In 2005 Ray Kurzweil wrote his highly influential book The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Kurzweil, one of the most eminent futurists of our times, believed that machine intelligence would be on par with humans by the late 2020’s and that by 2045 they would surpass humans. A “singularity” is a metaphorical term borrowed from physics, and refers to an “event horizon” where a function ceases to be well behaved; where the system becomes unpredictable or uncontrollable. Perhaps irreversible. For Kurzweil, the moment when machines become smarter than us will represent a radical discontinuity in human development, resulting in unimaginable changes to human civilization.
Kurzweil has long argued that this singularity will be driven by the exponential advancement of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. He further suggests that eventually the boundaries between human and machine will blur, potentially enhancing human life and capabilities in unprecedented ways. Needless to say, not everyone is so enthusiastic about merging with the machines, or living for eternity on their modem.
OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT3.5 in November 2022 began what I call the AI explosion. The release multiple AI apps and platforms like GPT-4 in April 2023, and Deepthink R1 in 2025, has made such software widely accessible to the general public. Barely a week goes by without some new development (though some are talking about an AI Bubble). Not surprisingly, Kurzweil has been seen looking rather pleased with himself lately, given that we are indeed in an era of chaotic technological and social uncertainty, powered by artificial intelligence.
It’s all rather breathtaking. Yet is this truly Kurzweil’s “singularity”? Most people today would likely agree that AI has advanced at an incredibly fast rate in this century, and many would np doubt suggest that Kurzweil has been remarkably accurate in terms of his general predictions regarding AI (we shall address some of the critics in chapter X).
But when Kurzweil – and people like him – argue that machines are becoming smarter than people, what do they actually mean by “smart”? We need to be precise about this, given that for millennia humans have been arguing fiercely about what intelligence actually is, and the debate is still hotly disputed till this day. So, let’s take a closer look at Kurzweil’s notion of AI intelligence. Kurzweil focuses upon the following cognitive processes:
- Natural Language Understanding. Grasping context, nuance, metaphor, and emotional meaning in speech and text.
- Logical and Mathematical Reasoning. The ability to solve complex problems, reason abstractly, and draw conclusions from minimal information.
- Common Sense Reasoning. Understanding implicit knowledge — what humans take for granted without needing explanation.
- Creativity. Producing original content, ideas, art, or problem-solving approaches — not just copying patterns.
- Emotional and Social Intelligence. Recognizing and responding appropriately to human emotions and social cues.
- Learning Autonomously. Not just pre-programmed data crunching — the ability to self-improve, form new models, and learn from the environment.
Kurzweil emphasized that AI would need to demonstrate all these faculties in a cohesive, integrated fashion — not as isolated tricks — to qualify as being truly as smart as a human. Here Kurzweil is addressing the idea of artificial general intelligence (AGI), where a specific machine or machine system can actualise not just one narrow cognitive or physical task, but a wide array of skills, and solve a wide array of problems. For example, a robot named TOKUFASTbot, developed by Mitsubishi, can solve a standard Rubik’s cube in less than a third of a second (as of 2024), a feat even more remarkable than the incredible feat of mere human Xuanyi Geng of China, who holds the primate record of 3.05 seconds (set in 2025). Xuanyi might well be embarrassed if he had to compete against TOKUFASTbot; but not as embarrassed as the bot ought to be if it then raced against Xuanyu to tie a pair of shoelaces. For in an example of artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), TOKUFASTbot cannot do anything beyond the parameters of its design. It cannot even add together 1+1.
You might well point out that the bot wouldn’t be embarrassed at all, given that machines can’t feel a thing. They are not conscious. And this is where we begin to enter territory where Ray Kurzweil is on shakier ground. For as outlined in his 2012 book, How to Create A Mind, the (now) 78-year-old American computer engineer believes that machines can be conscious – like people. Indeed, he fully intends to upload his own aging mind onto a computer just before he shuffles off this mortal coil.
Kurzweil insists that human intelligence—and by extension, consciousness—can be reverse-engineered. All we need to understand is the brain’s pattern recognition processes, particularly in the neocortex. He argues that once we fully model these neuronal processes, we can recreate them on machines. This is why the American inventor believes that we will eventually be able to upload human minds onto computers. Ray Kurzweil therefore treats consciousness as an emergent property of complex computation. By logical extension, Kurzweil must believe that consciousness is “in the brain” and of the brain. But is that actually true? While many folk in mainstream science and across educated society agree with this materialist model of mind, in the actual scientific and philosophical debate on the nature of consciousness, things are much less clear than many people realise. As we shall see in chapter X, the materialist explanation of mind is just one of several competing models. All of these, including materialism, have their strengths and weaknesses. In the pages to follow, you will see a strong challenge to materialism, because it simply cannot account for many aspects of actual consciousness and human experience. One of these is the prime subject of the book you are now reading: the extended mind. Extended mind is consciousness spread out across time and space, seemingly in contradiction to many our common scientific principles of physics. But not all of them.
The principle of non-locality is actually mainstream in quantum physics. This refers to the phenomenon where two sub-atomic particles, once “entangled”（effectively, in contact）maintain a connection regardless of the distance separating them. When the spin or momentum of one particle is measured, the state of the other particle is instantly affected, even if it is light-years away. This challenges classical intuitions about locality and invites the totaling possibility that information can be shared instantaneously between entangled particles. Non-locality raises profound questions about the nature of reality and the limits of our understanding of space and time, as it implies that particles can influence each other without any apparent communication mechanism. As we shall see in chapter X, the Aspect Experiment, conducted in the early 1980s, was pivotal in demonstrating the phenomenon of quantum entanglement and provided crucial evidence supporting quantum mechanics’ non-locality. More recently, the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their pioneering experiments with entangled photons, affirming the reality of quantum non-locality.
Non-locality in quantum physics is an oft-referenced idea in alternative and new age books, videos and general discussions. But is it “the same thing” as non-locality of mind? My best answer is a simple “No.” But what it does indicate is that non-locality of mind is not simply at odds with physics. Non-locality is present in the natural world, at least at the sub-atomic level. And throughout this book I am going to argue that non-locality is also a “natural” property of consciousness itself, and that this has great implications for our understanding of intelligence, learning, life and of the nature of the cosmos itself.
And it has implications for Ray Kurzweil’s conception of mind and artificial intelligence, inviting the consideration of another possibly even more momentous singularity:” the precise moment in human history when mainstream science and society finally acknowledge the extant non-local nature of consciousness. And that moment is tantalisingly close. We humans – every single one of us – already has the lived experience of this reality. Indeed, it has been a common understanding of almost all human societies throughout history; and in the wisdom, spiritual and awakening traditions in particular. I believe that the scientific appraisal of the extended mind merely requires a more honest historical reassessment – and greater professional and financial recognition.
Therefore, there is an important distinction between mainstream thinking about the mind – such as ray Kurzweil’s – and what I am discussing in this book. Kurzweil is critical of “spiritual” and non-materialist interpretations of consciousness. He takes particular offense at the idea that consciousness is “irreducible’ (can’t be broken down into its component parts). Such considerations lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry, he claims.
This is not entirely true, though it may be in some precise considerations. But even if it were true, it does not in any way establish that materialism is an accurate explanation of consciousness, and that other models may not be a better fit. And it certainly does not disprove the existence of the extended mind.
I believe that Kurzweil’s concept of the singularity is quite a reasonable one, and indeed he deserves great credit for the accuracy of many of his claims and predictions. But his conception of the singularity is insufficient, because he fails to fully appreciate the distinction between intelligence and consciousness. We therefore need to consider “the other singularity,” and its profound implications for futures of human civilisation.
I have deliberately written this book to be somewhat imaginative and speculative, rather than strictly academic. Though I am enthusiastically referencing research in science, philosophy, history and academic disciplines, I want this to be an enjoyable ride for you, the reader. My goal is to stimulate your imagination of the reader, such that you might begin (or continue) your own deep reflection of the subject matter. Perhaps, like me, you will even begin to incorporate some of the elements of what I call “integrated intelligence” into your own life and reflective practices, if you have not already done so.
The key question I seek to answer is in The Other Singularity: what will human civilisation look like when our notion of consciousness shifts to incorporate the extended mind? How will our individual lives and out personal relationships change? How might our understanding and practice of science alter? And what of our relationship with nature, biology, life – and, indeed with this cosmos that has spawned us? And finally, what might the awareness of the extended mind have on our relationship with technology and artificial intelligence?
Marcus
