| Home Forums Library Media Gallery Glossary Links |

The concept of "The Singularity" is all the buzz amongst certain types of futurists. Mostly it fits in with transhumanist thinking. It is based on the observation that a lot of technological trends are accelerating, even faster and faster. And there are a number of them that in and of themselves have the potential for deeply transforming our collective lives. Take nano-technology, which ultimately might allow us complete control over physical matter, so that we can build any physical object we might desire, at essentially zero cost. Take artificial intelligence. What happens if a computer becomes smarter than you are? What happens if computers are a million times smarter than any of us? What would they do that we wouldn't even be able to comprehend? Or, take genetic engineering. What happens if we're able to understand and design genetics freely? If we can make bodies or new life forms with whatever attributes we want.
The Singularity is both a potentially wonderful, but also terribly scary idea. The "point" of the Singularity is essentially when all of these trends go out of control. They move beyond our event horizon, and we can no longer follow along in any linear manner. Technological change is instant. And what if the machines decide we are no longer relevant?
Now, if one is well versed in other metaphysical models than the materialist transhumanist ones, there are some striking similaries to find. The Singularity is potentially like a technological ascension. It is like the Rapture. Many adherents will even deal with it in a rather religious way, even if they would deny any such thing.
However, the connection I particularly wanted to call attention to is with the model of "dimensions" or "densities", which is found in various mystical traditions, and which is common in new age thinking and often occurs in channeling. If we de-mystify it a little bit, it is simply a chart of how things change when they accelerate, and what stages the world is likely to go through as the frequency of everything is increasing. The story is usually told in a person-centered way. I.e. the focus is on how the world changes for people. But, as a corrollary, how the world actually changes. And the model shows some of the potentially dangerous pitfalls in an accelerating world, as well as the necessary answers. And it gives some hope that this sort of meta-patterns have built-in safeguards that means that vastly increased power has to somewhat go hand in hand with mental development.
Just notice for a moment that a number of the technologies that are envisioned simply couldn't be released into the world today. The world would be destroyed very quickly, mostly because there would be some wackos who would push the wrong button. Imagine if the plans for a do-it-yourself hydrogen bomb were available on the Internet, and anybody who could use a screwdriver could build one out of $50 worth of parts from Home Depot. It would be a matter of days before some crazy guy would decide that it is a cool idea to nuke your city, just to see what would happen. Nano-tech can be like that too. One big mistake with self-replicating nano-machines and you turn the whole world into grey goo. Humanity at large is obviously not of a mental state to be able to handle that kind of power and responsibility.
OK, so now let's talk about the 3rd, 4th and 5th dimension. Calling it "dimension" is maybe confusing, as we're not necessarily talking about dimensions in the geometrical sense, even though that might be a sub-part of it. Think "Buckaroo Banzai in the 8th Dimension". It is more like a place or a world or a level where the rules are different. More down-to-earth, the world doesn't necessarily go anywhere - it is simply that the rules change, as things move at a faster click. Instead of "dimensions", some people say "density". I'm not sure that makes it better, except for that it implies that more stuff is packed into the same space as we count up in the numbers.
So, humanity starts off in the 3rd dimension. Which is the world as we know it, or rather, as we knew it. The best way I heard of making sense of it is that this is the way that you get things to happen in 3D:
spirit -> thought -> emotion -> effort-> manifestation
I suppose you could replace "spirit" with something else if you don't believe in spirituality. "The sub-conscious" could fit somewhat, although not exactly. Regardless, the idea is that an urge or inspiration to make something happen forms at a deep, or high, non-verbal level. Then it gets formed into a thought. Then one gets into the right mood for doing it. Then one actually works on carrying it out. For some amount of time. And finally one gets the result. That might potentially have taken years.
For example, you might get the inspiration to make it big in the vacuum cleaner business. You then form the thought. I.e. you think about it, and you get clear on what your plan is. "Selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door - there's a huge market there!". And then you get excited about it. That's the emotion part. And it might include stubbornness, and various other kinds of emotions that support this project. Then you start working on it. You maybe start yourself, selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door. You have failures and successes, and you learn. Maybe in a couple of years you're really good at it, and you make enough money to hire another person and have a bit of inventory. And over 20 years, maybe you built an empire, from hard work and dedication and 16 hour days. And you have 10,000 people working for you, and you can buy a yacht. And there's your manifestation: making it big in vacuum cleaners.
Duh, you might say. Or your parents might say. That's just how things are done. Work hard, and get a good education, get a solid job, and work hard some more, and maybe you'll make it to something someday. But it takes time.
So, to contrast it, let's move on to 4D, the 4th dimension, or 4th density. Here the sequence that leads to manifestation looks like this:
spirit -> thought -> emotion -> manifestation
You'll notice right away that we took out the part about effort, hard work, and long time. So, the way it works there is:
An inspiration appears, to make something happen. You formulate the thought of what that is. And then, if you can get into the right mood about it - if you can feel it, taste it, smell it, and you're excited about it, and certain about it - what you're asking for might just happen rather quickly.
So, here we're talking about a world where things move faster and where everybody's exposed to a lot of information. Now, what something looks and feels like suddenly is more important than how many years it took to make it. If you look the part, you can have the role. Doesn't really matter you didn't go to acting school. If a new product or idea or person is exciting enough, inspiring enough, and makes us feel enough - they might spread like wildfire into the public mind, and make a lot of money. This is where a one year old company of hackers doing software might buy out a venerable fortune 500 company that produces really substantial products and has existed for 100 years. Doesn't really matter any longer.
From a personal perspective, the trick is that if you really feel it, in a positive way, you can have it. If you obviously feel right about it, there will be someone you can go see who can get you what you want, like tomorrow. But one of the pitfalls is that you need to agree with yourself. It is not necessarily enough to act excited about your "bright" idea. It is more important that you're in alignment, in congruence with yourself than that the idea is really bright. It is more important that your emotions are real. So, your hidden negative emotions will come up and bite your ass. If you're not really sincere, people are more likely to notice, and it is much less likely you get where you want to go.

OK, on to 5D, the 5th dimension. What happens there is:
spirit -> thought -> manifestation
So, we cut out the emotion part. No longer necessary to get into the right mood, and broadcast the right vibes before you get things to happen. You just need to form the thought clearly enough, and, bing, there it is.
Well, that's kind of like the holodeck in Star Trek. "Computer! Give me ..." And, indeed, maybe technology is a way it will manifest.
One way or another, it means that the brakes have been removed. It doesn't take work to make things happen. It doesn't even take sincerity and dedication. You just have to form the thought.
You might realize, with the way most human minds work today, that it could quickly be a complete nightmare. Like, think about the humorous situation you have seen on film, where somebody's granted 3 wishes, and they screw them up, by lack of control over their thoughts or emotions. "I wish that hotdog was stuck on your nose", "I wish I was the pope". And you usually have to use the last wish to put everything back to normal, after which you're sort of relieved that you can't just go around wishing for things anymore.
So, imagine that you could. It suddenly becomes absolutely vital and essential that your thoughts are clear, and in alignment with what you really want. And that you don't let stray negative emotions suddenly decide what you think. One "I wish he was dead" can have fatal consequences that can't be undone.
This is where you again might imagine that anybody could build a nuclear bomb. "Computer! Give me a 50Megaton nuclear warhead!" ... and there it is in the matter compiler in your kitchen.
That would never ever work unless all humans are sane on a totally different level than today. Humankind would have to evolve and mature, mentally and emotionally, for that kind of world to be possible.
Even if we're not talking nuclear bombs, most humans of today would go insane rather quickly if whatever they were thinking or asking for continously would happen to them more-or-less instantly. You'd be bouncing against the walls, trying to undo the misplaced wish you did five minutes ago.
We could go on the same way to 6D:
spirit -> manifestation
which in more materialistic terms would mean that the whole contents of your sub-conscious will just be manifested, without you particularly having to voice it. That would be wall-to-wall nightmare. Or it will be nirvana and paradise. The cold drink appears before you realize you could use one. If your sub-conscious mind is very mature, or we could say, if you're aligned with yourself on all levels, it would be marvelous. If you aren't, it would be even worse than 5D. Think about a nano-tech matter compiler/VR/Holodeck thing mapped directly into your brain and into your sub-conscious. The slightest under-the-surface hint of something would immediately be manifested in front of you. Uaaarrrgh.
7D would be that you no longer need the manifestation even. Pure spirit. Or, if you want to look at it materialistically, it could be if you had uploaded yourself to a computer, and you were perfectly happy with simulated experiences, rather than "real" ones. And anything you might ever want is instantly available to you. All at the same time, if you want. You can be anybody you want. So maybe you move on to a different kind of meta-perspective that no longer seeks human kinds of experiences.
As to where we are now .... A lot of people think that humanity has moved from 3D into 4D. I.e. it is no longer a world where hard work and time invested is the most likely thing to pay off. More important what things look and feel like. Media exposure is more important than the facts. What you radiate is more important than what experience you've actually had.
And, one way or another, one of the next steps will be what is described as the 5D. We can easily lay out how it will happen with technology alone. But it is much more than that. It is a total change in how the world works. And it requires some substantial evolutionary changes in humanity to be able to deal with it without short-circuiting and self-destructing.
Luckily there's a bit of an inherent training program built-into accelerating change. You'll have to continuously run a little faster, and there will continously be more stuff to deal with, in terms of information, thoughts, emotions, ideas, people. The only way of surviving and staying sane is to somehow keep up with it, processing it along the way, which means that you evolve, and you become much better at handling the faster action. You might not notice, and you might think you're way behind, but if we compare what you deal with every day with what people were required to deal with in their lives every day 20 years ago, there's just no comparison. You're vastly more able to deal with fast-moving complexity than you've been before. And that will keep going. Some people will crack along the way, but if you make it, you'll someday take for granted that we can all comfortably deal with capabilities that would have frightened us out of our skulls before.
And, somehow, it is all not happening faster than we can (barely) keep up. It is probably because the change is generated collectively by us, ourselves, here, and there are some feedback loops in place. So things tend to not happen before we're somewhat ready for them. We might not think we're ready for them, but there's something in our collective super- or sub-conscious evolutionary mind pattern that's smarter than any of us.
Posted by Flemming at March 30, 2004 02:51 AM | TrackBackHi Ming,
I hope you're right about the built-in safegaurds as we move up each level. At the moment, I waiver between your perspective and that of the Singulatarians at:
http://singinst.org/
who arrgue that the limits currently imposed on the human animal are most genetic in nature, and that these genetic traits, which served us once on the African plains are not equipped to deal with accelerating technology. Selfishness, aggression, greed, negative emotions, etc. And since in their experience of looking at the world politic, that unless their is a super-intelligent, super-benevolent, super-moral, self-augmenting AI to usher us through this bottelneck, largley accelerating because of this very self-augmenting AI, then we are overhwhelmingly leaning towards extinction.
Have you read any of the info on their site, and what is your response to that argument?
Posted by: Paul Hughes at March 30, 2004 03:07 PMI think another useful anology would be taken from the movie, "Forbidden Planet". A dead race named the Krell had built a machine where pure thought would manifest itself into instant creation, and it was discovered they were destroyed by subconscious monsters from the Id.
Posted by: sauceruney at March 30, 2004 03:55 PMI personally believe that humanity can and will evolve quickly. But that is not something one can provide any convincing proof of. We're talking about an unprecedented situation, where we're being forced through an enormous amount of change in a short period of time. I believe it is just such conditions that provoke evolutionary leaps. Including genetically.
The Singulatarian view is pessimistic in that regard, I guess. Which is no wonder if one builds on the belief that evolution is largely random mutations that get selected for over long periods of time. We clearly don't have time for that. But I think that's not how evolution works. That in itself is a heated discussion.
So, if we assumed that evolution wouldn't be smart enough to catch up, then a super-duper AI might well be the only chance. It is just that I'm rather skeptical of AI. The reason AI has been "just around the corner" for so many years, and still is, is that nobody really knows how intelligence works so far. And if the assumption is that one just needs to put together a complex enough program that does thinking-like activities, and then some kind of miracle happens, and it becomes self conscious - then I think it isn't really going to get anywhere. It misses the boat altogether.
A number of things would need to come together for the solutions to manifest. A deeper understanding of the universe, of intelligence, of evolution, of consciousness. Which, when brought together in an integrated world view, will change everything. We've gotta get over the idea that it is just blind pieces mixed together, stirred by a bit of randomity, which makes these things work. We'll have to understand LIFE and at a much higher level than being able to dissect some of the components.
Posted by: Flemming Funch at March 31, 2004 06:16 AMFlemming,
Your view here of humanity's potential to "evolve" "on its own" is seen very frequently in many futurist circles. But I think you underestimate the vast network of constraints, boundaries, and limitations that are deep parts of Homo sapiens. "Homo sapiens" is a pinhead-sized box in a galaxy-sized space of minds-in-general. We truly aren't going anywhere from within this box; and I think it's time we remove our limitations rather than pretending they don't exist.
(Try googling: availability bias, conjunction fallacy, Wason selection task, support theory, representativeness heuristic, misperception of random sequences, expert judgement and uncertainty... All these keywords represent pervasive errors in reasoning that are common to practically all human beings, fundamental errors that are so ubiquitous that they have gone unnoticed for thousands of years.)
Accelerating technological change will not provoke any evolutionary leaps. For evolution to take place, there must be selection pressure, that is, some mechanism that "selects out" (murders) "weaker" variations so that "stronger" ones can prosper. There are no such selection pressures in today's world. Also, you seem to be portraying evolution here as some overarching benevolent architect; but it will settle for whatever adaptation is quick and dirty enough to pass DNA on into the future. Evolution also operates over very long timescales; tens or hundreds of thousands of years for new adaptations to take hold and develop. This applies especially to humans because our lifespans are unusually long. Biological evolution is over and has been for thousands of years.
Your sentiment about some sort of "deep understanding" of "the universe, of intelligence, of evolution, of consciousness" being required for AI is also very common in many futurist circles. But "intelligence" is simply something that certain types of physical systems do, and it will eventually be reverse-engineered just like any other object with useful properties we want to replicate. It involves perception, memory, feedback loops, pattern-catchers, and so on; there is no magical "substance of intelligence" we'll need to inject to make an AI work. The human brain operates on the basis of a few dozen interdependent subsystems, many of which are simple hacks on pre-homonine legacy neuroware.
Posted by: Michael Anissimov at March 31, 2004 11:46 AMMichael,
That was an absolutely excellent list of terms to look up. I've actually been looking for references of several of these and were unsucessful because I didn't know the proper terms. Anyway, that is right up my own alley, and gives gives me material for some postings on the subject of logical fallacies.
And I agree with you in that regard. The human mind is having a major problem when it aspires to being logical and rational, or even sane, for that matter. The way even the most coherent of us are making decisions is, in the bigger picture of things, horribly sloppy. And it isn't even just that it is sloppy, but the faulty thinking is hardwired into the way that our minds work in the first place. And it is kind of scary to think that even our best scientists and world leaders are subject to the exact same fallacies, and there's no guarantee that they've learned to transcend most of them. A "consciousness of abstraction" a la General Semantics might include awareness of the faults into our thinking process, in order to consistently arrive at more sane results, but it still isn't quite enough.
"Pinhead-sized box in a galaxy-sized space of minds-in-general" is a good way of putting it.
Actually, what I have confidence in is not particularly an individual human ability to think oneself logically into acting in the sane and rational and responsible way that the control of our new technological capabillities would require. Rather, I postulate that there's something systemic going on, of a higher order, which possesses a much more coherent intelligence, of a different nature than that of the individual human.
I postulate that Nature effectively has evolved the equivalent of an AI way past a singularity point. Or maybe rather that it has had it all along. For that matter, I would tend to believe that life can't really happen without the presence of an intelligence that guides it.
I don't particularly mean that in the sense of some anthropomorphic God that sits and hands out arbitrary decisions. I don't believe in such an entity. I'd rather see it as an intelligent system. OK "overarching benevolent architect" doesn't sound as bad to me as it probably does to you. But I see it more as a built-in intelligence than as some external architect. Although there's always the question of how it came about in the first place, even if it is now self-sufficient.
Just like the ant doesn't exist without the anthill, I suspect that any individual life-form wouldn't really be alive unless it were the smaller unit of something a good deal smarter than itself. The Natural Intelligence that ensures the coherence and evolution of that species. Or an eco-system. Or something else I don't understand.
We humans have a tendency to suffer from hubris and think that one of us is somehow the very spearhead of evolution, the smartest thing that ever happened. And if that were true, it would really look rather grim for the future of the universe. For the same kinds of reasons you referenced. If it suddenly were up to us alone to keep the show going on, we'd almost certainly screw it up.
What we probably have differing views on is a bit like a chicken-and-egg thing. You think that we humans can and should construct an AI which then can take on a life of its own, become smarter than us, and guide our further evolution in a rational and benevolent way. I personally doubt that we're smart enough to do that right. But instead I believe that we already have such an AI, or rather an NI (Natural Intelligence), which has been active all along. Or many of them. And it is not so much a matter of inventing it, as of accessing it.
I'd say that in the very big cosmological view, considering that time is just another dimension in a multi-dimensional universe, it ends up not mattering very much if it is one or the other. Is there a Bigger Intelligence that is hanging around from the beginning to ensure that things generally go in the right direction? Or do we invent such an entity and it exists from then on? Either way, it is there to find in the totality of the universe, and it is pretty inevitable that it will appear. Which to me means that, either way, it is an inherent property of the universe.
I am very skeptical of the view of evolution as only being random and blind selection. Natural selection is obviously part of it, but I'd rather lean in the direction of a larger definition of what is life. Autopoiesis, essentially. A galaxy or a planet can be "alive" in the sense that it maintains its boundaries and a certain equilibrium, even under changing conditions. Not all planets do that, but obviously some do.
To me, the expectation that humanity is likely to evolve a whole lot in a short period of time is based on the confidence that humans are part of bigger systems that are alive and which possess an inherent intelligence that is beyond us. Oh, the outcome might also be that humanity is decommissioned and a more useful intelligence emerges instead. Which might potentially be our computer AI. Or we might just go extinct and be replaced with some other natural species which is better suited. Either way, it appears that a higher level of manifest reflective intelligence is what is required next. Compared with animals who go about their business somewhat rationally, but who don't seem to have any abstract reflective thought about it.
What mostly seems to divide the people who think about these things into several camps is the fundamental assumptions about what consciousness is or isn't. I'll grant that intelligence is something that can be contructed with pattern matching and feedback loops of various kinds. But is it self-conscious? Some people say it doesn't matter, or that self-consciousness is just another pattern than can be constructed, or that self-conscious naturally emerges. I don't really believe that, and I think there's a factor that does make all the difference. Not that I can explain how that part (the (self-reflective) consciousness) is installed. I don't see any reason a machine shouldn't be able to have it, but I'm doubtful of the idea that it will just sort of happen if we just put together a complex program that does all the things we can observe intelligence doing.
Actually, I'd rather enjoy if we find out that there's a certain kind of equation that initiates consciousness. I just don't think we've been anywhere close to finding it. And I think that creating an AI without it would be a big mistake.
Posted by: Flemming Funch at April 2, 2004 08:42 AMLooks neat! Aint got the bread!!!
Posted by: Gon Gnimovich at October 9, 2004 04:56 AM