The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (29 page)

LET’S JUST GET ONE THING STRAIGHT: THERE’S NO WAY I’M GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH A COMPUTER.

 

 

Hey, let’s not jump to conclusions. You should keep an open mind.

 

I’LL TRY TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND. AN OPEN BODY IS ANOTHER MATTER. THE IDEA OF GETTING INTIMATE WITH SOME GADGET, NO MATTER HOW CLEVER, IS NOT VERY APPEALING.

 

Have you ever spoken to a phone?

 

TO A PHONE? I MEAN I TALK TO PEOPLE USING A PHONE.

 

Okay, so a computer circa 2015—in the form of a visual-auditory-tactile virtual reality communication device—is just a telephone for you and your lover. But you can do more than just talk.

 

I LIKE TO TALK TO MY LOVER—WHEN I HAVE ONE—BY PHONE. AND LOOKING AT EACH OTHER WITH A PICTURE PHONE, OR EVEN A FULL VIRTUAL REALITY SYSTEM, SOUNDS PRETTY COZY. AS FOR YOUR TACTILE IDEA, HOWEVER, I THINK I’LL STICK TO TOUCHING MY FRIENDS AND LOVERS WITH REAL FINGERS.

You can use real fingers with virtual reality, or at least real virtual fingers. But what about when you and your lover are separated?

 

YOU KNOW, DISTANCE MAKES THE HEART GROW FONDER. ANYWAY, WE DON’T HAVE TO TOUCH ALL THE TIME, I MEAN I’LL BE ABLE TO WAIT UNTIL I GET BACK FROM MY BUSINESS TRIP, WHILE HE’S TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS!

 

When virtual reality does evolve into a convincing, all-encompassing tactile interface, are you going to go out of your way to avoid any physical contact?

 

I SUPPOSE IT WOULDN’T HURT TO KISS GOODNIGHT.

 

Ah-ha—the slippery slope! So why stop there?

 

OKAY, TWO KISSES.

 

Sure, like I just said, keep an open mind.

 

SPEAKING OF AN OPEN MIND, YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE “GOD SPOT” SEEMS TO TRIVIALIZE THE SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

 

I wouldn’t overreact to this one piece of research. Clearly, something’s going on in the brains of people who are having a spiritual experience. Whatever the neurological process is, once we capture and understand it, we should be able to enhance the spiritual experiences in a re-created brain running in its new computational medium.

 

SO THESE RE-CREATED MINDS WILL REPORT HAVING SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES. AND I SUPPOSE THEY WILL ACT IN THE SAME SORT OF TRANSCENDENT, RAPTUROUS WAY THAT PEOPLE DO TODAY WHEN REPORTING SUCH EXPERIENCES. BUT WILL THESE MACHINES REALLY BE TRANSCENDING, AND EXPERIENCING THE FEELING OF GOD’S PRESENCE? WHAT WILL THEY BE EXPERIENCING, ANYWAY?

 

We keep coming back to the issue of consciousness. Machines in the twenty-first century will report the same range of experiences that humans do. In accordance with the Law of Accelerating Returns, they will report an even broader range. And they will be very convincing when they speak of their experiences. But what will they really be feeling? As I said earlier, there’s just no way to truly penetrate. another entity’s subjective experience, at least not in a scientific way. I mean, we can observe the patterns of neural firings, and so forth, but that’s still just an objective observation.

 

WELL, THAT’S JUST THE LIMITATION OF SCIENCE.

 

Yes, that’s where philosophy and religion are supposed to take over. Of course, it’s hard enough to get agreement on scientific issues.

THAT OFTEN APPEARS TO BE TRUE. NOW, ANOTHER THING I’M NOT TOO HAPPY ABOUT IS THESE PILLAGING NANOBOTS THAT ARE GOING TO MULTIPLY WITHOUT END. WE’LL END UP WITH A HUGE SEA OF NANOBOTS. WHEN THEY’RE DONE WITH US, THEY’LL START EATING EACH OTHER.

 

There is that danger. But if we write the software carefully ...

 

OH SURE, LIKE MY OPERATING SYSTEM. ALREADY I HAVE LITTLE SOFTWARE VIRUSES THAT MULTIPLY THEMSELVES UNTIL THEY CLOG UP MY HARD DRIVE.

 

I still think the bigger danger is in their intentional hostile use.

 

I KNOW YOU SAID THAT, BUT THAT’S NOT EXACTLY REASSURING. AGAIN, WHY DON’T WE JUST NOT GO DOWN THIS PARTICULAR ROAD?

 

Okay, you tell that to the old woman whose crumbling bones will be effectively treated using a nanotechnology-based treatment, or the cancer patient whose cancer is destroyed by little nanobots that swim through his blood vessels.

 

I REALIZE THERE ARE A LOT OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS, BUT THE EXAMPLES YOU JUST GAVE CAN ALSO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH OTHER, MORE CONVENTIONAL, TECHNOLOGIES, LIKE BIOENGINEERING.

 

I’m glad you mentioned bioengineering, because we see a very similar problem with bioengineered weapons. We’re very close to the point where the knowledge and equipment in a typical graduate-school biotechnology program will be sufficient to create self-replicating pathogens. Whereas a nanoengineered weapon could replicate across any matter, living and dead, a bioengineered weapon would only replicate across living matter, probably just its human targets. I understand that’s not much comfort. In either case, the potential for uncontrolled self-replication greatly multiplies the danger.

 

But you’re not going to stop bioengineering—it’s the cutting edge of our medical research. It has already greatly contributed to the AIDS treatments we have today; diabetic patients use bioengineered forms of human insulin; there are effective cholesterol-lowering drugs; there are promising new cancer treatments; and the list of advances is rapidly growing. There is genuine optimism among otherwise skeptical scientists that we will make dramatic gains against cancer and other scourges with bioengineered treatments.

 

SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM BIOENGINEERED WEAPONS?

 

With more bioengineering—antiviral drugs, for example.

 

AND NANOENGINEERED WEAPONS?

 

Same thing—more nanotechnology.

I HOPE THE GOOD NANOBOTS PREVAIL, BUT I JUST WONDER HOW WE’RE GOING TO TELL THE GOOD NANOBOTS FROM THE BAD. ONES.

 

It’s going to be hard to tell, particularly since the nanobots are too small to see.

 

EXCEPT BY OTHER NANOBOTS, RIGHT?

 

Good point.