Russell Blackford – “Survival Beyond the Flesh” – Mind uploading would involve the use of an artificial substrate – some kind of advanced computational system – to emulate the activities of a biological brain. Proponents of uploading typically imagine this as a way to achieve survival beyond the flesh (and perhaps other advantages, such as greatly enhanced speed of thought and/or the opportunity to extend cognitive capacities in multiple ways).

The main advantages proposed for mind uploading presuppose that the same individual somehow “occupies”, or is instantiated by, both the biological brain (or the entire biological organism) and the computational system. But this is problematic. The problem can be thought of in terms of personal identity: if I have been uploaded onto an artificial computational system, is the resulting intelligence really “me” or is it in some sense a mere duplicate? Even if the cybernetic intelligence is not strictly “me”, is there at least some sense in which I can be said to have survived the experience, though my biological brain may have been destroyed? We will explore whether uploading would really represent survival beyond the flesh, and whether this might depend in some way on the details and circumstances. What is needed for cybernetic survival?

Philip Rhoades – “The Race for Survival” – Homo sapiens is in a race for survival – can the species get smart enough, fast enough, to survive the world’s current crises – which have been caused by the species itself? As individuals, what can we do to improve our longevity? – and even if we can, is it going to be worth the effort?

Robert Sparrow – “A Not-So-New Eugenics: The Harsh Logic Of Human Enhancement”Discussions of the potential for human enhancement through the use of genetic technologies, such as human cloning and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, take place in the shadow of the “old eugenics” of the beginning of the 20th century. Enthusiasts for making “better” human beings at the beginning of the 21st century typically hold that their “new” eugenics will respect the human rights that the old eugenics so brutally violated. Yet if the politics of the new eugenics is liberal—indeed, often libertarian—its ethics is typically consequentialist. In this presentation, I will argue that the tension between these two positions is much larger than advocates for human enhancement typically acknowledge. The logic of human enhancement pushes towards requiring parents to enhance their children. When applied to human beings, rather than offering a world of increased freedom, genetic technologies are likely to subject human nature to the narrow demands of technological rationality.

Cameron Reilly – “The Singularity & Social Media” – Selling the Singularity to Mum and Dad, and Socialising The Shite Out Of The Singularity. How social media will play an important role in helping the general public learn to stop worrying and love the Singularity. From Augmented Reality, to Immersive Reality and Beyond!

Peter Ellyard – “Designing 2050 Pathways To Sustainable Prosperity On Spaceship Earth” An inspirational blueprint for those wanting to be future makers rather than future takers, there is a third choice. We are at a tipping point in history. Globalisation, increased technological and social innovation,the growth of the educated middle class and democracy, and a shared awareness of our ecological vulnerability are combining to offer us a chance of designing sustainable, diverse societies which are prosperous in every way.

Prosthetic Head – “AI – Are we there yet? Are we there yet?” – This is not an illustration of a disembodied intelligence. Rather, notions of awareness, identity, agency and embodiment become problematic. Just as a physical body has been exposed as inadequate, empty and involuntary, so simultaneously the ECA becomes seductive with its uncanny simulation of real-time recognition and response. Initially decisions would have to be made about its database and whether The PROSTHETIC HEAD is a pathological, philosophical or simply a flirting head. A problem would arise though when the PROSTHETIC HEAD increases its database, becoming more autonomous in its responses. The artist would then no longer be able to take full responsibility for what his head says.

Stelarc – “The Cadaver, The Comotose and the Chimera” – We are living in an age of excess and indifference. Of prosthetic augmentation and extended operational systems. An age of Organs Without Bodies. Of organs awaiting bodies. There is now a proliferation of biocompatible components in both substance and scale that allows technology to be attached and implanted into the body. Organs are extracted and exchanged. Organs are engineered and inserted. Blood flowing in my body today might be circulating in your body tomorrow. An artificial heart circulates blood without pumping. A person is alive but his heart does not beat. Ova are fertilized by sperm that was frozen. We can
take the skin cell from an impotent male and reengineer it into a sperm cell. More interestingly, the skin cell from a female body might be made into sperm cell. Limbs can be reattached and reanimated. The face of a donor body becomes a third face on the recipient Cadavers can be preserved forever with plastination whilst comatose bodies can be sustained indefinitely on life-support systems. Cryogenically suspended bodies await reanimation at some imagined future. The dead, the near-dead, the undead and the yet to be born now exist simultaneously. This is the age of the Cadaver, the Comatose and the Chimera. Of proliferating liminal spaces where what becomes important is no longer what it means to be alive, but rather what constitutes being dead. The chimera is the body that performs with mixed realities. A biological body, augmented with technology and telematically performing with virtual systems. The chimera is an alternate embodiment. The body acts with indifference. Indifference as opposed to expectation. An indifference that allows something other to occur, that allows an unfolding- in its own time and with its own rhythm. An indifference that allows the body to be suspended with hooks into its skin, that allows an inserting of a sculpture into its stomach and that allows a ear to be surgically constructed and stem-cell grown on its arm.

• How can we build an ethical AI?
• Can we build an AI ethically?

The first question concerns the kinds of AI we might achieve — moral, immoral or amoral. The second concerns the ethics of our achieving such an AI. They are more closely related than a first glance might reveal. For much of technology, the National Rifle Association’s neutrality argument might conceivably apply: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But if we build a genuine, autonomous AI, we arguably will have to have built an artificial moral agent, an agent capable of both ethical and unethical behavior. The possibility of one of our artifacts behaving unethically raises moral problems for their development that no other technology can. Both questions presume a positive answer to a prior question: Can we build an AI at all? We shall begin our review there.

Greg Adamson – “Hindrances to Socially Beneficial Technology” - Technologies service many human needs. Socially beneficial technologies can also assist in resolving some of the world’s most pressing problems: climate change; access to safe drinking water; quality housing; universal health care. Often a technology already exists, awaiting to be applied. In other cases it is within grasp given appropriate prioritisation. This paper considers approximately 100 theories of and approaches to technology innovation and adoption regarding the question, How is the failure of socially beneficial technology explained? Approaches include legal, regulatory, political, philosophical, sociological, usage, psychological, technical, economic, commercial, and marketing…

Mike Georgeff – “Rationality, Intelligent Agents, and Survival” – How do we build rational machines and what does it mean to be rational? This talk will look at the evolution of intelligent software agents, including the early work at SRI International on Shakey the Robot and the beginnings of the modelling of the mental state of software agents in terms of their beliefs, goals and intentions.

Lev Lafayette – “Social Formations in a Transhumanist World” – A theoretical analysis of social formations assigns qualitative differences to social structures in socio-historical structures and in terms of individual development along formal pragmatics and action, differentiating between social systems and cultural lifeworlds. In the former, broad social formations (primitive, traditional and modern), correlated with means of communication (speech, writing, print), means of production (gathering, agriculture, industry), institutional means (kinship, the state, the corporation), systematic differentiation (kinship, political rank, economic class) and a mode of consciousness (mythic, religious, secular). In the latter, biological evolution of the self (infancy, early childhood, late childhood, adolescence and adulthood) correlates with neurological and social development of the person along cognitive, moral, identity and expressive dimensions.

Hugo deGaris – “AI – An Artilect war or a Technological Utopia? “ A major war before the end of the 21st century, resulting in billions of deaths, is almost inevitable. Intelligent machines (or ‘artilects’, a shortened form of ‘artificial intellects’) will be far more intelligent than humans and will threaten to attain world domination, resulting in a conflict between ‘Cosmists’, who support the artilects, and ‘Terrans’, who oppose them (both of these are terms of his invention). He describes this conflict as a ‘gigadeath’ war, reinforcing the point that billions of people will be killed.

Craig Pearce – “The Future of IT Security” – IT security is often referred to as an arms-race between the builders and breakers. Some feel that the breakers currently have the upper hand and that the gap will continue to grow. What will most likely concern us most about security and privacy in events leading towards a Technological Singularity; specifically: trends of privacy versus a ‘Participatory Panopticon’, conventional and quantum cryptography and every-day security threats that we will be up against in times ahead.

James Newton-Thomas - “Impact of the Singularity to the Citizen” – The problem with developing Strong AI is what goes into its seed, its initial conditions. It could prove very problematic if the Singularity sprouts from a Strong AI created by someone who’s ideology includes enslaving the world, or for some other completely selfish reasons.

Slade Beard – “Complex Systems and the Human Journey” – At the start of 2001-A Space Odyssey there is a scene where a group of apes experiencing a singularity style event is represented. The scene shows an ape learning to use a bone tool to kill for food. A new technology is developed and as a result the ape species can more effectively control a constrained resource. Then the ape turns the new tool to the task of defending another limited resource – in this case water. A new process is applied to an existing technology resulting in the killing of an enemy. Now a single group of apes can dominate the landscape. The game has changed.
Singularity is one of these future pivotal events. The Kuhnian paradigm shift that changes the game completely.
The human journey is, in my opinion, a set of steps where process is applied to the use of technology to shape or respond to the environment. We are good at it. We adapt technology, we change processes and we shape the environment around us. Then we store what we have learned and then teach it to each other. And so we adapt.
Rather than discuss the potentials held out by singularity or to debate the reality or otherwise of achieving singularity, I would like to take a moment to ponder the human capacity to adapt to these game changing moments. In order to understand how we will deal with the challenges of singularity (and in fact any event which changes the game) I would like to look back a little and see the human journey for the marvel that it is. That we have come so far and adapted so much is a stunning achievement. And there is a definite pattern to how we have undertaken this journey. I will present one viewpoint that sheds some light on this human journey.
From our look backward we will see, in looking forward, how we will adapt to the game changing events like singularity. The systems based viewpoint provides one lens through which we can look forward to these events and understand the human response both collectively and individually.