Discussion
Back to Publications & Opinion > Interviews ? Back to Homepage
The Future of Cybernetics
ABCNEWS.com
Part I: Peter Cochrane
Aug.6 — Ambitious efforts are under way morphing man and machine. Consider the work of researchers at British Telecommunications in the area of implanted chips. One project called “Soul Catcher? is trying to develop a computer that can be implanted in the brain to complement human memory and computational skills.
Are we controlling the machines or are they beginning to control us? Why are so many bright people trying to build a machine in the human image? Is that holding back the development of other kinds of technology?
Joining us today for a wide-ranging discussion of these and related topics: Dr. Peter Cochrane, chief technologist at British Telecom Labs. Below is a transcript of the chat.
Moderator at 12:03pm ET
Our first guest today is Dr. Peter Cochrane, chief technologist for British Telecom Labs. Dr. Cochrane, a celebrated futurist and specialist in "human-computer interfaces," leads a team concerned with charting the long-term future of technology, society and BT. The team is currently focused on artificial life and intelligence, intelligent agents and humanized interfaces as well as the raw technologies of fixed and mobile networks.
Dr. Peter Cochrane now joins us live from Madison, Wisconsin. Welcome to the chat. Please begin by simply defining cybernetics.
The melding of man and machine — a combining of silicone and carbon minds.
Richard Garner from [137.198.62.49], at 12:03pm ET
What major advancement do you feel has played the largest role in cybernetic technologies?
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:04pm ET
Boy that is a good question. But I think it has to be large scale integration of electronics — which has made possible platforms that will support evolutionary software.
Barry Kort from [152.163.195.188], at 12:04pm ET
Dr. Cochrane, What is your view of the emerging field of Affective Computing — endowing computers with the ability to sense, evaluate, and respond intelligently to the emotional state of the user?
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:08pm ET
The thing that distinguishes my laptop from an ant is its total lack of sensory system. In principle, my laptop computer is far more powerful and could be far more intelligent than any ant. But it will never be so until it has a sensory system connecting it to the world in which it exists. Having any computer that links a human in some emotional sense is going to be a very beneficial advancement. Today two fingers typing at 100 bits per second is a very poor interface to our world. I will give out 100 bits per second as I speak or as I type, but I will be taking in over 1 gigabit per second through my eyes. Unfortunately, my machine does the reverse. When we communicate as a species, emotional bits are the most important. They convey huge amounts of information with just a glance or a slight movement of our body position. If only computers could read this and also do it, how much better our interface would be.
Richard Garner from [137.198.62.49], at 12:09pm ET
On the Soul Catcher project, what kind of results have your initial testing produced? What kind of progress have you made?
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:16pm ET
The Soul Catcher Project was originated to track the progress of information technology being appended to the outside and the inside of humans in order to look at the implications for networking and telecommunications. We started by looking at external body monitors and repair technologies such as hearing aids and direct communication into the human nervous system for the control of prosthetics, and then moved on to look at the implications for intelligent pacemakers, artificial hearts, cochlea implants and artificial retinas.
During the study, there were a number of magical realizations. First of all, engineers and clinicians come with a mindset that says: We have to find the right part of the nervous system to tap for the right input and output signals. This was not the case. Carbon based nervous systems are able to reprogram their inputs and outputs to the right electronic terminations and therefore allow direct access to the human nervous system. To date, the most dramatic and beneficial results of this exploratory work have seen the embedding of microtransmitters into the brains of total paraplegics and have given a few people the ability to communicate directly with a computer by thinking. What they can actually do is move a cursor and select a function on a computer screen.
Our technology is like the Crystal Set radio of 1912, and we are trying to imagine a cellular mobile phone. Connecting directly to the human brain in a more effective way to capture more intricate thought processes will probably take another 20-30 years when our silicone computers will be a billion times more powerful than today.
Richard McGuire from tnt9.atl2.da.uu.net at 12:19pm ET
Are we on our way to becoming "BORG?" Are we in danger of being "assimilated by the collective?" I mean a government collective much like the Borg of Star Trek.
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:24pm ET
I think as a species we are in general far too rebellious, irreverent, and individualistic to become the BORG. And in that direction I see political systems as being far more dangerous than our technology. If we look back on our history, it is difficult to find a single technology that has not been beneficial to mankind until people and politics have become involved. It may be a radical thought but actually an atomic bomb is an incredible civil engineering tool. If you want to create a gas, oil or water containment vessel underground, the atomic bomb is an incredibly low cost means of achieving that objective. But unfortunately, we choose to use them as weapons of war. In complete contrast, the telephone network, broadcast radio and TV, and the Internet have brought down and disabled totalitarian states. And IT now literally brings life to people who would've either died at birth or earlier than they would've liked had it not been for communication allowing us to help each other. If I have the choice of dying or subsuming technology into my body, I'd like to live.
Andrew from [132.34.248.5], at 12:24pm ET
Dr. Cochrane, In regards to the melding of man and machine, while technologically we'll probably be *able* to do it, my question is, ethically, *should* we do it? Beyond possibly implants to help those with diseases such as Alzheimers, aren't we at risk of becoming "less human"?
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:30pm ET
This is all about choice. The reality is we have evolved to live in tribes of one or 2 thousand people and to meet 3 or four thousand people in a lifetime. Our skills and abilities are principally those of the hunter/gatherer. But our technological evolution is now millions of times faster than our biological evolution. I already think of my laptop computer as my third lobe. Without the memory capacity that is principally digital, to augment my carbon wetware, which is principally analog, I would be a puny human being indeed.
The choices we have to face in the future will go beyond life and death enhancement, where implants literally mean the difference of living and dying. When we have the choice to implant several terabytes of additional memory into our skull, I think the name of the game changes. We have to think carefully about this and what it means. But I suspect it may be less of a threat than those people taking anabolic steroids to enhance their muscles or those people contemplating genetic modification in order to approve their appearance or athletic prowess. It is very strange that people find it acceptable to promote and employ silicone implants and undergo cosmetic surgery while they worry about silicon implants which potentially can save our lives, extend our lives and amplify our thought processes. I don't think we will become the BORG at all. I think we may become even more individualistic.
Dr. Jonathan Maskit from [216.192.235.24], at 12:31pm ET
We can't discuss technological developments in a vacuum nor should we get side-tracked by the marvelousness of it all. We then debate whether we should or shouldn't do something. But we don't ask about who this "we" is. The "soul catcher" technology will be owned by a corporation who will presumably make it available only to those who can afford to pay. We risk making differences between rich and poor, and between first and third world, even more dramatic than they already are. Why should the money raised from British Telecom's rate-payers be used to develop a technology that most of them will never be able to afford?
Dr. Peter Cochrane at 12:34pm ET
First of all, I agree. But that is the nature of all technologies. Computers are purchased by the rich, and the net result is the technology advances becomes very, very low cost and then available to all. As a corporation, BT has a responsibility to monitor all technologies, experiment and anticipate the implications for society. If, for example, you had an intelligent pacemaker and desperately needed to get it online in 10 years' time so that adjustments could be made and your health could be checked across the planet, you would be very unhappy to hear that there was no network capacity available. This project is principally focused at working with the people who are developing these technologies rather than developing it ourselves.
Moderator at 12:36pm ET
Thank you Dr. Cochrane