The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

by Ray Kurzweil

Recognizing that black holes are the ultimate repository of intelligent computation, however, we can conclude that the utility function of optimizing black-hole production and that of optimizing intelligence are one and the same.

Once a planet yields a technology-creating species and that species creates computation (as has happened here), it is only a matter of a few centuries before its intelligence saturates the matter and energy in its vicinity, and it begins to expand outward at at least the speed of light (with some suggestions of circumventing this limit). Such a civilization will then overcome gravity (through exquisite and vast technology) and other cosmological forces—or, to be fully accurate, it will maneuver and control these forces—and engineer the universe it wants. This is the goal of the Singularity.

If I had to place a bet, I would put my money on the conjecture that circumventing the speed of light is possible and that we will be able to do this within the next couple of hundred years. But that is speculation on my part, as we do not yet understand these issues sufficiently to make a more definitive statement. If the speed of light is an immutable barrier, and no shortcuts through wormholes exist that can be exploited, it will take billions of years, not hundreds, to saturate the universe with our intelligence, and we will be limited to our light cone within the universe. In either event the exponential growth of computation will hit a wall during the twenty-second century. (But what a wall!)

If it is possible to engineer new universes and establish contact with them, this would provide yet further means for an intelligent civilization to continue its expansion. Gardner’s view is that the influence of an intelligent civilization in creating a new universe lies in setting the physical laws and constants of the baby universe.

Even if we are limited to the one universe we already know about, saturating its matter and energy with intelligence is our ultimate fate.

MOLLY 2004: Actually, Molly of the future, it’s our human pre-Singularity procreation that’s interesting. Your virtual procreation is, actually, a lot like that of the bacteria. Sex has nothing to do with it. MOLLY 2104: It’s true we’ve separated sexuality from reproduction, but that’s not exactly new to human civilization in 2004. And besides, unlike bacteria, we can change ourselves.

Hmmm, so the Singularity is what the Zen masters had in mind all along.

Philosophies of life rooted in centuries-old traditions contain much wisdom concerning personal, organizational, and social living. Many of us also find shortcomings in those traditions. How could they not reach some mistaken conclusions when they arose in pre-scientific times? At the same time, ancient philosophies of life have little or nothing to say about fundamental issues confronting us as advanced technologies begin to enable us to change our identity as individuals and as humans and as economic, cultural, and political forces change global relationships.

Gilder’s statement is understandable, as there are at least apparent similarities between anticipation of the Singularity and anticipation of the transformations articulated by traditional religions.

So, while being a Singularitarian is not a matter of faith but one of understanding, pondering the scientific trends I’ve discussed in this book inescapably engenders new perspectives on the issues that traditional religions have attempted to address: the nature of mortality and immortality, the purpose of our lives, and intelligence in the universe.

Most “big thinkers” are totally unaware of this big thought. In a myriad of statements and comments people typically evidence the common wisdom that human life is short, that our physical and intellectual reach is limited, and that nothing fundamental will change in our lifetimes. I expect this narrow view to change as the implications of accelerating change become increasingly apparent, but having more people with whom to share my outlook is a major reason that I wrote this book.

As Max More states, the last thing we need is another dogma, nor do we need another cult, so Singularitarianism is not a system of beliefs or unified viewpoints.

While it is fundamentally an understanding of basic technology trends, it is simultaneously an insight that causes one to rethink everything, from the nature of health and wealth to the nature of death and self.

Information is not knowledge. The world is awash in information; it is the role of intelligence to find and act on the salient patterns.

Death is a tragedy. It is not demeaning to regard a person as a profound pattern (a form of knowledge), which is lost when he or she dies. That, at least, is the case today, since we do not yet have the means to access and back up this knowledge.

As I see it the purpose of the universe reflects the same purpose as our lives: to move toward greater intelligence and knowledge. Our human intelligence and our technology form the cutting edge of this expanding intelligence (given that we are not aware of any extraterrestrial competitors).

Ideas are the embodiment and the product of intelligence. The ideas exist to solve most any problem that we encounter. The primary problems we cannot solve are ones that we cannot articulate and are mostly ones of which we are not yet aware.

Contemporary philosopher Max More describes the goal of humanity as a transcendence to be “achieved through science and technology steered by human values.”

“Man is a rope, fastened between animal and overman—a rope over an abyss.” We can interpret Nietzsche to be pointing out that we have advanced beyond other animals while seeking to become something far greater.

The transformation underlying the Singularity is not just another in a long line of steps in biological evolution. We are upending biological evolution altogether.

BILL GATES: I agree with you 99 percent. What I like about your ideas is that they are grounded in science, but your optimism is almost a religious faith. I’m optimistic also. RAY: Yes, well, we need a new religion. A principal role of religion has been to rationalize death, since up until just now there was little else constructive we could do about it. BILL: What would the principles of the new religion be? RAY: We’d want to keep two principles: one from traditional religion and one from secular arts and sciences—from traditional religion, the respect for human consciousness. BILL: Ah yes, the Golden Rule. RAY: Right, our morality and legal system are based on respect for the consciousness of others. If I hurt another person, that’s considered immoral, and probably illegal, because I have caused suffering to another conscious person. If I destroy property, it’s generally okay if it’s my property, and the primary reason it’s immoral and illegal if it’s someone else’s property is because I have caused suffering not to the property but to the person owning it. BILL: And the secular principle? RAY: From the arts and sciences, it is the importance of knowledge. Knowledge goes beyond information. It’s information that has meaning for conscious entities: music, art, literature, science, technology. These are the qualities that will expand from the trends I’m talking about.

BILL: We need to get away from the ornate and strange stories in contemporary religions and concentrate on some simple messages. We need a ch...

RAY: A charismatic leader is part of the old model. That’s something we ...

BILL: Okay, a charismatic computer, then. RAY: How about a charismatic operating system? BILL: Ha, we’ve already got that. So is there a God in this religion? RAY: Not yet, but there will be. Once we saturate the matter and energy in the universe with intelligence, it will “wake up,” be consci...

BILL: That’s going to be silicon intelligence, not biological intelligence. RAY: Well, yes, we’re going to transcend biological intelligence. We’ll merge with it first, but ultimately the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate. By the way...

BILL: Oh, it will be conscious. I just think it will be a different type of consciousness. RAY: Maybe this is the 1 percent we disagree on. Why would it be different? BILL: Because computers can merge together instantly. Ten computers—or one million computers—can become one faster, bigger computer. As humans, we can’t do that. We each have a distinct individuality that cannot be bridged.

BILL: Everything of value is fleeting. RAY: Yes, but it gets replaced by something of even greater value. BILL: True, that’s why we need to keep innovating.

At one’s first and simplest attempts to philosophize, one becomes entangled in questions of whether when one knows something, one knows that one knows it, and what, when one is thinking of oneself, is being thought about, and what is doing the thinking. After one has been puzzled and bruised by this problem for a long time, one learns not to press these questions: the concept of a conscious being is, implicitly, realized to be different from that of an unconscious object. In saying that a conscious being knows something, we are saying not only that he knows it, but that he knows that he knows it, and that he knows that he knows that he knows it, and so on, as long as we care to pose the question: there is, we recognize, an infinity here, but it is not an infinite regress in the bad sense, for it is the questions that peter out, as being pointless, rather than the answers.

Clearly, nonbiological entities will claim to have emotional and spiritual experiences, just as we do today. They—we—will claim to be human and to have the full range of emotional and spiritual experiences that humans claim to have. And these will not be idle claims; they will evidence the sort of rich, complex, and subtle behavior associated with such feelings.

People often talk about consciousness as if it were a clear property of an entity that can readily be identified, detected, and gauged. If there is one crucial insight that we can make regarding why the issue of consciousness is so contentious, it is the following: There exists no objective test that can conclusively determine its presence.

This limitation has to do with the very nature of the concepts of “objectivity” and “subjectivity.” Fundamentally we cannot penetrate the subjective experience of another entity with direct objective measurement. We can certainly make arguments about it, such as, “Look inside the brain of this nonbiological entity; see how its methods are just like those of a human brain.” Or, “See how its behavior is just like human behavior.” But in the end, these remain just arguments. No matter how convincing the behavior of a nonbiological person, some observers will refuse to accept the consciousness of such an entity unless it squirts neurotransmitters, is based on DNA-guided protein synthesis, or has some other specific biologically human attribute.

We assume that other humans are conscious, but even that is an assumption. There is no consensus among humans about the consciousness of non-human entities, such as higher animals. Consider the debates regarding animal rights, which have everything to do with whether animals are conscious or just quasi machines that operate by “instinct.” The issue will be even more contentious with regard to future nonbiological entities that exhibit behavior and intelligence even more humanlike than those of animals.

Our future primarily nonbiological selves will be vastly more intelligent and so will exhibit these finer qualities of human thought to a far greater degree.

From a practical perspective such claims will be accepted. For one thing, “they” will be us, so there won’t be any clear distinctions between biological and nonbiological intelligence.

They’ll have all the delicate emotional cues that convince us today that humans are conscious. They will be able to make other humans laugh and cry. And they’ll get mad if others don’t accept their claims. But this is fundamentally a political and psychological prediction, not a philosophical argument.

My point is that we cannot safely dismiss the question of consciousness as merely a polite philosophical concern. It is at the core of society’s legal and moral foundation. The debate will change when a machine—nonbiological intelligence—can persuasively argue on its own that it/he/she has feelings that need to be respected. Once it can do so with a sense of humor—which is particularly important for convincing others of one’s humanness—it is likely that the debate will be won.

We can measure certain correlates of subjective experience (for example, certain patterns of objectively measurable neurological activity with objectively verifiable reports of certain subjective experiences, such as hearing a sound).

Consider that we are unable to truly experience the subjective experiences of others. The experience-beaming technology of 2029 will enable the brain of one person to experience only the sensory experiences (and potentially some of the neurological correlates of emotions and other aspects of experience) of another person. But that will still not convey the same internal experience as that undergone by the person beaming the experience, because his or her brain is different.