One of the things I worry about most is not being able to recall the great experiences that have happened to me over time. It’s not about forgetting that I went to the beach in Israel that one time, or any other highlight event. Those types of events should be captured as well, of course, but I am speaking of the more subtle, and ultimately more valuable, types of positive experiences.

Leading this field in my mind is falling asleep with my girl. Cuddle (which we call “wuddle” for some silly reason) is definitely among my favorite experiences, and a very real problem presents itself to me quite often regarding this activity:

The feeling of falling asleep with your girl, in a comfortable bed, while warming each other against the cold outside the covers and telling each other how much you love one another…is simply magical. I quite often simply want to capture the moment, and I cannot.

And that’s really the issue. I cannot capture it. And because I cannot capture it, I cannot replay it.

There are so many things that could be captured. The feel of the bed. How tired you are. How achy your body is. How good it will feel to sleep. How she feels.

These all change. You have different states of your own body when going to sleep. You have better and worse beds. You have different thoughts on the mind when entering that state. Sometimes you feel triumphant, and laying with her is a prize. Other times you feel defeated, and laying with her serves as rebuilding and reassurance.

These are all subtle flavors in the single best concoction we as humans consume: experience. I’ve been with my girl for over 20 years, and we speak often about appreciating our time together. When it rains we remember our time in hotels when I would come visit her while living 7 hours apart for years at a time.

The rain is one of the flavors. The longing is another. Finally being with her after thinking of it for weeks at a time beforehand — all these things change and magnify other notes in the experience, and the result is always uniquely incandescent.

But they’re gone.

When we are 80 we will remember very little of these experiences. We will have a faint, amorphous glow where individual images used to be. A trace of a smell where a pleasant taste used to be. They will be no more. Instead of remembering, we will remember remembering.

This deeply depresses me. I want to remember each of those times. Not constantly, of course, but to have them available to experience again.

Extraordinary, Inevitable

So the idea is simple, and there is no question in my being whether or not this will happen:

As we master the decoding of memory and experience, we will gain the ability to store — on demand — the current experience being felt.

It will be a snapshot — very short at first, and likely limited in many ways. But as time goes on we’ll be able to simply invoke a mental command to “save”, or “capture”, and that moment of bliss or triumph or ecstasy will be stored forever as an experience clip.

We have archaic, proxied versions of this now: photographs, audio recordings, and video. They are weak because they are stimuli that cause experiences, not experiences themselves. The experience is what happened in the brain at that moment as a result of the stimuli, and that depends on the exact conditions, thoughts, perspectives, and feelings of the subject.

We will still store the raw inputs as well, of course, as that gives you the chance to have a different experience, and for others to have one that is similar, but different, from your own. It’s valuable for a different reason, but in no way identical to storing the finished product.

I mentioned the act of storing these experiences manually, i.e. invoking a command to store. This itself will be a rudimentary implementation of the technology, as more advanced versions will simply monitor the brain and create snapshots according to rules that you’ve defined. This spawns a myriad of interesting questions, such as whether or not discrete thoughts will be stored, or only feelings — since storing thoughts that can later be retrieved presents an entirely new set of challenges¹.

So, imagine if you can, instead of having photo albums, or video recordings, what if you had 40,000 experience snapshots that you could replay through your life.

Imagine a display technology that projects in three dimensions throughout your living space — where you can see a timeline of your life, marked by things like diapers, first time eating ice cream, breakups, seeing your child walk for the first time, every time you’ve cuddled with your soulmate, etc. — and upon selecting a specific moment in time you can go to all of the stored experiences there.

You will then enter some sort of special, calmed state where you will overlay or inject that experience into yourself. You will again feel the covers on your skin. You’ll feel your girl’s body on yours, you’ll hear the words about love, and feel how they made you feel.

You’ll be there.

When I’m 117, that sounds like a great way to spend a vacation. People will call them reflection periods. You take a vacation and reflect, through direct experience, on the highs (and lows perhaps)² of your life.

I really want this right now. Others don’t want it only because they haven’t thought about it yet. Once it becomes possible it will become necessary. Our time in this world is nothing if it isn’t experienced, and this is nothing less than the chance to live multiple times in one lifetime.

Applications

So I’ve covered above the basic idea, and now I’ll explore briefly a few ways it could manifest. I mentioned a few of the experiences that could be stored, but let’s compile a quick list — from childhood to death:

• looking at your mother as a toddler
• eating your first ice cream
• nursing (stay with me)
• pooping (think about the fixations)
• eating an orange for the first time
• confusing a jalapeño with a piece of candy at age 2.5
• hearing “I love you” for the first time while in secondary school
• catching a touchdown pass
• driving your first car
• getting your first paycheck
• seeing your baby on ultrasound
• holding your baby for the first time
• watching your baby walk
• watching your parents pass away, after recently replaying seeing them for the first time
• watching your children do the things above

Think of anything that is a joy in this life — things that perhaps you don’t even get to do:

• a pop star can export his experience of performing live in front of 10,000 people
• an astronaut can export the feeling of looking down at the earth for the first time
• women can export the experience of child birth
• both genders can export their orgasms (see porn¹⁰)

And that brings us to the next, rather obvious and collosal point:

These experiences can be shared.

This isn’t just a way for people to re-experience (see remember) their own experiences, but also a way for the whole world to share them.

Getting away from the positive for just a moment, it’s quite predictable that charities and humanitarian groups will deploy this technology to suffering peoples and then export their experiences in order to prod the capable but apathetic into offering assistance.

The applications are staggering. It’s a way to articulate the promise of a truly shared human experience. That seems far more grand than simply having an archive of one’s own experiences, but I look to that first.

Not only will the experience archiving for personal benefit come first due to necessity (see market drive), but it’ll likely be easier as well, and thus will be possible first.

I desperately await this development. I find it almost cruel that the elderly are not just robbed of the ability to make new memories of these types, but that they are also abstracted by the limitations of the mind from the experiences they’ve already had.

We are nothing but the summation of what we’ve experienced, and this technology will serve as a way to recapture and restore tangible form to our withering identities. It’s a way to remember ourselves. ::

Notes

¹ Thought police.
² The experience replay interface will be color or shape coded to indicate positive, negative, ecstasy, love, power, etc.

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

I’m reminded of Worf in “Hotel Royal” when he tries to talk to an elevator.

Seems to be malfunctioning…

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

I believe that humans transferring their minds to digital form is inevitable. In fact, I think it’s precisely the way in which we as a species will achieve immortality.

That’s interesting, of course, but what may be more intriguing is the problem that will come from it. The issue is that once we are digital it will be nearly effortless to replicate us.

Neal Stephenson recently said that games like World of Warcraft are the future of the Metaverse he described. And WoW is a good model for my point as well.

When identities are digital there must be strict, centralized control over that digital reality. Blizzard is God in WoW, as would be expected. They have the power to populate Frostmane with nothing but thousands upon thousands of your character.

Your exact character.

Us becoming digitized is inevitable, and as a result we will have to face that problem just as Blizzard has. The question is — who will be our Blizzard? What controlling entity will ensure that there is only one of you in this world? Computer glitches could result in millions of you, or perhaps four — some of which are earlier versions.

If you think the government controls too much of your life now — or that corporations have too much influence over our day-to-day lives today — consider that it will be one of these entities (or some combination thereof) that will control every aspect of who we are: we’ll look like to others, where we can go, what abilities we have, etc.

And while this will be very different than our world today, there will still be corruption and influence from the rich. I cannot help but imagine that corruption in this world will mean the rich will be able to teleport and shoot lighting from their hands, while the poor will have to use public transportation and wait in line at Safeway.

Imagine all the advantages that rich and powerful humans have in this world, and compound them to the limits of our imaginations. Sexual harems, mind control, the ability to take a Google Earth tour by flying like Superman, etc. — these will all be possible inside this other reality. And just as now these things will be restricted and metered out to the masses while being common among the elites.

I digress. There are many interesting things to write about when considering what this world will look like. One is the have/have-nots disparity moving to a superhero scale, but my original point remains just as serious (and likely far more immediate and practical): it will be very easy to replicate us, and some organization will be responsible for seeing that it doesn’t happen. ::

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

via looxcie.com

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/lifecasting-what-it-is-and-how-it-will-change-…

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

I see the cloud as a means by which business units will disentangle themselves from internal IT shops, eventually moving to a model where internal IT equates to one primary component, which are high-power IT experts with exemplary communication skills who serve as proxies between the business unit and outsourced IT services. There will be a small shop of these people for each business in broad areas such as development and infrastructure.

People in these groups will be highly skilled in a wide range of IT disciplines and will excel at understanding business requirements and being able to translate them into requests for outsourced services. The reason this model will dominate is because using an internal IT shop is like hiring family members to do work on your house; it’s nice to have family do the work rather than a stranger, but only until things go wrong. Then it’s much, much worse.

Basically, the trend will be for businesses to have the following components:

1. Business
2. Technical consultants that coordinate outsourcing (go-betweens)
3. Giant pools of liquid consulting services in Infrastructure, Applications, Security, Development, etc.–mostly based out of the cloud.

In other words, everything will be obfuscated from the business–even more so than it is now. So when the business has a need, they get on the phone and tell their go-between what they want, in business terms. The go-between then translates that request to outsourced services terms and gets things moving.

So instead of business account reps getting with IT and asking/requesting for some sort of service, the go-between will get on the phone with his favorite four outsourced solutions, which are just giant liquid pools of resources, and make them compete for the business. Then the implementation will be:

• 6 CloudServ Servers
• 15 DevNet developers
• 1 UberSecure Security Consultant

…and coordination to get them all working together as an ad-hoc team, which they will be highly familiar with.

The key advantage here is that any issue the go-between has with one of the developers is immediately fixable. One phone call–he’s not on the project anymore. He’s just one instantiation of $clouddeveloper, just as the servers are instantiations of $cloudinfrastructure.

This provides the business the most agility. Availability and security concerns are handled by the legal department and insurance, via SLAs. So the cloud becomes this amorphous, liquid mass of instantaneous service across all areas of IT–all with their own security and SLA promises–ready to cater to the businesses out there that need them.

This is where the IT worker comes in. There will be a few basic job roles in this new paradigm:

1. The local fix-it guy. You work for a contracting company in their support division. You are an instantiation of $desktopguy, or $networkcable. You live in a certain city and thus get “assigned” to local companies as your company wins contracts with local businesses. So there will still be IT staff onsite doing cabling, upgrading desktops, etc., but this will all be handled through outsourced contracts.

2. The go-between. This is one of the few IT people that actually works directly for the business as an employee. They manage all the outsourcing in tune with business needs. These are very high-level and respected positions–requiring skillsets of consultants, account reps, and executives simultaneously.

3. The cloud-based consultant. These are the experts in all the various IT fields that travel from place to place doing their trade. They all work for outsourcing companies which are constantly competing to be the primary choice for businesses. Each company will have specializations, but many will be one-stop-shops like we see today.

Anyway, this is all very early-stage thought. I’d love to hear feedback. ::

The idea is that people post in multiple places, and that search engines need to track them across all of them, not just their highly ranked home URL.

So basically, the reputation rank would be on the person, not the URL.

This is a neat idea, and it’s pretty much like whuffie from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

In the novel, everyone walked around with a reputation score hovering above them, which was a combination of all their various contributions to society. And as you did things your score would go up and down.

Interesting. ::

http://hanson.gmu.edu/wildideas.html

On similar topics is one of my favorite essays of all time, by Bill Joy:

Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us

::

A friend recently forwarded me an email I sent to him in 2004. It was part of conversation about where messaging was going, e.g. texting vs. email vs. voice, etc. Specifically we were discussing how South Koreans thought email was for old people, and that they were using SMS as their primary method of communication:

Here’s what I wrote:

Soon, it’ll just be information, and where you are when you get it won’t matter all that much. The only difference between getting it at home and getting it while SCUBA diving will be the frills on the interface.

So this raises the question: what are the real differences in messaging? Why are there even still distinctions between types of messages? Why is email called email, when most people just use it for text? WhLet’s start with a list of differentiators:

Medium Capabilities

1. Media Support: text, rich formatting, images, voice, video, *hologram
2. Endpoint Addressing: email address, phone number, *PersonalID
3. Client Capabilities: mobile phone keyboards, full home keyboards, microphones, mobile phone displays, home displays

…and now the implementations:

Existing Technologies

1. Email
2. Text Messaging
3. Voicemail
4. IM

In other words, why can’t email do voicemail? Why can’t “text” messages handle rich text? Why can’t you send text in a voicemail? Etc. What are the fundamental lines that cannot be blurred?

And if any such lines exist, why do they? Are they not just limitations of implementation, and not of any inherent distinctions?

It’s All About the Human

So the answer is that there were really three reasons for these distinctions being created between email, IM, texting, and voice.

1. It’s just how the technology evolved. We had email before mobile phones, so it came before SMS, etc. Same with voicemail; it came naturally given the fact that we already had a teleophone system.
2. Related to that is the issue of technology permeation. You can only use mediums that other people are using as well, so it depends on the infrastructure being there.
3. Capabilities are constrained by the limitations of human-to-device interface. So we haven’t been doing full video on mobile phones until recently because the devices couldn’t handle it, but now they increasingly can. Not to mention the networks the content has to traverse.

Consolidation

The point of highlighting all these distinctions is to show that they are going away, and what will remain is a system where all devices will have the ability to create and display all of the various types of media.

At that point it’ll just be messaging. Not email. Not text. Not video. Not voice. Just a message that happens to be in one of these formats.

All systems, including your personal device (it won’t be called a phone for much longer) will be able to create messages in all of these formats, as well as view them as well. And of course your main systems at home will have the same capabilities, albeit with better processing, input, and output capabilities.

The main difference right now between texting and email is not the character limit or the media that’s supported; it’s the destination. Email requires an email address, whereas texting requires a phone number. And each of these have different privacy models. That’s where services like Google Voice come in.

The Future

The future is much simpler when it comes to messaging: you’ll have an identifier and people will send messages to it. From there you’ll have a set of rules to govern which types of messages, and from whom, get sent to you at which times and on which devices.

So it’ll be something like:

1. If the message is from anyone at work, and it’s the weekend, send any voice messages to my main queue, but if it’s text (that’s alphabet text, not SMS) then send it to my personal device (including the transcriptions of the voice messages).
2. If the message is from an unknown caller, transcribe all formats and place them in my queue after 6pm, otherwise send them to my personal device for screening.
3. If the message is from my wife, always send all formats to my personal device, at any time.
4. If the messages is from one of my friends, send text transcriptions to me, but all other formats to my queue for review.

etc.

The only distinction at that point will be human interface issues, i.e. type vs. speak vs. listen vs. watch, and the constraints of doing each of those during your day to day life. ::