iPlant philosophy: a model of the singularity?
March 22 2008 / by iPlant
Category: Biotechnology Year: General Rating: 19 Hot
I sometimes feel that scientists have lost touch with the
profound and the sublime, whereas transhumanists and philosophers
have lost touch with science – with utility. Hume saw that
causality cannot be articulated (Hume,
1739,
1748) ; he did not say it should therefore be reduced to a
topic of rationalization and used only to cultivate one’s social
loci. 
What happens when neruoscience dissolves the distinction between mind and body? What happens when the intimate, subjective and irrational human mind is fully integrated into the logic of science, and a stable, effective and lucid, yet decidedly neuroscientific model (M1) of the mind is realized? Eliminativists speak about the end of our common-sense understanding of the mind, but offer only vague speculations as to what might replace it (Churchland, 1981). Is this a technological singularity – a point in history so complex and fast-moving that we cannot see beyond it?
The iPlant can be used as an intellectual probe, to model and better characterize the social impact of M1. A critical aspect of scientific models is that they allow us to improve on the systems that they describes. The iPlant helps us improve on the strongest current candidate for M1: the cognitive neuroscience of monoamines, particularly the dopamine model of attention-allocation and learning (Lindskog et al, 2006 Djurfeldt et al, 2001). It is a self-help chip.
(cont.)
Monoamine modulation has given us profound social insight and
change in the past; I’m thinking of drugs like Ritalin, coffee,
Prozac and LSD, all strong modulators of
the monoamines. But the iPlant introduces dynamics: the
ability to shape monoamine modulation with an unprecedented
temporal resolution. Suddenly, our minds become capable of
functions such as rewarding brain stimulation,
first demonstrated in rodents (Olds
& Milner, 1954) and humans (Heath,
1963) half a century ago, and psychological concepts like
motivation are reconceptualized as something closer to their true
nature: as monoaminergic selection of corticothalamic and
corticostriatal loops
I challenge you to show me that the iPlant is not a good model for a technological singularity, or that the cognitive neuroscience of monoamines is not M1, by describing, with a reasonable level of certainty and detail, a time beyond the event horizon that a few hundred iPlants constitute. To quote the forum:
“Say the iPlant is made available in 2015-2020 but works
only with a running machine, a rowing machine and a weight-lifting
machine (qua
Burgess et al, 1991,
Garner et al, 1991). Initially you have to be clinically obese
to get the surgery but as the procedure becomes routine all you
really need to do is say the right things to your doctor (think
Prozac or Ritalin). The implant motivates you to use the machines,
but not for more than two hours per day. A few people hack it and
screw themselves or others up but it’s extremely rare. Within a few
years 10% of people have an iPlant but although 
learning and research programs
are being developed they’re not yet available. What can we say
about this situation?”
- – - Coming up on the iPlant website: interviews with people and experts on their thoughts and feelings about the iPlant, with particular focus on philosophical hot-spots like free will, consciousness and the human condition.
For discussion, see the forum or the blog.
Comment Thread (6 Responses)
-
how is an iPlant a model for the singularity? (and what’s your definition of singularity?) I see how it could be, as you call it, a ‘self help chip’, but how does it go beyond that? The iPlant seems like it would be a positive reinforcement tool for good/desirable behavior, but wouldn’t it have limits? the human brain can only process so quickly, even with stimulation.
Posted by: Venessa Posavec March 19, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
well I think of a singularity as a point in history where technological progress and complexity increase so rapidly that we are no longer able to predict what will happen afterwards.
i’m not certain that the introduction of iPlants into society constitutes such an event horizon, but over at the forum we’re a bit stuck on trying to articulate even the initial effects so i thought i’d throw out a challenge and see if anyone can see beyond the first clinical trials.
Posted by: iPlant March 19, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
I too have heard many futurists referring to a plethora of local singularities. It’s interesting to think of the iPlant concept as a mini-singularity, with a whole array of questions marks spread out after the next step. I will contemplate some iPlant predictions, but agree that it’ll be hard to see far out as the variables in play are immense.
Cool thoughts.
Posted by: FutureFly March 19, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
could the iplant be re-programmed to reward ‘bad’ behavior? could it be used by the military or terrorists to encourage troops to inflict pain or torture people by giving them a feel-good feeling when doing so? what if a small army of iplant enabled soldiers – who got pleasure from killing indescriminately – were unleashed on our civilians?
Posted by: El Guapo Nimbus March 20, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Feel good/motivation on demand. Do I push a button to motivate myself to pursuit an activity to satisfy a desire which ultimately makes me happy or do I just push the other button for instant happiness?
What does such a level of self-control mean concerning crazy ideas? How many people would just tweak themselves to pursuit some mad goal and not deliberate on it?
Do we have enough self-knowledge, self-discipline for total self-control?
If anything forces us into further development, it’s distress. If this technology ultimately enables us to completely wipe out any feeling of distress, well then?
Is one form of happiness superior to the other? Would the majority of people choose to use such tools to motivate themselves to pursuit goals that are currently considered noble or would it degenerate into a global intoxication?
What happens when this technology becomes sophisticated enough to suppress our urge to survive because we don’t want to worry anymore and rather have some fun?
Could this technology cause a radicalisation by shifting our balanced desires into either striving for radical survival or perilous amusement?
Posted by: XiXiDu March 20, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
El Guapo, any technology can be used destructively but if you want to hurt others it’s much easier to get a bomb or a gun than to arrange a series of complex operations. I think a more realistic worry is that some countries might use the iPlant to create huge factories of people addicted to manual labour.
XiXiDu, try to see the iPlant as something that’s hard to get hold of. You get it at the hospital after consultation with doctors and there’s a mountain of security that stops 999.999 out of 1.000.000 from using it in any way that wasn’t intended by the manufacturer (not least the fact that the hardware is in your head – very difficult to fiddle with). So as long as access control by the manufacturer is maintained there would be no ‘instant happiness button’, ‘mad goals’, ‘total self-control’, or wiping out of all feelings of distress. Initially there would be only the opportunity to do physical exercise EFFORTLESSLY for a few hours per day.
But imagine that 10% of the population have those iPlants and it WORKS and we’re quenching the obesity epidemic. What will the public debate on what kind of behaviors to ”allow” next look like? What kind of expectations will people have? Which behaviors (e.g. learning languages, doing biomedical research) SHOULD be promoted? Again, I’m assuming all changes to how the iPlant works require approval by the Institutional Review Board of the manufacturer and the hospital, and possibly the government. Maybe that’s a naïve assumption but I don’t think so – the brain surgery and the hardware is too complex to be arranged by anyone who wants to; it requires a large, official organization, hospitals and surgeons, all of which will be subject to the laws of the country.
Posted by: iPlant March 20, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend