The Future of the Mind (45 page)

This is because we have inherited the consciousness of our apelike ancestors. Some of our basic personality has probably not changed much in the
last one hundred thousand years, since the first modern humans emerged in Africa. A large portion of our consciousness is devoted to looking good and trying to impress members of the opposite sex and our peers. This is hardwired into our brains.

More likely, given our basic, apelike consciousness, we will merge with computers only if this enhances but does not totally replace our present-day body.

The Caveman Principle probably explains why some reasonable predictions about the future never materialized, such as “the paperless office.” Computers were supposed to banish paper from the office; ironically, computers have actually created even more paper. This is because we are descended from hunters who need “proof of the kill” (i.e., we trust concrete evidence, not ephemeral electrons dancing on a computer screen that vanish when you turn it off). Likewise, the “peopleless city,” where people would use virtual reality to go to meetings instead of commuting, never materialized. Commuting to cities is worse than ever. Why? Because we are social animals who like to bond with others. Videoconferencing, although useful, cannot pick up the full spectrum of subtle information offered via body language. A boss, for example, may want to ferret out problems in his staff and therefore wants to see them squirm and sweat under interrogation. You can do this only in person.

CAVEMEN AND NEUROSCIENCE

When I was a child, I read Isaac Asimov’s
Foundation Trilogy
and was deeply influenced by it. First, it forced me to ask a simple question: What will technology look like fifty thousand years in the future, when we have a galactic empire? I also couldn’t help wondering throughout the novel, Why do humans look and act the same as they do now? I thought that surely thousands of years into the future humans should have cyborg bodies with superhuman abilities. They should have given up their puny human forms millennia ago.

I came up with two answers. First, Asimov wanted to appeal to a young audience willing to buy his book, so he had to create characters that those people could identify with, including all their faults. Second, perhaps people in the future will have the option to have superpowered bodies but prefer to look normal most of the time. This would be because their minds have not
changed since humans first emerged from the forest, and so acceptance from their peers and the opposite sex still determines what they look like and what they want out of life.

So now let us apply the Caveman Principle to the neuroscience of the future. At the minimum, it means that any modification of the basic human form would have to be nearly invisible on the outside. We don’t want to resemble a refugee from a science-fiction movie, with electrodes dangling from our head. Brain implants that might insert memories or increase our intelligence will be adopted only if nanotechnology can make microscopic sensors and probes that are invisible to the naked eye. In the future, it might be possible to make nanofibers, perhaps made of carbon nanotubes one molecule thick, so thin that they would be able to make contact with neurons with surgical precision and yet leave our appearance unaltered, with our mental capabilities enhanced.

Meanwhile, if we need to be connected to a supercomputer to upload information, we won’t want to be tied to a cable jacked into our spinal cord, as in
The Matrix
. The connection will have to be wireless so we can access vast amounts of computer power simply by mentally locating the nearest server.

Today we have cochlear implants and artificial retinas that can give the gift of sound and sight to patients, but in the future our senses will be enhanced using nanotechnology while we preserve our basic human form. For instance, we might have the option of enhancing our muscles, via genetic modification or exoskeletons. There could be a human body shop from which we could order new spare parts as the old ones wear out, but these and other physical enhancements of the body would have to avoid abandoning the human form.

Another way to use this technology in accordance with the Caveman Principle is to use it as an option, rather than a permanent way of life. One might want the option of plugging into this technology and then unplugging soon afterward. Scientists may want to boost their intelligence to solve a particularly tricky problem. But afterward, they will be able to take off their helmets or implants and go about their business. In this way, we are not caught looking like a space cadet to our friends. The point is that no one would force you to do any of this. We would want the option of enjoying the benefits of this technology without the downside of looking silly.

So in the centuries to come, it is likely our bodies will look very similar to
the ones we possess today, except that they will be perfect and have enhanced powers. It is a relic of our apelike past that our consciousness is dominated by ancient desires and wishes.

But what about immortality? As we have seen, a reverse-engineered brain, with all the personality quirks of the original person, would eventually go mad if placed inside a computer. Furthermore, connecting this brain to external sensors so it could feel sensations from its environment would create a grotesque monstrosity. One partial solution to this problem is to connect the reverse-engineered brain to an exoskeleton. If the exoskeleton acts like a surrogate, then the reverse-engineered brain would be able to enjoy sensations such as touch and sight without looking grotesque. Eventually the exoskeleton would go wireless, so that it would act like a human but be controlled by a reverse-engineered brain “living” inside a computer.

This surrogate would have the best of both worlds. Being an exoskeleton, it would be perfect. It would possess superpowers. Since it would be wirelessly connected to a reverse-engineered brain inside a large computer, it would also be immortal. And lastly, since it would sense the environment and look appealingly like a real human, it would not have as many problems interacting with humans, many of whom will also have probably opted for this procedure. So the actual connectome would reside in a stationary supercomputer, although its consciousness would manifest itself in a perfect, mobile surrogate body.

All this would require a level of technology far beyond anything that is attainable today. However, given the rapid pace of scientific progress, this could become a reality by the end of the century.

GRADUAL TRANSFERENCE

Right now the process of reverse engineering involves transferring the information within the brain, neuron for neuron. The brain has to be cut up into thin slices, since MRI scans are not yet refined enough to identify the precise neural architecture of the living brain. So until that can be done, the obvious disadvantage of this approach is that you have to die before you can be reversed engineered. Since the brain degenerates rapidly after death, its preservation would have to take place immediately, which is very difficult to accomplish.

But there may be one way to attain immortality without having to die first. This idea was pioneered by Dr. Hans Moravec, former director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. When I interviewed him, he told me that he envisions a time in the distant future when
we will be able to reverse engineer the brain for a specific purpose: to transfer the mind into an immortal robotic body even while a person is still conscious. If we can reverse engineer every neuron of the brain, why not create a copy made of transistors, duplicating precisely the thought processes of the mind? In this way, you do not have to die in order to live forever. You can be conscious throughout the entire process.

He told me that this process would have to be done in steps. First, you lie on a stretcher, next to a robot lacking a brain. Next, a robotic surgeon extracts a few neurons from your brain, and then duplicates these neurons with some transistors located in the robot. Wires connect your brain to the transistors in the robot’s empty head. The neurons are then thrown away and replaced by the transistor circuit. Since your brain remains connected to these transistors via wires, it functions normally and you are fully conscious during this process. Then the super surgeon removes more and more neurons from your brain, each time duplicating these neurons with transistors in the robot. Midway through the operation, half of your brain is empty; the other half is connected by wires to a large collection of transistors inside the robot’s head. Eventually all the neurons in your brain have been removed, leaving a robot brain that is an exact duplicate of your original brain, neuron for neuron.

At the end of this process, however, you rise from the stretcher and find that your body is perfectly formed. You are handsome and beautiful beyond your dreams, with superhuman powers and abilities. As a perk, you are also immortal. You gaze back at your original mortal body, which is just an aging shell without a mind.

This technology, of course, is far ahead of our time. We cannot reverse engineer the human brain, let alone make a carbon copy made of transistors. (One of the main criticisms of this approach is that a transistorized brain may not fit inside the skull. In fact, given the size of electronic components, the transistorized brain may be the size of a huge supercomputer. In this sense, this proposal begins to resemble the previous one, in which the reverse-engineered brain is stored in a huge supercomputer, which in turn controls a surrogate. But the great advantage of this approach is that you don’t have to die; you’d be fully conscious during the process.)

One’s head spins contemplating these possibilities. All of them seem to be consistent with the laws of physics, but the technological barriers to achieving them are truly formidable. All these proposals for uploading consciousness into a computer require a technology that is far into the future.

But there is one last proposal for attaining immortality that does not require reverse engineering the brain at all. It requires simply a microscopic “nanobot” that can manipulate individual atoms. So why not live forever in your own natural body, but with a periodic “tune-up” that makes it immortal?

WHAT IS AGING?

This new approach incorporates the latest research into the aging process. Traditionally there has been no consensus among biologists about the source of the aging process. But within the last decade, a new theory has gained gradual acceptance and has unified many strands of research into aging. Basically, aging is the buildup of errors, at the genetic and cellular level. As cells get older, errors begin to build up in their DNA and cellular debris also starts to accumulate, which makes cells sluggish. As cells begin to slowly malfunction, skin begins to sag, bones become frail, hair falls out, and our immune system deteriorates. Eventually, we die.

But cells also have error-correcting mechanisms. Over time, however, even these error-correcting mechanisms begin to fail, and aging accelerates. The goal, therefore, is to strengthen the natural cell-repair mechanisms, which can be done via gene therapy and the creation of new enzymes. But there is also another way: using “nanobot” assemblers.

One of the linchpins of this futuristic technology is something called the “nanobot,” or an atomic machine, which patrols the bloodstream, zapping cancer cells, repairing the damage from the aging process, and keeping us forever young and healthy. Nature has already created some nanobots, in the form of immune cells that patrol the body in the blood. But these immune cells attack viruses and foreign bodies, not the aging process.

Immortality is within reach if these nanobots can reverse the ravages of the aging process at the molecular and cellular level. In this vision, nanobots are like immune cells, tiny police patrolling your bloodstream. They attack any cancer cells, neutralize viruses, and clean out the debris and mutations.
Then the possibility of immortality would be within reach using our own bodies, not some robot or clone.

NANOBOTS—REAL OR FANTASY?

My own personal philosophy is that if something is consistent with the laws of physics, then it becomes an engineering and economics problem to build it. The engineering and economic hurdles may be formidable, of course, making it impractical for the present, but nonetheless it is still possible.

On the surface, the nanobot is simple: an atomic machine with arms and clippers that grabs molecules, cuts them at specific points, and then splices them back together. By cutting and pasting various atoms, the nanobot can create almost any known molecule, like a magician pulling something out of a hat. It can also self-reproduce, so it is necessary to build only one nanobot. This nanobot will then take raw materials, digest them, and create millions of other nanobots. This could trigger a second Industrial Revolution, as the cost of building materials plummets. One day, perhaps every home will have its own personal molecular assembler, so you can have anything you want just by asking for it.

But the key question is: Are nanobots consistent with the laws of physics? Back in 2001, two visionaries practically came to blows over this crucial question. At stake was nothing less than a vision of the entire future of technology. On one side was the late Richard Smalley, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and skeptical of nanobots.
On the other side was Eric Drexler, one of the founding fathers of nanotechnology. Their titanic, tit-for-tat battle played out in the pages of several scientific magazines from 2001 to 2003.

Smalley said that, at the atomic scale, new quantum forces emerge that make nanobots impossible. The error made by Drexler and others, he claimed, is that the nanobot, with its clippers and arms, cannot function at the atomic scale. There are novel forces (e.g., the Casimir force) that cause atoms to repel or attract one another. He called this the “sticky, fat fingers” problem, because the fingers of the nanobot are not like delicate, precise pliers and wrenches. Quantum forces get in the way, so it’s like trying to weld metals together while wearing gloves that are many inches thick. Furthermore, every time you try to weld two pieces of metal together, these pieces are either repelled or stick to you, so you can never grab one properly.