going on.

@ a random John

I’m sorry I haven’t yet watched the video. I may not get a chance as I’m packing for a business trip. I also don’t work in either the computer or bio-tech industry. Can degrees in physics and mathematics or a license to practice spine surgery serve as substitutes to any of those requirements?

Regarding the question of sustained exponential growth, history simply teaches us that it doesn’t happen. Systems have saturation points that may not be initially visible, but are nonetheless quite real. Consider the growth of the Roman Empire, bacteria in a Petri dish, or even church membership growth projected from 1980s data. All these demonstrate exponential growth, yet all have saturation points built into the systems. There are examples to the contrary, but they are exceptions rather than the rule.

This is my opinion regarding the “technological singularity” you describe. I don’t know of any way to prove that my opinion is more valid than yours beyond what I describe above. I’m sorry if my comment wasn’t helpful.

Are you such a Latter-day Saint?

Not really, though I could be. Mostly I just don’t know what I believe about the Millennium besides the fact that it will exist one day.

random John: “I’d like to know how MM readers think it will impact Mormons and Mormonism.”

There are numerous perspectives on the Singularity, many of which are compatible with Mormon views of the future. The Mormon Transhumanist Association recently presented a document at Sunstone that, in part, describes parallels between some perspectives on the Singularity and the Millennium. The document and associated presentation slides are available here:

http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/sunstone_2006/default.aspx

The audio for the presentation is available here:

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/symposium/audio/mp3-speaker-results.asp?SpeakerID=Lincoln%20Cannon

random John: “Acceptance or Rejection of the Technology . . .”

As you suggested, the LDS Church may (and likely will) instruct its members not to use various technologies. However, I do not think we should consider this an all-or-nothing matter. As with past and present technologies, the LDS Church will probably benefit from some and avoid others. Compared to most other religions, Mormonism is quite friendly to science and technology.

random John: “Death . . .”

Why should we consider anyone to be required to die? Why not recognize life extension technology as God-endowed power leading us to the day when the living will be transfigured and the dead resurrected to immortality? Beyond that, I don’t think we should assume that transfiguration and resurrection are magical processes outside the scope of knowledge with which God intends to inspire his children. To the contrary, real faith in these matters suggests that we do all we can, using the knowledge and power God gives us, to bring to pass the immortality of his children. If, in the end, they are magical processes that we cannot learn to perform then we will have lost nothing in the effort. On the other hand, if we can be saved only so fast as we progress in knowledge and power (as suggested by so many Mormon authorities) then we had better proceed with the effort. Death is not something to value. Death is something that Christ, and each of us as disciples of Chirst, seeks to overcome.

random John: “Longing for our Families . . .”

I see no need to simply sit on our hands and long for dead family members. To the contrary, we should turn our hearts to our fathers, and use the knowledge and power provided by God to resurrect them from the dead. We without them cannot be saved, as they without us cannot be saved. Simple longing does not provide salvation.

random John: “Virtual Experience . . .”

Focusing on the word “virtual” can lead to misunderstanding: thinking the experience made possible in these worlds will somehow be less than real. To emphasize this point, we may already be having such experience. We often speak of God being a creator of worlds without end, as suggested in our scriptures. A common understanding of this matter is that God has created planets without end in our time and space. However, it could be that God has created times and spaces without end, and that we are living and experiencing within such a time and space.

random John: “Sunday School . . .”

As you suggest, access to information will continue to improve, and so will our ability to navigate and manage that information in ever more meaningful ways — if not the latter, we would simply be overwhelmed.

This will provide more persons with an increasingly broad perspective on Mormonism, in all its beauty and warts. We should be preparing for this. We can no longer hide our dirty laundry, so to speak.

random John: “The Millenium . . .”

Yes! There is no necessity of distinguishing between the Singularity and the Millennium. The one can improve our understanding of the other. This reminds me of the story of Ammon and King Lamoni from the Book of Mormon. Ammon asked the King whether he believed in God. The King responded that he did not know. Ammon followed up by asking whether the King believed in a Great Spirit. The King responded that he did believe in the Great Spirit. “That is God.” By building on common beliefs, we help each other achieve better understanding.

random John: “So, reality check time. Am I crazy? Are the people in this clips crazy?”

The answer depends on a definition of “crazy”.

Crazy or not, we would be foolish to ignore the risks and potential rewards associated with the Singularity.

Beyond that, how many of us are characterized as “crazy” simply for exercising faith in the Millennium? We may be, yet we join the Revelator in whispering, “even so, come Lord Jesus”.

random John: “If not, and the world is on the cusp of a series of revolutionary changes how will they affect the Church and its members?”

In my estimation, the effect can be wonderful or terrible, depending on our choices and those of others that we should seek to persuade according to the Gospel of Christ. Technology can be used for good or evil. It is not inherently charitable. Our duty is to use it charitably — and, appealing to Joseph, to learn to be Gods ourselves, as all other Gods have done before us.

Last Lemming: “The biggest weakness of the singularity theory is that it is strictly technologocal; it has no economic or moral component. Any technology that can be developed, will be developed and might be used for evil in the absence of moral constraints.”

I agree. It is imperative that we continue to teach the Gospel of Christ, with hope that it can change the hearts of those who might use the increasing technological power to oppress and destroy.

Last Lemming: “Of course, that has been the case all along, and we have so far managed not to blow ourselves up. But in the singularity, it will happen much faster, and avoiding catastrophic consequences will require different safety mechanisms than we have in place now.”

As technology advances, and as human interfaces to our technology improve, we should become capable of managing vastly larger sets of information effectively. I do not intend this to downplay the importance of your observation.

Last Lemming: “Economically, the singularity could greatly increase inequality. We will have the capability to enhance intelligence and lengthen life, but just like higher education and health care now, they will be expensive. Many will be left behind unless we find some alternative distribution system.”

This is another area where the charity at the heart of the Gospel becomes essential if we are to produce a positive singularity. As in the past and at present, there will be individuals that pursue their desires despite others’ desires. On the other hand, there will be individuals who recognize value for themselves and each of us in working together toward communal salvation — Zion and Celestial Glory.

Last Lemming: “This is going to be a huge, huge issue that will make internet porn look tame by comparison. And I’m not just talking about virtual sex, but the whole gamut of virtual intimacies.”

In addition to areas of ethical concern, we can identify positives. Indeed, even in matters related to sexuality we can identify positives. For example, there are many couples that cannot today engage in sexual intimacy because of physical limitations. It will be possible to change that.

Clark: “For the record I think the “singularity” is bunk.”

Many have the same perspective on the Millennium, yet others believe they see promised signs of its approach.

Clark: “But I do find coming technological advances interesting, if only because most Mormons I talk to see quite opposed to making use of them . . . I was quite surprised to find how many people opposed it and not that I could see on any real rational grounds.”

I suspect such attitudes will decrease as the fear often associated with new technology decreases. However, I also feel strongly that we have a duty to overcome these fears, which stand between us and the knowledge and power that God is giving to his children, as prophesied would be the case in this dispensation of the fulness of times.

herodotus: “I have a hard time crediting any theory that relies on sustained exponential growth.”

The theory does not rely on sustained exponential growth. The singularity is the middle of an S-curve on a chart of technological advance over time. The curve begins slow, reaches a period of rapid advance, and slows again. This pattern is observable through most specific technologies, in their trends, and their meta trends, theoretically in infinite regression. For example, a particular form of computer processing technology has an S-curve, which is part of a larger Moore’s Law S-curve s[panning multiple forms of computer processing technology, which is part of a yet larger S-curve spanning all of human technology, which is part of a yet larger S-curve . . . and so on. Of course, all theories have exceptions or limits, and so this will this theory. What are those exceptions or limits? That’s a question that can be long discussed.

random John: “Assuming that the singularity does happen eventually do you think that side effects would be the only concern for LDS? Does the question of living for a long long time in mortality hold no interest?”

The scriptures tell us of a time when mortal bodies will be transfigured into immortal bodies, subsequent to a time when mortal bodies will live longer than they now live. In other words, I don’t think we need to choose between long mortality and immortality. Rather, the one can lead to the other. This is certainly one of the kinds of futures we can associate with the Singularity.

John Mansfield: “It is easy to get the impression that technical progress is accelerating dramatically if one focuses only on the fields that are progressing dramatically at the moment, but they are just one portion of human endeavour. Many fields experienced some burst of progress some time in the past and now enjoy no more than steady incremental improvement. The past few decades’ advancement in computing and biology, though impressive, hasn’t had the impact of electrification or refrigeration.”

According to the theories behind the Singularity, we should expect to see older technologies progressing more slowly. We should also expect that new technologies progress more slowly at first and do not have the same impact until they reach maturity. Kurzweil has published an essay that describes these ideas more, here:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Clark: “John, I do work in the computer industry and the big problem with Kurtzweil is that for every trend there is an end.”

This is not actually a big problem, as he explicitly accounts for it in his theory.

Clark: “I suspect computers are fast approaching a big slow down in speed increases. (Actually we’re already in it in some ways)”

This, I think, is an inaccurate observation. Major players in the computer industry are already planning implementations of computing technology out several years in advance that continue to match or exceed the predictions of Moore’s law. For some details and related recent press releases, check this out:

http://transfigurism.org/community/forums/thread/1211.aspx

Clark: “To simply assume exponential growth is a mistake in general for any trend.”

I agree. Kurzweil would also agree. However, from a scientific perspective, we have in place the theoretical basis for many technologies that can continue to provide momentum to the current computing S-curve for several decades to come — and it does not take more than a few decades at current accelerating rates for the Singularity to be realized.

Clark: “I think medicine will improve but one never knows what road blocks will appear.”

This has been true in the past, yet the overall trends have held through challenges such as the depression and world wars.

Clark: “Remember all the commotion made back in the 90’s about gene therapy and what came of it.”

For what it’s worth, Kurzweil accounts for this in the essay to which I linked, above.

Brett: “In regards to church acceptance or rejection of technology, I’ve had several Sunday School teachers bring in their crazy ideas from Revelations that the mark of the beast on the forehead and hand is really a computer implant. They would say the time will come, just as the prophecy says, that the all those who wish to participate in commerce in Babylon will have to be implanted with the chip. (We’re starting to see this with the Master Card Pay and Go key chain.) The chosen will refuse to be implanted. When I was 12, this scared the crap out of me and left me disappointed. You mean I can’t take part in all the cool technology?”

I think this is unfortunate, yet can be remedied as we look more carefully at scriptural origins and take them into consideration as we interpret them. In the end, however, the most important question is whether the Spirit of God inspires us to embrace technological advances and use them to build the Kingdom of God.

Brett: “I figure if God inspires all advances in technology, then being able to download a blog to your brain or extending your life shouldn’t be morally wrong.”

I agree that God endows and inspires us with scientific knowledge and technological power; however, I do not think we always choose to use this knowledge and power in moral ways. Thus, I don’t think we should conclude that just any technological application is morally good simply because God inspired the creative process. We remain responsible for our choices.

danithew: “It feels a little silly to talk about this when it isn’t happening yet. If some kind of technology came out and they were installing iPods and supercomputers into human brains, then it would be easier to discuss the ramifications more seriously. Right now, it’s barely passing the laugh test. Barely.”

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889/sr=8-2/qid=1165891695/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-6578467-3312040?ie=UTF8&s=books

I suspect it will change your perspective on whether this is already happening, and whether it merits our earnest attention to ensure that we navigate the profound risks ahead of us.

What do I need to do to get my previous post approved by the moderator?

I don’t want to preempt Arosophos, whose answer I eagerly anticipate, but I do want to respond to this question:

Could technology play a role in Satan being bound?

Only tangentially. We might be able to develop technology to allow us to entirely eliminate evil desires. But to implement it to the degree that Satan would be bound, we would have to reach agreement on what constitutes evil desires and achieve unanimity in choosing to adopt the technology. Those would be bigger hurdles than developing the technology itself.

Also, if such a technological solution were to be implemented, it is not clear to me how Satan could be unleashed for a season at the end of the millenium. I suppose some kind of natural disaster not preventable by technology could disable the technology that binds Satan. But that takes us into the kind of contrived explanation that this “transhumanist” approach (if I may borrow the term) seeks to avoid.

a random John: “. . . or the AI that runs this site is afraid of you . . .”

Awesome

a random John: “I am not convinced that the millennium will be a technological one though. I’ve only recently started thinking about these topics in ‘Mormon’ terms and haven’t reached any conclusions yet. I do think that there is a lot to think about in this area. Much more than, ‘Oh it won’t happen, so I won’t worry about it.’”

I agree that we intend more than an appeal to technology when we exercise faith in the Millennium. Technology is power, which can be used in both terrible and wonderful ways. Exercising faith in the Millennium is to work toward a future when charity is empowered, when the body of Christ (in which we participate) is transfigured and resurrected to immortality. Power alone is insufficient. Charity is necessary.

As I read the scriptures, the Millennium strikes me as being inescapably technological as well as inescapably charitable.

a random John: “Could technology play a role in Satan being bound?”

When we read in the scriptures of Satan being bound, I think of pervasive charity. Although technology could be used to implement other interpretations of the prophecy, I generally reject such interpretations as immoral because they tend to imply marginalizing the freedom of individual will.

Some Transhumanists look to a future in which technology can be used to enforce morality. It is against such possible futures that we must fight — now, while opinions are young and flexible. One of the goals of the Mormon Transhumanist Association is to influence the general Transhumanist movement away from advocating oppressive implementations of technology.

The War in Heaven never ended. It rages on.

a random John: “Would the possibility of having your mind mapped make you less likely to sin?”

Often we suggest that some of us do not sin for fear of being caught. Although this is usually accompanied with contempt, I think we should reconsider whether that fear of being caught might manifest charity. Why do we care about what others think of us? Some of us don’t, and those are the persons we should most fear, in my estimation.

To answer your question more directly, and more generally, I do think that most of us will be less inclined to sin (and less inclined to be offended) as we become more familiar with each other. Again, however, it is the exceptions that may ultimately fulfill prophecies of greater destruction subsequent to the Millennium.

a random John: “Would it give you a method for censoring impure thoughts? Is this Satan’s plan in action?”

Yes. That is Satan’s plan in action. The quickly advancing and proliferating mechanisms for further empowerment of that plan (in opposition to further empowerment of the plan of Christ) should be a matter of grave concern to us.

a random John: “What does a belief in the compatibility of the Millennium and the Singularity say about the boundaries of the spiritual and science?”

I consider science to be God-inspired knowledge (and technology to be God-endowed power), in fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the dispensation of the fullness of times.

What are the boundaries between knowledge and power and spirituality? There are none. As Joseph put it, there are many spirits abroad in the world, and it is our duty to discern between them. We need to recognize the Spirit of the God that is worthy of worship, the Spirit of Christ, and act to empower that Spirit — on Earth as it is in Heaven.

a random John: “Technology and priesthood?”

I think D&C 121 provides the most important description of priesthood (interestingly, right after describing the wonders of the dispensation of the fullness of times). In that description, we learn that priesthood authority is achieved and its associated power grows forever through charity and without cumpolsory means. Priesthood, then, could be understood in relation to technology, as the authority (and sustained power) that results when one gains others’ confidence by using technology as a service according to their desires, rather than by enforcing its application despite their desires.

a random John: “Are past and current ‘miracles’ simply a use of technology that we don’t understand?”

Unless we look for reasons, we will not (or are at least less likely to) find them. Joseph tells us that we should learn to be Gods. This does not sound like causeless magic to me. Beyond that, it seems foolish to act on the assumption that anything is causeless magic. Had all of us done so, we would not be communicating via the Internet now.

a random John: “Was Jesus exercising technological superiority or spiritual strength when he suffered for us and was resurrected?”

We should not consider this a necessary dichotomy. For example, are you and I using technology or spirituality to communicate now? Hopefully both.

a random John: “What are the boundaries here?”

In this matter, it appears that the boundaries are mainly those that we create.

Last Lemming: “Only tangentially. We might be able to develop technology to allow us to entirely eliminate evil desires. But to implement it to the degree that Satan would be bound, we would have to reach agreement on what constitutes evil desires and achieve unanimity in choosing to adopt the technology. Those would be bigger hurdles than developing the technology itself.”

I agree. Moreover, I don’t think we can identify evil desires in any final or static way. To summarize Joseph: at one time God forbade murder and at another time God commanded murder; God commands according to context — worlds without end.

Last Lemming: “Also, if such a technological solution were to be implemented, it is not clear to me how Satan could be unleashed for a season at the end of the millenium. I suppose some kind of natural disaster not preventable by technology could disable the technology that binds Satan. But that takes us into the kind of contrived explanation that this “transhumanist” approach (if I may borrow the term) seeks to avoid.”

If the causes of our desires are finite then we could account for them all and forever evade the fall from the Millennium. However, I think there are plenty of philosophical reasons (and no empirical counter-reasons) to assume that the causes of our desires are infinite, and therefore forever beyond absolute control.

Clark: “I suspect computers are fast approaching a big slow down in speed increases. (Actually we’re already in it in some ways)”

This, I think, is an inaccurate observation. Major players in the computer industry are already planning implementations of computing technology out several years in advance that continue to match or exceed the predictions of Moore’s law. For some details and related recent press releases, check this out:

It really depends upon the kind of code you run. Moore’s law is a bit misleading since it tends to deal with the complexity of the chips and not the speed for end users. The kinds of code that can benefit from massive parallelism is fairly small. It’s also tremendously more difficult to write for. That’s why, for example, the new PowerMac which has 4 CPUs doesn’t quite offer the practical speed increase that most dual processor/core Macs do. Only some applications can really make use of that power.

By the way, I submitted this article to Sustain’d, here:

http://www.sustaind.org/story/Mormons–Coming-Singularity/

Excuse me, I meant to say, “and it _hasn’t_ received a lot of attention.”

Welcome Carl!
Care to weigh in on the central questions here? I’d be interested to hear your opinion.

I didn’t read all the comments, but I did wean the gist, I think.

In any case, I didn’t really seem to read anyone anywhere getting at the real heart of this. Strange as this may sound, I’ve actually given a lot of thought to this question, and found something surprisingly revelatory in the scriptures one day. Literalist that I am, I interpret that passage in the Doctrine and Covenants about a great flood of knowledge to pertain to things even of a technological nature: knowledge which has not been “revealed since the world was until now…a time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld…all thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth…[and] shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times–”

I read this passage and thought of the singularity of it all.

In fact, in my mind, I thought, “wow, this must apply to things temporal, and not just spiritual.” In other words, technology, science, the arts, language, and so forth and so on. So what’s my point? My point is that I believe *all things* will be consummated, in singularity by the return of Christ to this Earth. It will have nothing to do with technology as an autonomous entity. Singularity, in-and-of itself, cannot be. That is, nothing exists independent of God. For that matter, I have *no* belief in so-called artificial intelligence as an agent unto itself…only God, and those he grants the procreative powers, has the power to create life, as I see things. See John 10:18. But then, this is a bit of a different topic, sort of. But just the same, it is futile to thing of anything penultimate or quintessential without thinking of Christ and his Father’s part in it.

Carl Y: I had already considered this argument, but had not thought anyone would post on it. O be wise, Rhapsidiomite.

Essentially, to be short, I dismiss the idea of artificial intelligence completely.

But to go into a little more detail, it does depend on your semantics. Generally, I’m fairly certain “The Singularity” as proposed in science-fiction and thoery becomes something technologically superior to humans. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) It is this meaning that I dismiss entirely. For the sake of avoiding unnecessary explanation, I’m going to assume you are not talking about this level of technological intelligence.

However, as appendage to something greater, I think that’s a fair articulation.

The one thing that I think is just impossible–but again, it’s a question of how you look at it semantically–I just don’t believe that there will ever be anything endowed with the kind of intelligence inherent to humans, be they humans pre-existent, embryo, or celestial in form.

Here is an example of humans who are technologically superior to ourselves:

“And now behold, as I spake concerning those whom the Lord hath chosen, yea, even three who were caught up into the heavens, that I knew not whether they were cleansed from mortality to immortality—But behold, since I wrote, I have inquired of the Lord, and he hath made it manifest unto me that there must needs be a change wrought upon their bodies, or else it needs be that they must taste of death; Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were for the sins of the world. Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them. And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens. (3 Ne. 28:36-40)

Would you agree that, according to Mormon beliefs, the change wrought upon the bodies of these individuals must have been accomplished through adherence to natural law? Would you agree that such bodies are technologically superior to mortal humans? If we are God’s children, why can’t we someday learn to accomplish the same thing?