To follow this blog by email, give your address here...

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Qigong in Shanghai

I'm on the way home from a consciousness conference in Shanghai — CSTS (Consciousness, Science, Technology and Society) conference.   One of the more intriguing aspects of the conference, for me, was the significant number of Chinese researchers and practitioners there who were involved with parapsychology, qigong and other related areas…

I’ve been reading for a while about a multi-decade project in Kunming dealing with macro-PK (psychokinesis), remote viewing and other capabilities among schoolchildren.  I had emailed with one of the researchers involved with the project before, but hadn’t dug that deep.   At CSTS I met a number of young Chinese researchers who were involved with gathering and analyzing data from the psychic children of Kunming; they showed me some videos of their work.   These “kids” were quite matter-of-fact about their work — they had observed various children’s anomalous abilities many times, and viewed their role as documenting and studying the phenomena rather than trying to prove their reality (as they assumed the proof to have been completed well before their entry into the project).  I’m planning to coordinate with these guys to visit Kunming sometime in the next year to check out these phenomena personally and see if I can help with experimental design, data analysis or theoretical analysis or whatever…

On the other hand, one of the parapsychology-oriented presenters at the conference somewhat rubbed me the wrong way.   He had a lot of exciting-sounding talk (in Chinese, translated for those of us in the audience who needed it) about channeling the mind of the universe, and so forth.  He then offered a demonstration of his system for teaching people to channel the mind of the universe… and brought up some of his young female students to the front of the room.  One of them proceeded to recite a short poem in an ancient Chinese style.  He then noted the complexity and difficulty of writing a poem in this archaic formal style, and said that no modern youth could do that on their own — it could only be done by channeling the minds of the ancients, via the mind of the universe.   Later on, this same teacher demonstrated qigong healing on an elderly man with serious stiffness in the fingers, due to a previously medically diagnosed problem.  There was much talk about the cosmic wisdom of the universe and such, but the elderly man professed that at the end of the process, he felt a bit better but his fingers were still stiff.

I did have the distinct sensation of seeing some sort of energy jumping up and down out of the elderly man’s body, at one point.  On the other hand, it’s possible I was just sleepy and drifting off into some sort of dream.

I’m not going to assert that this teacher was lacking in special abilities or engaging in fraudulent activities, or anything like that.   But for sure, his demonstrations sent my Skeptic Sense way tingly.  According to the Chinese I asked, the student’s poem was competent but not especially exceptional.  The amount of glowing evangelism about the channeling of the mind of the universe seemed far out of proportion to the magnitude of the phenomena displayed….   It didn’t escape me that the teacher was running a commercial school and seeking tuition-paying students…

The next day the Kunming-project guys took me and Ruiting and another Hong Konger, L, to the Qigong Museum, a half-hour taxi ride across Shanghai.   The historical displays there were fascinating, and the ancient illustrative artworks were ornate, complex and beautiful.

Some random photos I took at the museum are here:

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipMn2U9kiEkIVnCLZLI3Z2cGHCIFOuoAr8FKnGyx

(My pictures come nowhere remotely near doing  the museum justice; I didn't photo the stunning ancient drawing and such, but merely a few of the tech-y displays and machines.)

There were also some intriguing electronic devices on display — electrical Qigong machines from the 1990s.  These had a bunch of dials and knobs on them and seem to have been used to generate electromagnetic fields configured to affect the body in certain ways.  The tour guide was quite negative about these devices, opining that qigong would always work better when manifested by a biological human being.

And there were some photos of experiments done capturing qigong energy in various glass-bulb-type containers.   I asked the tour guide what results had been obtained from this work, and he said there had been 10,000 papers published on this and he wasn’t qualified to summarize them, but there had been a lot of positive results.

Ah, and some photos and information about the history of qigong-based anesthesia in Chinese operating rooms.   It appears to have worked as well as chemical anesthetics, with fewer side-effects.   Note that we don’t yet understand, within Western medicine, how chemical anesthetics work; the anesthetics in current medical use were figured out via trial and error.

After our tour through the museum, a Qigong master — who had been at the consciousness conference, but had opted not to give a presentation to the crowd — offered to give us a practical demonstration.

He asked L to stand still and relax and close his eyes.   He then projected energy at L through his hand — and we watched, bemused and impressed, as he pulled L’s body back and forth, from a distance of about 12 inches.   L (someone I know fairly well) tends to be skeptical of qigong, psi and other such things, and clearly was not complicit in the demonstration.  When the demonstration was done and L opened his eyes, L was quite surprised when we told him his body had been swaying back and forth in coordination with the qigong master’s hand.

The master then tried to do the same trick with me, but it didn’t work.  I was standing there in a state of fairly deep relaxation, doing yoga/meditation breathing and so forth.   When it was done, the master said it had failed due to a blockage of qi in my right knee, which he said had an old injury in it, from at least 5 years before.  I don't know if this was actually the reason -- I'm a difficult case for hypnosis too.   However, it's true that my right knee is mildly shaky due to a skiing accident I had 16 years ago.   He then offered to try to cure my knee — and indeed, when he laid his hands on my knee in his special qigong way, the knee started feeling extremely hot and felt like it was vibrating deep inside at a high rate (a quite different feeling from what happens if the knee is physically shaken back and forth or if someone rapidly vibrates their hands on the skin).

Afterwards, outside the museum, the master looked carefully at L’s body and correctly diagnosed a couple minor medical issues of L’s.   He looked at me and noted a problem with my lower back, which so far as I know does not exist (my lower back feels fine and has never given me any problems so far); I did have an upset stomach from my dinner the previous night, though, which he did not note.  I asked him to take a look at a woman who was there with me, and whom I knew to be in the 7th week of pregnancy — not far along enough to be showing at all.  He looked at her and after a bit of scrutiny said “The baby is healthy, and your health seems good, congratulations.”

Of course, none of this was skeptic-proof, but it was nonetheless pretty impressive and compelling.   The impression I got of his qigong sensing and diagnostic process, was that it was a mix of things: careful observation and inference and medical experience, plus some sort of bioelectromagnetic field wizardry (involving both perception and manipulation of bioelectromagnetic fields, in ways that Western science does not yet encompass), plus probably some sort of psi component as well.

Teasing apart these various aspects of his abilities is interesting to me, because I have a Western science oriented perspective.  It’s interesting to me to figure out what aspects of what he does are due to psi, what aspects are due to weird bioelectromagnetic field dynamics, and what aspects are just due to him being a keen observer and a charismatic guy and a good doctor.

On the other hand, from his point of view, it doesn’t really matter much which aspects of his practice fall into which of my Western analytical categories.   Chinese philosophy and Chinese medical practice are holistic by nature, and what matters is the state of consciousness he achieves, and the medical cures he facilitates, rather than the explanation of what he does in terms of a particular combination of phenomena belonging to carefully-formalized reductive analytical categories.

Sunday, June 04, 2017

How To Save the World

How to Save the World: 
The Biggest Risks Humanity Faces 
and How to Militate Against Them 
by Building a New Democratically-Oriented 
Global Techno-Social Fabric


(Last week I had the opportunity to spend a few days brainstorming with my friends at the Economic Space Agency, an unusual and fascinating California startup organization.  Among our technical conversations we also touched here and there on some of the major social issues facing humanity as it moves forward into the era of radically advanced technologies.  This article summarizes some of the ideas we tossed around.)


I generally tend to be an optimist, including about advanced technology and about the future potential for human and transhumanist growth.  I think we’re going to create superhuman thinking machines and that some of us will merge with them and explore incredible new forms of mind, society and embodiment and experience.  I think we will create radical material abundance that will end the era of working for a living, and end disease and death.

I also think, though, there may be some serious downs as well as ups on the way to this radiant future.  And there’s also a nontrivial risk that one of the downs takes us so far down as to prevent the amazing positive futures I envision from actually coming to pass.

“Saving the world” as I mean it involves both the positive and negative aspects — making the world better by improving things dramatically, but also, preventing terrible things from happening and destroying the beautiful things we already have.

On the positive side, there is a great diversity of human values around the world, but there is also some commonality.  Nearly all of us have an innate sense of joy, and want to feel joyful.  Nearly all of us have some sense of compassion, and want others around us to feel joyful as well.   Nearly all of us want to be able to choose key aspects of our lives, and/or to have our families and communities able to choose key elements of their own paths.  And many  of us would like to grow beyond our current limitations, becoming more successful and more helpful and exploring new horizons.  And fortunately, it appears likely that a variety of advanced technologies, currently already emerging, are going to be able to promote these positive values to an unprecedented degree.  Computer networking, AI, biotech, nanotech, blockchain…

And on the negative side, the list of risks we face is also well known.  There’s the risk of natural disaster — comets hitting the Earth and so forth.   There’s the risk of human-encouraged natural catastrophe — global warming causing an unforeseen chemical reaction in the oceans leading to massive release of poison gas, or some such.   There’s the risk Nick Bostrom worries about in his book “Superintelligence” — that superhuman AIs will decide the molecules comprising humans can be more aesthetically or effectively used for some utterly nonhuman purpose.  There’s the risk of World War III between nation-states.

And then there’s the risk I think is actually the most worrisome — the risk that disaffected people, shut out of the centers of the world economy via radical economic inequality and/or political restrictions, leverage advanced technology to cause massive destruction.  Which then creates a negative and chaotic global political situation, in which all sorts of destructive technologies get born (including maybe the ones Bostrom worries about).

One thing I’m going to explain here is why I think this risk is a serious one — and then, what sort of things I think can be done to mitigate the risk.   And the solutions I’m going to suggest are things that we really should do anyway, for a whole host of reasons.

My logic here will involve a few decent-sized leaps, but I don’t think they’re insanely huge ones. You'll have to judge for yourself ;-)

When Robots Take The Jobs, Who Will Give Basic Income to the Residents of the Congo?

Let’s suppose that AI and robotics and associated technologies keep on advancing impressively, so that the need for human labor in the economy keeps on decreasing.  Then what happens to the people whose efforts are no longer needed in the labor force?   In the developed world, we already see a strong movement toward universal basic income, which is pretty much the only rational and compassionate solution to the situation.  But what about the developing world?   Who will give universal basic income to the citizens of, say, the Congo or Central African Republic, when the developed-world economy has advanced sufficiently that outsourcing to the citizens of these nations doesn’t make any economic sense?

One possibility is that developed-world philanthropists or governments rise to the occasion and distribute universal basic income throughout the world.   But I don’t have much faith this will happen.

One issue is that even the wealthiest philanthropists don’t have the funds to make a huge difference.   Suppose Bill Gates gave half his wealth to supply Africa with universal basic income.   30 billion dollars would give 30 dollars to each African for one year.   This is just not enough.   No small set of good-hearted individuals is wealthy enough to make a real dent here.  The whole class of super-wealthy individuals is rich enough to make a dent, but few of them care as much as the celebrated handful of billionaire philanthropists like Gates, Zuckerberg and Buffett.

Another issue is that, in developed democracies like the US, average voters are typically very unhappy with foreign aid.   Average Americans vastly overestimate the amount of foreign aid that the US government currently gives out, and they tend not to like it.   When the US gov’t first starts giving out universal basic income, it’s not going to be enough to keep everyone happy.  Average voters are not so likely to want to diminish their monthly payment in order to help faraway people with strange cultures and belief systems.

It could happen that, due to advancing technology, supplying basic needs becomes SO cheap that it becomes politically unproblematic to supply a universal basic income globally.  This might be the case if, for instance, we had a sudden breakthrough in molecular nanotechnology leading to fairly general-purpose, low-cost molecular assemblers.  This would be awesome.  But to be frank, I’m not counting on it.  I’m sure these technologies will come, but they may come only a few years or a decade or two AFTER the technology that obsoletes outsourcing and leaves developing-world citizens economically stranded.

The (Extreme and Nasty) Qualitative Nature of Global Inequality Today

For folks living in developed nations, it’s hard to get a sense of the extent to which people in the worse-off portions of the developing world feel (and are) left out of the modern world economy.   (I’ve gotten a little bit of insight into this via frequent visits to Ethiopia, where I’ve been co-running an AI and robotics outsourcing shop since 2013.  But I’m sure I still don’t have a full feel for these things, to the extent that I would if I’d grown up there.)

Let me try to give a vague flavor of the situation.   If you live in sub-Saharan Africa, the odds are that even if you can afford a smartphone, you can’t afford a lot of data minutes.  Unrestricted viewing of, say, educational videos is not an option.

You aren’t all that likely to be able to afford university tuition (if you do well on the exams at the end of high school, you have a good chance; but if you miss that one opportunity, your chance is probably nixed for life).

If you want to start a business, good luck saving a couple thousand US dollars in seed funding.  As soon as you save a few hundred dollars, odds are fairly high that some relative in a remote village will have a genuine urgent need for funding to pay for critical medical care.  Your choice may be to spend your savings to help your great-aunt, or else to be responsible for her death.

Do you want to use your hard-won savings to fly to some foreign tech hub to show your prototype to some investors?  Good luck getting a visa.  Sometimes it’s possible but it’s extremely chancy.  (I have had many failures trying to bring my Ethiopian AI researcher colleagues to Hong Kong, Canada and the US on temporary visitor visas or work visas.  These are people with advanced degrees in science and technology, and work history in AI software development.   Occasionally it succeeds; often the immigration departments reject the applications with no reason given.)

If you've managed to buck the odds and scramble like hell to gain the needed skills, maybe you can work online for overseas customers, doing consulting and saving money for your future that way.   Well, except the e-work websites may well not be set up to allow you to register any payment method available to you on their sites.    If you do manage to register, you'll get paid 1/10 the amount of folks in the developed world for doing exactly the same work, because of the country of residence indicated on your profile on the site.   And oh, then you  may find that your country's government decides to shut down the Internet for a week or two here or there (as I write this, Ethiopia has just shut down its whole country's internet for a week to try to avoid high school students cheating on their final exams) -- they don't seem to care what this will make your international customers think of your reliability!

Some folks in the developing world fight through all these factors to achieve great or modest success.   Many do not, despite having plenty of smarts and despite putting in MUCH more effort than the average, reasonably successful US, Western European or Chinese citizen.

The situation in, say, the former Soviet republics or the less well-off countries in Southeast Asia or South America is not as extreme as in sub-Saharan Africa.  But for many people it is qualitatively the same.   Why do you think there are so many Filipino women willing to leave their spouses and children to work as domestic helpers in Hong Kong for US$600/month, half of which they’ll send home to their families?  Why do you think there are so many attractive, college-educated young Eastern European women, willing to sell themselves as mail-order brides to unattractive, dull middle-aged men in the US or Western Europe?

What’s at issue here is not economic equality per se — almost nobody I know is upset that some people are richer than others.  There are differentials in ability and willingness to work that naturally lead to differences in wealth and income, at the current state of technological development.  And almost nobody wants to wipe out all the impact of history on wealth — nearly everyone wants to be able to pass along some of what they create or earn during their lives to their children, for example.  What’s at issue here is the ability to participate in a reasonably full way in the world economy.  In other words, those developing-world citizens I know who are discontented with their role in the world economy (i.e. nearly all of them) are not discontented with the fact that there is an economic game with a competitive aspect to it, nor are they disgruntled with sour grapes that they have lost the game.  They are discontented that, by dint of the nations they happen to have been born in, they are essentially disqualified from playing the game.  They have to fight a hard battle with low odds, often entailing great personal and family sacrifices, just to get on the playing field of the international tech economy.

I’m aware that life can be tough all around.   Even the super-wealthy can find life a struggle each day, as newspaper tabloids amply document.  I was raised middle class, nowhere near wealthy, and have worked quite hard all my adult life, with numerous ups and downs both personally and career-wise, some quite traumatic.  I’m pretty contented now and I’m grateful for both the situation I was born into and various opportunities I’ve made and happened into.  But I’ve seen close friends, also middle-class living in the developed world, commit suicide due to the difficulty of fighting through unfairly stacked competition and stultifying bureaucracy to realize their dreams.  Human psyche and human culture involve suffering everywhere on the planet; and in some ways I feel like folks in the developing world have more satisfying lives than their materially wealthy counterparts, due to the rich and warm social fabric they so often weave.  Complexities abound in nearly all human situations.  But none of these complexities takes away the prevalence, unfairness or danger of the gross inequity in the current world situation.

Minimizing the Odds of Massive Inequality Leading to Global Catastrophe

OK, so radical inequality of opportunity is prevalent and it sucks.  Now take the next step, and realize that: In spite of these factors, there are more and more highly educated young people in the developing world, with understanding of advanced technology.  Even the poorest nations are now equipped with computers and networks, and with biological lab equipment, and with universities teaching advanced science and engineering.

It’s not hard to see what sorts of risks this situation leads to.  If global inequality keeps increasing, and we have an increasing population of people who are largely shut out of the excitingly advancing global tech economy — but with significant access to modern education and technological tools — what do you think is likely to happen?

As technology advances, it takes fewer and fewer people, with less and less intelligence and know-how, to create more and more destruction.  This is true with computer hacking, it’s true with drones and robots, it’s true with biotech, and it will soon be true with nanotech.

What we need to do, to prevent global wealth inequality and advanced technology from adding up to produce global catastrophe, is increase equitability of opportunity.  We need to enable everyone in the world to have the opportunity to really play the modern global economic-social game.  We need to all be in this together, on a basic level, or else, we’re likely to squander our chance to create radical abundance for all via destroying ourselves in a maelstrom of foolishness, selfishness and violence.

I don’t mean to give the impression that the ONLY reason radical global inequality of opportunity is bad, is its strong potential to lead to widespread destruction.  According to my own morals, this sort of radical inequality of opportunity is intrinsically a rotten thing, regardless of the risk it poses to global safety.   I favor joy, growth and choice for all sentient beings, inasmuch is possible, and radical global inequality obvious is crappy on all three counts (it badly hurts joy, growth and choice, calculated in total across the globe).   I’m just highlighting, in this particular essay, one among the many nasty implications of this sort of inequality: its reasonably high likelihood of fostering a situation in which vast numbers of humans get killed and nasty futuristic technologies get developed in the chaotic aftermath.

Technology is not the whole solution here; this is a human psychology and culture problem as well as a technology problem.  But I do believe that appropriate deployment of appropriate technologies can help create a context in which culture is more likely to evolve in a way that mitigates these problems.

What technologies do we need?  We need technologies that encourage a democratic global social fabric.  That make it easier for people all around the world to connect with each other, to create media of all sorts for sharing with each other, to transact economically and emotionally with each other.  That make it less and less practical for governments and large corporations — with their tendency toward impersonality and inertia — to clog, prohibit or pervert exchanges between individuals and the formation of ad hoc or persistent social networks of various sizes and types.

Six Critical Technologies for Enabling a Positive Future

Fortunately these objectives can viably be achieved by a menu of technologies already in development to various extents.

The following would be a good start:


  1. Mesh networks, so that Internet access is outside the control of large corporations and governments, and in more direct control of the people
  2. Decentralized production of low-cost hardware.   When we can 3D print the smartphones that enable the mesh network, in relatively low-cost local factories, then we’ll be in a pretty exciting position.
  3. Machine translation, for both text and voice, that handles all the world’s languages.   This is an area where my own research on artificial general intelligence may have a transformative role to play.
  4. A social-network infrastructure that is widely used, that leverages machine translation and mesh networks, and that is out of the control of governments and corporations.
  5. A decentralized, peer-to-peer economic exchange mechanism that is widely used and understood, operating on the mesh and requiring only prevalent low-cost hardware.  Blockchain technologies provide an obvious basis here, including the new tech and ideas my friends at the Economic Space Agency are working on.
  6. Videos, games, augmented reality, virtual reality, biofeedback, neurofeedback and AI interaction systems that are oriented toward helping people understand themselves and each other better.  


Regarding the last point, another way to say it is: We need meaningful media that will help people grow, and help them come together, and help them confront the world’s difficult problems with love rather than hate — and we need this media distributed in a democratic and decentralized way rather than via advertising or propaganda dominated media channels.  If provided with the technology to create and disseminate meaningful media, the people of the world will, in my estimation, most probably do so.  There will be lots of less-meaningful media alongside, to be sure.  But if media is more strongly separated from the desire of governments to spread propaganda and the desire of corporations to maximize profit, then the more positive and growth-oriented sides of humanity will have more chance to self-organize into powerful new configurations.

These mechanisms would not automatically, magically make universal basic income spread globally.  But they would make it far more likely.  They would create massively richer, more positive interaction and interoperation between the developed and developing world economies.  They would lead to the flourishing of creative new economic and social networks, including many oriented toward environmental, social and spiritual benefit.  Rather than relying  on governments or corporations, or majority vote in corporate media dominated democracies, to spread the bounty from technological progress widely — these tools would foster self-organization of decentralized mechanisms enabling individuals and small groups to reach out to other individuals and small groups and engage them in positive and mutually beneficial interactions.

Think About It ...

Do we need all of the above to avert catastrophe?  Not necessarily.

Would the development of all this necessarily avert catastrophe?  Not necessarily.

But the more of this we can get, the more of a global “level playing field” we’re going to have, and the more of a sense we’re going to have that we’re all in this together.

Development and deployment of this set of technologies would constitute a revolution, but not the violent kind.  We don’t need to overthrow the world’s governments (though some are bound to get overthrown in the next couple decades anyway) and we don’t need to eliminate all the big corporations.  What we need to do is to build new networks that join people together directly, in parallel to governments and corporations, and ultimately subverting their power and influence.

With the above set of technologies, we would have a medium within which all sorts of new social, economic and cultural network would form.  These would not lead to complete economic or social equality, and would not eradicate all the problems of the world.  But they would go a long way toward enabling everyone on the planet to participate fully in the ongoing techno-social revolution.  A world dominated by such technologies would be one in which positive new tech would have a higher odds of getting developed - including biotech that heals rather than biotech that kills, and AI that loves us rather than AI that repurposes all our molecules.

It’s complicated.  But it’s not more complicated than building Google, Baidu, the Internet, self-driving cars, New York or Beijing, or pulling off the Human Genome Project.  Humanity can solve very complicated problems, when it focuses even a quite modest subset of its attention.

Think about where we, as a society, are focusing our technology development efforts.  Google and Tesla are great companies, for example.  But how ultimately important is more effective online ad placement, and better creation of luxury cars?   Why is our economy and society organized so that so many of the best educated brilliant minds on the planet are focusing their attention on such things?   Of course, Google’s work on ads is funding its work on life extension (Calico); and Tesla’s work on luxury cars is funding its work on better batteries, which has very broad application.   In general — in spite of the developed world focusing the majority of its economy on the creation of things that exacerbate inequality and appeal to the more selfish, shallow human emotions — we are still getting amazing and important things done.

But it’s not clear that getting the important stuff done as a side-effect of building frivolous things to enrich or amuse the most wealthy is going to be good enough.

It may be that we really need some more direct focus on technologies with strong direct potential for global good.

Think about it.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

The Tech-Startup Attractor: Musings on the Thiel Fellowships, Singularity University, and the value of good old-fashioned universities


This Business Insider article on the outcome so far of the Thiel Fellowship experiment is interesting, though not surprising..

As you may recall, Peter Thiel launched the Thiel Fellowship program as a "20 under 20" initiative, with a stated aim of showing that - for bright ambitious youth anyway -- college is not necessary and is in many ways not the best way to spend 4 years of one's young adulthood.   The Thiel Fellows were each given $100K over 2 years, with a goal of supporting them in pursuing their own thoughts, dreams and visions....

As the Business Insider article reports, as the Fellowship experiment has continued for a few years, it has evolved a bit ... in the beginning it seemed like it was going to focus broadly on ambitious and brilliant youth with all sorts of creative new ideas and direction, and on giving them space to flesh out their thinking without needing to worry about paying the bills ... but it seems to have gravitated more toward a sort of "social network for young entrepreneurs", focusing mostly on young people with tech business projects reasonably likely to create near-term profit ... including many who are already having significant business success.   And the main value-add of the program is coming out to be, not the cash stipend, but rather the social network to which the Fellowship gives access.

All of which is great, and surely moves technology and business and society forwards a bit.   However, it does not whatsoever show that dropping out of college is a great path forward for youth in general.   What it shows is more like: IF you are young and want to start a tech biz based on an idea that appears to the Silicon Valley tech community to have significant near-term financial potential, THEN dropping out of school and into an extremely influential social network (well-connected with a host of high-net-worth individuals and impactful tech companies and VC funds etc. etc.) is a damn good idea, if you get the opportunity...

Well, yeah....  But this doesn't really say much about the pluses or minuses of going to college or getting a college degree if you DON'T have the opportunity to get rapidly embraced by a world-class social network like this...

I'm not especially an apologist for the contemporary university system, which annoys me in many ways, with  (among other problems) its focus on rote learning, its obsession with dividing knowledge into irrelevant disciplinary bins, and its tendency to squelch individual and group creativity.   

On the other hand, I have to admit that universities are the one area in human society that has consistently, over a long period of time (nearly a millenium!), provided an environment in which learning new things and developing radical new ideas is generally encouraged, apart from the short-term reward that such learning and ideas may bring.   All the egregious flaws of the university system aside, this is not to be scoffed at.

Society gives all of us a lot of pressure to pursue short-term reward in various ways, and on various levels.   Even as universities come to focus more on career-preparation majors, and professors are pushed to pull in grant funding rather than work on obscure  or out-there topics that funding agencies ignore -- still, compared to the other aspects of our society, universities seem by far the MOST supportive of learning and creation and invention not tied to short-term reward.

Of course there are non-university institutions that out-do universities in this regard, but they are small and scattered and end up not being accessible to most people.

Of course, nearly anyone in the developed world can find other ways to spend their time learning and creating, without enrolling in university.   But we are all susceptible to various social pressures, so -- even with all the information and communities available on the Internet -- it is still valuable to have a physical environment where learning and creation are core to the mission and vibe.

One point I often end up making in conversations about AI is that every one of the "deep neural net" algorithms being used by big tech companies these days, was invented by university professors and published in the academic literature.   Then the big tech companies took these (often via hiring said professors or their grad students) and implemented them more scalably and got amazing practical results.   But the core deep learning algorithms were invented in the university setting not the tech company setting, and they were invented alongside thousands of other algorithms, none of which had widely obvious commercial value at the time they were invented.   Many of these other algorithms will never prove practically valuable; some may ultimately prove far more valuable than deep neural networks.

Quantum computing obviously is the same way.  Where was quantum theory developed?  And where were the original ideas underlying quantum computing worked out?  Where are the speculative designs and lab experiments and math papers being done today, that are laying the groundwork for the quantum computers we'll have in our compute clouds 15-25 years from now ... for the Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) we'll have in our smartphones and smartwatches, in our robots' brains, maybe implanted in our own brains.   Hint: mostly not in venture-funded startups, nor in the labs of big tech companies...

The Thiel Fellowships are a cool program, but they don't seem to be fostering the kind of wide-ranging intellectual exploration and concept creation that universities -- in their screwed-up, contorted and semi-archaic way -- have so often fostered.   Rather they seem to be fostering some young people to do what Silicon Valley does best -- take ideas already formed by other folks and commercialize and market them, make them scalable and slick.   I don't want to discount this sort of work; I love my Android phone and Macbook and Google Search and all that too....   But this is a very particular sort of pursuit, and the fact that getting embedded in an awesome social network is more useful than university for this sort of thing, is pretty bloody obvious, right?

I see some parallels with how Singularity University (the non-degree granting educational organization, founded by Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis and others in Silicon Valley) has developed.   While I'm currently an advisor for SU's AI and robotics track, I'm not that intensively involved with the organization these days.    However, I was fairly heavily involved with SU when it was founded, and before it was founded. 

The initial legwork for putting SU together was largely done by Amara Angelica (who runs KurzweilAI.net for Ray) and Bruce Klein, who at the time was working for me as President of Novamente LLC.   I was paying Bruce a modest salary for his Novamente work, which covered his basic bills while he spent 6 months doing social networking trying to put together the founding meeting for Singularity University.   The founding meeting -- which I ended up not attending as I was busy with so much other stuff -- was a big success ... Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis shared their vision wonderfully and recruited the needed founding donations from the various individuals Bruce and Amara and their colleagues had gathered together (with help from Ray and Peter as well) ... and SU was off to the races ...

When Bruce and Amara and I were first talking about SU, however, our discussions had a pretty strongly Singularitarian vibe.   We were talking about how to radically accelerate progress toward AGI, mind uploading, Drexlerian nanotech, radical longevity, and so forth.   And in the first couple years of its existence, SU was fairly much in this vein, though already a bit more "startup bootcamp" oriented than we had been thinking.

Looking at SU now, it's awesome for what it is -- but it's become far more focused on short-term hi-tech business opportunities than it initially seemed would be the case.   SU has done a heap of good for the world, by bringing future-minded entrepreneurs and others from all around the world together, to social network with Silicon Valley tech leaders and brainstorm on how to create new startups using advanced tech to improve the world. 

And much as with the Thiel Fellowship, I believe the  main value-add SU has ended up providing to its students is the social network.   Definitely, for a future-oriented business executive or scientist from Quatar or China or Bolivia or Ethiopia, the chance to get to know dozens to hundreds of Silicon Valley and international tech-biz geeks can be pretty priceless...

Perhaps much of what we see in both the Thiel Fellowship and Singularity University cases is merely the power of the "tech startup attractor" for programs based in Silicon Valley.    Silicon Valley is damn good at tech startups, and is not necessarily equally good at providing alternative means of giving young people broad education or space to wild-mindedly create new ideas ... nor at encouraging people to make huge leaps toward the Singularity in ways that don't promise short-term business success.... 

Of course, Silicon Valley doesn't have to be everything -- it's a big world out there, with lots of wealth and brilliance and capability in so many different places -- and it's incredibly impressive what things like the Thiel Fellowship and Singularity University are contributing to the world.   But the relatively small role these sorts of things play in the bigger picture of what's going on on the planet, should also not be lost sight of...

So far, universities are still pretty damn useful, in terms of providing environments for young people to learn how to learn, and space for young people to create and grow without the world's usual pressures.... 

And so far, the challenge of directing significant resources to really ambitious Singularitarian goals like AGI, mind uploading and Drexlerian nanotech, has yet to be met....   We are moving toward these goals anyway, and progress is excitingly fast by historical standards.   Yet it seems to me that we could be progressing faster and in many ways more beneficially and interestingly, if not for the tendency of more visionary initiatives to get sucked into attractors related to short-term profit-seeking.... 

And it's also clear to me, that, in our current path toward a radically better future, good old traditional universities are continuing to play a very central role, in spite of all their archaic peculiarities.  I would love for far better modes of social organization to emerge, but this process is still underway; and currently the Silicon Valley tech-startup network -- with all its diverse and fascinating manifestations -- is more a complement to traditional universities than an alternative...






Monday, October 31, 2016

SEMREM: The Search for Extraterrestrial, Morphically-REsonating Mathematicians

-->
An interesting idea came up in an email thread with my dad Ted Goertzel, his friend Bill McNeely, and my son Zar Goertzel…

Suppose that morphic resonance works – so that when a pattern arises somewhere in the universe, it then becomes more likely to appear other places in the universe.   Suppose that, like quantum entanglement, it operates outside the scope of special relativity – so that when a pattern occurs on this side of the universe, its probability of occurrence is immediately increased way on the other side of the universe. 

(As with quantum entanglement, the language of causation is not really the best one to use here – rather than saying “pattern X occurring here increases the odds of pattern Y occurring there”, it’s better to say “in our universe, the odds of the same pattern occurring in two distant locations, sometimes with a time lag, is higher than one would expect based on straightforward independence assumptions” – this has the same empirical consequences and less needless metaphysical baggage.   I’ve pointed this out here )

Suppose also that the physical universe contains multiple intelligent species and civilizations, flung all over the place – scattered across our galaxy and/or multiple galaxies.

It would follow that when one intelligent civilization creates a certain pattern, other civilizations halfway across the galaxy or universe would have a higher probability of happening upon that same pattern.   And perhaps there would be an increasing-returns type dynamic here: once half the intelligent civilizations in the universe have manifested a certain pattern, the odds of the rest coming to manifest it would be much higher.

But what kinds of patterns would be most likely to get propagated in this way?   A pattern highly specific to Earthly life would not be likely to get picked up by gas-cloud aliens in some other galaxy – because morphic resonance, if it works, would only mildly increase the odds of a pattern being found in one location or context, based on it already having been found in another.    Most likely its mechanism of action would involve slightly nudging the internal stochastic dynamics of existing processes – and there is a limit to how much change can be enacted via such nudging.   If the odds of a certain Earthly pattern being formed in the world of the gas-cloud aliens is very low, morphic resonance probably isn’t going to help.

Probably the most amenable patterns for morphic resonance based cross-intelligent-civilization transmission would be the most abstract ones, the ones that are of interest to as many different intelligent civilizations as possible, regardless of their particular cultural or physical  or psychological makeup.    Mathematics would seem the best candidate.

So, if this hypothesis is right, then mathematical theorems and structures that have already been discovered by alien civilizations elsewhere, would be especially easy for us to find – we would find ourselves somehow mysteriously/luckily guided to finding them.

It’s not hard to imagine how we might test this hypothesis.   What if we built a giant AGI mathematical theorem prover, and set it about searching for new mathematical theorems, proofs and structures in a variety of different regions of math-space.   Based on all this activity, it would be able to develop a reasonably decent estimator of how difficult it should be, on average, to discover new theorems and proofs in a certain area of mathematics.  

Suppose this AGI mathematician then finds that certain areas of mathematics are unreasonably easy for it – that in these areas, it often seems to “just get lucky” in finding the right mathematical patterns, without having to try as hard as its general experience would lead it to suspect.   These areas of mathematics would be the prime suspects for the role of “focus area of the intergalactic, cross-species community of morphically resonating mathematicians.”

Suppose the AGI mathematician is trying to solve some problem, and has to choose between two potential strategies, A and B.   If A lies in a region of math-space that seems to have lots of morphic resonance going on, then on the whole it’s going to be a better place to look than B.    But of course, every alien species is going to be reasoning the same way.   So without any explicit communication, the community of mathematically-reasoning species (which will probably  mostly be AGIs of some form or another, since it’s unlikely evolved organisms are going to be nearly as good at math as AGIs) will tend to help each other and collectively explore math-space.

This is an utterly different form of Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence – I’ll label it the “Search for Extraterrestrial Morphically-REsonating Mathematicians”, or SEMREM.  

As soon as we have some highly functional AGI theorem-provers at our disposal, work on SEMREM can begin!

P.S. -- After reading the above, Damien Broderick pointed out that species doing lots of math but badly could pollute the morphic math-space, misdirecting all the other species around the cosmos.   Perhaps this will be the cause of some future intergalactic warfare --- AI destroyer-bots will be sent out to nuke the species polluting the morphic math metaverse with wrong equations or inept, roundabout proofs ... or, more optimistically, to properly educate them in the ways of post-Singularity mathemagic...

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Symbiobility

I want to call attention here to a concept that seems to get insufficient attention: “symbiobility”, or amenability to symbiosis.

The word “symbiobility” appears to have been used quite infrequently, according to Google; but I haven’t found any alternative with the same meaning and more common usage.   The phrase “symbiotic performance” is more commonly used in biology and seems to mean about the same thing, but it’s not very concise or euphonious.

What I mean by symbiobility is: The ability to enter into symbiotic unions with other entities.

In evolutionary theory (and the theory of evolutionary computation) one talks sometimes about the “evolution of evolvability” – where “evolvability” means the ability to be improved via mutation and crossover.   Similarly, it is important to think about the evolution and symbiogenesis of symbiobility.

There are decent (though still a bit speculative) arguments that symbiogenesis has been a major driver of biological evolution on Earth, perhaps even as critical as mutation, crossover and selection.  Wikipedia gives a conservative review of the biology of symbiogenesis.  Schwemmler has outlined a much more sweeping perspective on the role of symbiogenesis, including a symbiogenesis-based analysis of the nature of cancer; I reviewed his book in 2002.

One can think about symbiobility fairly generally, on various levels of complex systems.   For instance,

  •  Carbon-based compounds often have a high degree of symbiobility – they can easily be fused with other compounds to form larger compounds.  
  • Happily married couples in which both partners are extraverts also have a high degree of symbiobility, in the sense that they can be relatively easily included in larger social groups (without dissolving but also without withdrawing into isolation).


These usages could be considered a bit metaphorical, but no more so than many uses of the term “evolution.”

One of the weaknesses of most Artificial Life research, I would suggest, is that the Alife formalisms created have inadequate symbiobility.   I have been thinking about this a fair bit lately due to musing about how to build an algorithmic-chemistry-type system in OpenCog (see my blog post on Cogistry).    A big challenge there is to design an algorithmic-chemical (“codelet”) formalism so that the emergent systems of codelets (“codenets”) will have a reasonably high degree of symbiobility.  

My hope with Cogistry is to achieve symbiobility via using very powerful and flexible methods (e.g. probabilistic logic) to figure out how to merge two entities A and B into a new entity symbiotically combining A and B.   This requires that A and B be composed in a way that enables the logic engine in use to draw conclusions about how to best compose A and B, based on a reasonablye amount of resource usage.

In terms of the Maximum Pattern Creation Principle I have written about recently, it seems that symbiogenesis is often a powerful way for a system to carry out high-speed high-volume pattern creation.   In ideal cases the symbiotic combination of A and B can carry out basically the same sorts of pattern creation that A and B can, plus new ones besides.


As the world gets more and more connected and complex, each of us acts more and more as a part of larger networks (culminating in the so-called “Global Brain”).   This means that symbiobility is a more and more important characteristic for all of us to cultivate – along with evolvability generally, which is a must in a world so rapidly and dramatically changing.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

MaxPat: The Maximum Pattern Creation Principle


I will argue here that, in natural environments (I’ll explain what this means below), intelligent agents will tend to change in ways that locally maximize the amount of pattern created.    I will refer to this putative principle as MaxPat.

The argument I present here is fairly careful, but still is far from a formal proof.  I think a formal proof could be constructed along the lines of this argument, but obviously it would acquire various conditions and caveats along the route to full formalization.

What I mean by “locally maximize” is, roughly: If an intelligent agent in a natural environment has multiple possible avenues it may take, on the whole it will tend to take the one that involves more pattern creation (where “degree of patternment” is measured relative to its own memory’s notion of simplicity, a measure that is argued to be correlated with the measurement of simplicity that is implicit in the natural environment).

This is intended to have roughly the same conceptual form as the Maximum Entropy Production Principle (MEPP), and there may in fact be some technical relationship between the two principles as well.   I will indicate below that maximizing pattern creation also involves maximizing entropy in a certain sense, though this sense is complexly related to the sort of entropy involved in MEPP.

Basic Setting: Stable Systems and Natural Environments

The setting in which I will consider MaxPat is a universe that contains a large number of small “atomic” entities (atoms, particles,  whatever), which exist in space and time, and are able to be assembled (or to self-assemble) into larger entities.   Some of these larger entities are what I’ll call Stable Systems (or SS’s), i.e. they can persist over time.   A Stable System may be a certain pattern of organization of small entities, i.e. some or all of the specific small entities comprising it may change over time, and the Stable System may still be considered the same system.  (Note also that a SS as I conceive it here need not be permanent; stability is not an absolute concept...)

By a “natural environment” I mean one in which most Stable Systems are forming via heavily stochastic processes of evolution and self-organization, rather than e.g. by highly concerted processes of planning and engineering.  

In a natural environment, systems will tend to build up incrementally.   Small SS’s will build up from atomic entities.   Then larger SS’s will build up from small SS’s and atomic entities, etc.    Due to the stochastic nature of SS formation, all else equal, smaller combinations will be more likely to get formed than bigger ones.  On the other hand, if a bigger SS does get formed eventually, if it happens to be highly stable it may still stay around a while.

To put it a little more explicitly: The odds of an SS surviving in a messy stochastic world are going to depend on various factors, including its robustness and its odds of getting formed.   If formation is largely stochastic and evolutionary there will be a bias toward: smaller SS’s, and SS’s that can be built up hierarchically via combination of previous ones…  Thus there will be a bias toward survival of SS’s that can be merged with others into larger SS’s….   If a merger of S1 and S2 generally leads to S3 so that the imprint of S1 and S2 can still be seen in the observations produced by S3 ( a kind of syntax-semantics continuity) then we have a set of observations with hierarchical patterns in it…

Intelligent Agents Observing Natural Environments

Now, consider the position of an intelligent agent in a natural environment, collecting observations, and making hypotheses about what future observations it might collect.

Suppose the agent has two hypotheses about what kind of SS might have generated the observations it has made so far: a big SS of type X, or a small SS of type Y.   All else equal, it should prefer the hypothesis Y, because (according to the ideas outlined above) small SS’s are more likely to form in its (assumed natural) environment.   That is, in Bayesian terms, the prior probability of small SS’s should be considered greater.

Suppose the agent has memory capacity that is quite limited compared to the number of observations it has to process.  Then the SS’s it observes and conjectures have to be saved in its memory, but some of them will need to be forgotten as time passes; and compressing the SS’s it does remember will be important for it to make the most of its limited memory capacity.   Roughly speaking the agentwill do better to adopt a memory code in which the SS’s that occur more often, and have a higher probability of being relevant to the future, get a shorter code.   

So, concision in the agent’s internal “computational model” should end up corresponding roughly to concision in the natural environment’s “computational model.”

The agent should then estimate that the most likely future observation-sets will be those that are most probable given the system’s remembered observational data, conditioned on the understanding that those generated by smaller SS’s will be more likely.  

To put it more precisely and more speculatively: I conjecture that, if one formalizes all this and does the math a bit, it will turn out that: The most probable observation-sets O will be the ones minimizing some weighted combination of

  • Kullback-Leibler distance between: A) the distribution over entity-combinations on various scales that O demonstrates, and B) the distribution over entity combinations on various scales that’s implicit in the agent’s remembered observational data
  •  The total size of the estimated-likely set of SS generators for O


As KL distance is relative entropy, this is basically a “statistical entropy/information based on observations” term, and then an “algorithmic information” type term reflecting a prior assumption that more simply generated things are more likely.

Now, wha does this mean in terms of “pattern theory”?  -- in which a pattern in X is a function that is simpler than X but (at least approximately) produces X?   If one holds the degree of approximation equal, then the simpler the function is, the more 'intense" it is said to be as a pattern.

In the present case, the most probable observation-sets will be ones that are the most intense patterns relative to the background knowledge of the agent’s memory.  They will be the ones that are most concise to express in terms of the agent’s memory, since the agent is expressing smaller SS generators more concisely in its memory, overall.

Intelligent Agents Acting In Natural Environments

Now let us introduce the agent’s actions into the picture. 

If an agent, in interaction with a  natural, environment, has multiple possible avenue of action, then ones involving setting up smaller SS’s will on the whole be more appealing to the agent than ones involving setting up larger SS’s. 

Why?  Because they will involve less effort -- and we can assume the system has limited energetic resources and hence wants to conserve effort. 

Therefore, the agent’s activity will be more likely to result in possible scenarios with more patterns, than ones with less patterns.   That is -- the agent’s actions will, roughly speaking tend to lead to maximal pattern generation -- conditioned on the constraints of moving in the direction of the agent’s goals according to the agent’s “judgment.”  

MaxPat

So, what we have concluded is that: Given the various avenues open to it at a certain point in time, an intelligent agent in a natural environment will tend to choose actions that locally maximize the amount of pattern it understands itself to create (i.e., that maximize the amount of pattern created, where “pattern intensity” is measured relative to the system’s remembered observations, and its knowledge of various SS’s in the world with various levels of complexity.)    

This is what I call the Maximum Pattern Creation Principle – MaxPat.

If the agent has enough observations in its memory, and has a good enough understanding of which SS’s are small and which are not in the world, then measuring pattern intensity relative to the agent will be basically the same as measuring pattern intensity relative to the world.  So a corollary is that: A sufficiently knowledgeable agent in a natural environment, will tend to choose actions that lead to locally maximum pattern creation, where pattern intensity is measured relative to the environment itself.


There is nothing tremendously philosophically surprising here; however, I find it useful to spell these conceptually plain things out in detail sometimes, so I can more cleanly use them as ingredients in other ideas.    And of course, going from something that is conceptually plain to a real rigorous proof can still be a huge amount of work; this is a task I have not undertaken here.