FastForward Radio, Episode 15

By | May 3, 2007
2 Comments

HoArt1.jpg

Stream the show:
  
quality="high"
bgcolor="#000307"
width="100" height="20"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
flashvars="soundFile=http://www.mypodcast.com/fsaudio/fastforward_20070502_0937-22579.mp3&bgcolor=0x000307&btncolor=0x676767&txtColor=0xFFFFFF&sldcolor=0xFFFFFF&loadercolor=0x676767"
/>

Or, click here to download (23.65 MB).

In this episode Phil wonders whether a robotic alarm clock that you have to chase every morning is a good thing. Is it “3-laws” compliant?

Next Phil and Stephen discuss what it takes to be a Transhumanist. Do you really have to be an atheist? Can we have both God and The Singularity? And don’t miss our survey results.

Then Phil and Stephen discussed personal freedom in the contexts of both genetic engineering and fab labs – the fab labs that can replicate themselves, and those that are big enough to print a house. Can we protect intellectual property while maximizing creativity?

Here are the books referenced in our podcast:

Music for this episode comes from Magnatune.com. This episode opened with a sample of the song “Fountain of Life” by Artemis. We closed the episode with “Sweet Melissa” from Chris Juergensen.

Just prior to publishing Episode 13, we changed the RSS feed for our show. Our apologies to our subscribers, but (if you haven’t already done so) you will need to resubscribe to the show at this feed:

http://fastforward.mypodcast.com/rss.xml

If you’ve never subscribed to a podcast before, your first step is to install podcast software. The most popular podcast software is the ubiquitous iTunes. Click here to download iTunes, or here to download other podcast receivers.

For more Speculicious podcasting fun, check out The L2si Report.

  • Vadept

    Regarding your latest podcast and your argument that you have to be an aetheist to believe intelligence is part of the “meat” of a body, I’m not sure I agree.

    Think of the difference between “hardware” and “software.” Clearly, much of the body’s ability to react and “do” is based on its hardware. If I sever your spine, I sever your ability to move your legs. No “soul” was cut, just your nerve tissue. Likewise, if I damage your brain, I’ll damage your cognitive ability, just like damaging a processor in a computer damages it’s ability to run programs.

    But this is seperate from “mind” or “soul,” or “software.” The ability to be “concious,” the “little person inside my head that sees what my eyes see and hear what my ears here” isn’t, a soul-believer might argue, a function of my meat, but a function of my spirit.

    But this has no bearing on “intelligence.” If you can augment my mind, I can cognate faster, just like if you upgrade my processor, my Windows runs more smoothly.

    What Singularity argues is that we can augment processor speed, not that you can augment consciousness.

    It might well be that conciousness IS a function of electro-chemical processes in the brain, but I don’t think that belief is necessary to believe in singularity.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    V:

    Actually it wasn’t Phil or I who suggested that one needs to be an atheist “to believe intelligence is part of the “meat” of a body.”

    That was the suggestion of our friend Michael Anissimov.

    Phil and I disagreed with that idea because we both believe in God but we also understand that who we are is a product of the material stuff in our heads.

    I’ve seen first-hand what happens to the spirit of a person when the brain deteriorates – with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. The light slowly fades. It’s not that they are “in there” fighting to get out like in the movie Awakenings. A late stage Alzheimer’s patient is gone in spirit while still present physically. This is why the disease is so hard on the family going through it.

    What Singularity argues is that we can augment processor speed, not that you can augment consciousness.

    I suppose that would depend on how you define consciousness. Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that.
    :-)