Thursday, June 4, 2009

(Real Virtual )Human Simulation shows us "magick"



I know this will be the second time we explore project natal, but new findings are arising that give us a clue about the behavior of "real" humans and "virtual" humans.

I'm using the terms loosely considering that both versions may be virtual. Therefore I believe we should give them some form of spacial locations. What location, you ask? I have no idea at this moment. What do you call a matrix inside a matrix, or a universe inside a universe? So far the best description I have for this is called realmz of existence.


Before we explore deeper into the realm of simulation hypothesis again (yawns), let's first notice that Peter Molyneux states "what happens next is magick." It is important that you pick up on the key terms that will be used to describe cutting edge tech from here on out as technology quickly becomes indistinguishable from magick. A term not coined by me, but said very freely among Singularitarians. This is not the first example of this, I may make a short video showing you the growing trend of comparing technology to "magick"

(((((side thought))))) If I make the video I might call it "cutting edge magick"



So where will all this magick takes us? Hopefully into a realm that is similar to doors inside doors, only in this case each door is another universe.


Is it me but isn't all of this going to make it harder and harder to know what is real and what is virtual? What I believe might end up happening or has happened is that particles are both real and virtual and in that stew we call the Singularity point everything becomes both real and virtual. What exactly that means we'll have to explore later.


For now I will have to virtually say good bye to you guys.



(Real Virtual )Human Simulation shows us "magick"



I know this will be the second time we explore project natal, but new findings are arising that give us a clue about the behavior of "real" humans and "virtual" humans.

I'm using the terms loosely considering that both versions may be virtual. Therefore I believe we should give them some form of spacial locations. What location, you ask? I have no idea at this moment. What do you call a matrix inside a matrix, or a universe inside a universe? So far the best description I have for this is called realmz of existence.


Before we explore deeper into the realm of simulation hypothesis again (yawns), let's first notice that Peter Molyneux states "what happens next is magick." It is important that you pick up on the key terms that will be used to describe cutting edge tech from here on out as technology quickly becomes indistinguishable from magick. A term not coined by me, but said very freely among Singularitarians. This is not the first example of this, I may make a short video showing you the growing trend of comparing technology to "magick"

(((((side thought))))) If I make the video I might call it "cutting edge magick"



So where will all this magick takes us? Hopefully into a realm that is similar to doors inside doors, only in this case each door is another universe.


Is it me but isn't all of this going to make it harder and harder to know what is real and what is virtual? What I believe might end up happening or has happened is that particles are both real and virtual and in that stew we call the Singularity point everything becomes both real and virtual. What exactly that means we'll have to explore later.


For now I will have to virtually say good bye to you guys.



(Real Virtual )Human Simulation shows us "magick"



I know this will be the second time we explore project natal, but new findings are arising that give us a clue about the behavior of "real" humans and "virtual" humans.

I'm using the terms loosely considering that both versions may be virtual. Therefore I believe we should give them some form of spacial locations. What location, you ask? I have no idea at this moment. What do you call a matrix inside a matrix, or a universe inside a universe? So far the best description I have for this is called realmz of existence.


Before we explore deeper into the realm of simulation hypothesis again (yawns), let's first notice that Peter Molyneux states "what happens next is magick." It is important that you pick up on the key terms that will be used to describe cutting edge tech from here on out as technology quickly becomes indistinguishable from magick. A term not coined by me, but said very freely among Singularitarians. This is not the first example of this, I may make a short video showing you the growing trend of comparing technology to "magick"

(((((side thought))))) If I make the video I might call it "cutting edge magick"



So where will all this magick takes us? Hopefully into a realm that is similar to doors inside doors, only in this case each door is another universe.


Is it me but isn't all of this going to make it harder and harder to know what is real and what is virtual? What I believe might end up happening or has happened is that particles are both real and virtual and in that stew we call the Singularity point everything becomes both real and virtual. What exactly that means we'll have to explore later.


For now I will have to virtually say good bye to you guys.



TransAlchemy Interviews James Hughes (Dr. J)





What do you think it will take to bring the philosophical debate of transhumanism to the general public?

The public already has many opinions on transhumanist topics, such as the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, human-animal chimeras, AI and robotics, prosthetics, and nanotechnology. But their views are uninformed and inchoate. They may respond positively to something when considering a therapeutic application, but then respond negatively when the same thing is framed as "brave new world." The goal of the transhumanist movement is to promote knowledge of the current and imminent technologies that will enhance the human condition, and frame these applications in terms of both their risks and their benefits. With each new controversy and 15-minute media sensation about a glowing monkey, or a robot movie, or a mother of octuplets we have another opportunity to promote understanding and discussion of the liberal, positive, enhancing future we want to build.

-How should the people that choose to remain human be handled in society as more and more people choose to enhance themselves and ultimately become more efficient in the work force?

The continuum of enhancement will not be discontinuous, and there will be many different kinds of enhancement. Also many other distinctions - national, linguistic, religious, racial, gender, class - will remain more important than the enhanced/unenhanced distinction. But how do we handle people who are cognitively challenged or disabled or illiterate today? In some societies they are treated very poorly, and in others their rights are respected and they are supported to achieve their full potential. In the future the unenhanced will only be treated as well or as badly as the poor and powerless are treated in those societies. So it is all our interests to create a more humane and egalitarian world.


-Considering that the intelligence gap could increase exponentially would it be ethical to let humans remain humans?

It depends on whether we are talking about adults or children. I would like to live in a society where all adults can refuse enhancement. But I think children are owed the ability to achieve their fullest potential in their lives. If their parents try to radically limit that ability - say by locking them in a box, or refusing to send them to school, or refusing to give them a safe, common and radically beneficial IQ enhancement - then society has to step in and require it. Ensuring that children have enhancements that provide health and longevity will be even more morally pressing.


-In your H+ interview you briefly described how neurology has the ability to enslave us in more profound ways. What would you suggest we do to prevent such a scenario from arising? Would prevention even be possible?

I'm optimistic that our ability to fix addicted brains will develop as quickly as our ability to addict them. But I'm pessimistic about our ability to figure which brains need to be fixed. In some sense many people are harmed by the beliefs they have been raised with, but "fixing" those would create a totalitarian society. In another sense people do "rationally decide" to become opiate addicts. But not fixing the brains of addicts when we are able to would be immoral. We have to negotiate this new terrain, and figure out what choice and freedom will mean in that world.


-Your upcoming book is titled "Cyborg Buddha: Using Neurotechnology to Become Better People." Do you think that genetic engineering and neurotechnology will help bring us closer to world peace?

The project is more about individual peace and moral behavior than world peace. Presumably there is some connection between individual and world peace, mutually reinforcing, but this is about how individuals can use our new technologies to improve their own moral behavior and explore our capacities for spiritual transcendence. Hopefully that will make the world more peaceful.


-Could posthuman existence literally become an altered state of consciousness? If so, could this bring Enlightenment?

I'm a materialist about Buddhist Enlightenment, in that is a particular arrangement of physical neurons in brains and not a supernatural phenomenon. So yes, I think the enlightenments (since there are many kinds of transcendent experiences and mental states for Buddhists and in other traditions) will all become more accessible as we increase our understanding and control of the brain.


-What is your take on techno-spirituality?
-Do you see Singularitarianism turning into a religion?


Transhumanism is a product of the European Enlightenment, and most transhumanists (H+) and singularitarians (S^) are secular rationalists. But there are a significant minority of H+ and S^ who are also religious, representing every religious tradition, as well as adherents of metaphysical philosophies such as panpsychism. In my essay on the compatibility of religion and transhumanism I point out that most of transhumanism is compatible with most of the core philosophical ideas of most religions, and that many religious apocalyptics have noted the correspondence of their prophecies with the Singularity scenarios. One fast-growing example is the Mormon Transhumanist Association, which sees transhumanism and the Singularity as fulfillments of Mormon prophecy. So I foresee many such examples of trans-religions and trans-spiritualities developing.


-In terms of ethics, how could you bring global government to countries and individuals who are fundamentally opposed to it?

Almost all individuals are born in societies with governments, and they are at best given an opportunity to influence their governments, not whether to live with government at all. So I see the question not as whether we should impose government on one another, but rather what kinds of government we all want to have. I want governments that aren't just armed gangsters but that are liberal, transparent, accountable and that provide collective goods, such as prosperity and security. Some of those goods can be provided by local and national governments, but others - collective security, climate control, global economic stability and growth - have to be provided by transnational government. Barring catastrophe, increasingly powerful transnational governance is really inevitable, so the question is how quickly we can democratize it and use it to start building a better world.


-Considering that all technology is at some point implemented into military applications, isn't there a danger of a single totalitarian government system arising to global dominance?

The risks of national states using technologies of social control are greater than the risks of a transnational state using those technologies, since the transnational state will be far more constrained by the diversity of cultures and values. So think of a specific example, military robots. I suppose it makes us Americans more secure knowing that most military robots will be deployed outside our borders, but I suspect most people would feel better if the army of robots were controlled by the United Nations and deployed to suppress genocide in Darfur, rather than to protect American oil assets in Iraq.



-Technology has done as much good as it has bad for our societies, should we explore using these technologies to possibly propel the species out into space as a means of self preservation from global catastrophic risks?


Yes. The farther we spread intelligence in the galaxy the better chances it will have for survival.

TransAlchemy Interviews James Hughes (Dr. J)





What do you think it will take to bring the philosophical debate of transhumanism to the general public?

The public already has many opinions on transhumanist topics, such as the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, human-animal chimeras, AI and robotics, prosthetics, and nanotechnology. But their views are uninformed and inchoate. They may respond positively to something when considering a therapeutic application, but then respond negatively when the same thing is framed as "brave new world." The goal of the transhumanist movement is to promote knowledge of the current and imminent technologies that will enhance the human condition, and frame these applications in terms of both their risks and their benefits. With each new controversy and 15-minute media sensation about a glowing monkey, or a robot movie, or a mother of octuplets we have another opportunity to promote understanding and discussion of the liberal, positive, enhancing future we want to build.

-How should the people that choose to remain human be handled in society as more and more people choose to enhance themselves and ultimately become more efficient in the work force?

The continuum of enhancement will not be discontinuous, and there will be many different kinds of enhancement. Also many other distinctions - national, linguistic, religious, racial, gender, class - will remain more important than the enhanced/unenhanced distinction. But how do we handle people who are cognitively challenged or disabled or illiterate today? In some societies they are treated very poorly, and in others their rights are respected and they are supported to achieve their full potential. In the future the unenhanced will only be treated as well or as badly as the poor and powerless are treated in those societies. So it is all our interests to create a more humane and egalitarian world.


-Considering that the intelligence gap could increase exponentially would it be ethical to let humans remain humans?

It depends on whether we are talking about adults or children. I would like to live in a society where all adults can refuse enhancement. But I think children are owed the ability to achieve their fullest potential in their lives. If their parents try to radically limit that ability - say by locking them in a box, or refusing to send them to school, or refusing to give them a safe, common and radically beneficial IQ enhancement - then society has to step in and require it. Ensuring that children have enhancements that provide health and longevity will be even more morally pressing.


-In your H+ interview you briefly described how neurology has the ability to enslave us in more profound ways. What would you suggest we do to prevent such a scenario from arising? Would prevention even be possible?

I'm optimistic that our ability to fix addicted brains will develop as quickly as our ability to addict them. But I'm pessimistic about our ability to figure which brains need to be fixed. In some sense many people are harmed by the beliefs they have been raised with, but "fixing" those would create a totalitarian society. In another sense people do "rationally decide" to become opiate addicts. But not fixing the brains of addicts when we are able to would be immoral. We have to negotiate this new terrain, and figure out what choice and freedom will mean in that world.


-Your upcoming book is titled "Cyborg Buddha: Using Neurotechnology to Become Better People." Do you think that genetic engineering and neurotechnology will help bring us closer to world peace?

The project is more about individual peace and moral behavior than world peace. Presumably there is some connection between individual and world peace, mutually reinforcing, but this is about how individuals can use our new technologies to improve their own moral behavior and explore our capacities for spiritual transcendence. Hopefully that will make the world more peaceful.


-Could posthuman existence literally become an altered state of consciousness? If so, could this bring Enlightenment?

I'm a materialist about Buddhist Enlightenment, in that is a particular arrangement of physical neurons in brains and not a supernatural phenomenon. So yes, I think the enlightenments (since there are many kinds of transcendent experiences and mental states for Buddhists and in other traditions) will all become more accessible as we increase our understanding and control of the brain.


-What is your take on techno-spirituality?
-Do you see Singularitarianism turning into a religion?


Transhumanism is a product of the European Enlightenment, and most transhumanists (H+) and singularitarians (S^) are secular rationalists. But there are a significant minority of H+ and S^ who are also religious, representing every religious tradition, as well as adherents of metaphysical philosophies such as panpsychism. In my essay on the compatibility of religion and transhumanism I point out that most of transhumanism is compatible with most of the core philosophical ideas of most religions, and that many religious apocalyptics have noted the correspondence of their prophecies with the Singularity scenarios. One fast-growing example is the Mormon Transhumanist Association, which sees transhumanism and the Singularity as fulfillments of Mormon prophecy. So I foresee many such examples of trans-religions and trans-spiritualities developing.


-In terms of ethics, how could you bring global government to countries and individuals who are fundamentally opposed to it?

Almost all individuals are born in societies with governments, and they are at best given an opportunity to influence their governments, not whether to live with government at all. So I see the question not as whether we should impose government on one another, but rather what kinds of government we all want to have. I want governments that aren't just armed gangsters but that are liberal, transparent, accountable and that provide collective goods, such as prosperity and security. Some of those goods can be provided by local and national governments, but others - collective security, climate control, global economic stability and growth - have to be provided by transnational government. Barring catastrophe, increasingly powerful transnational governance is really inevitable, so the question is how quickly we can democratize it and use it to start building a better world.


-Considering that all technology is at some point implemented into military applications, isn't there a danger of a single totalitarian government system arising to global dominance?

The risks of national states using technologies of social control are greater than the risks of a transnational state using those technologies, since the transnational state will be far more constrained by the diversity of cultures and values. So think of a specific example, military robots. I suppose it makes us Americans more secure knowing that most military robots will be deployed outside our borders, but I suspect most people would feel better if the army of robots were controlled by the United Nations and deployed to suppress genocide in Darfur, rather than to protect American oil assets in Iraq.



-Technology has done as much good as it has bad for our societies, should we explore using these technologies to possibly propel the species out into space as a means of self preservation from global catastrophic risks?


Yes. The farther we spread intelligence in the galaxy the better chances it will have for survival.

TransAlchemy Interviews James Hughes (Dr. J)





What do you think it will take to bring the philosophical debate of transhumanism to the general public?

The public already has many opinions on transhumanist topics, such as the risks and benefits of genetic engineering, human-animal chimeras, AI and robotics, prosthetics, and nanotechnology. But their views are uninformed and inchoate. They may respond positively to something when considering a therapeutic application, but then respond negatively when the same thing is framed as "brave new world." The goal of the transhumanist movement is to promote knowledge of the current and imminent technologies that will enhance the human condition, and frame these applications in terms of both their risks and their benefits. With each new controversy and 15-minute media sensation about a glowing monkey, or a robot movie, or a mother of octuplets we have another opportunity to promote understanding and discussion of the liberal, positive, enhancing future we want to build.

-How should the people that choose to remain human be handled in society as more and more people choose to enhance themselves and ultimately become more efficient in the work force?

The continuum of enhancement will not be discontinuous, and there will be many different kinds of enhancement. Also many other distinctions - national, linguistic, religious, racial, gender, class - will remain more important than the enhanced/unenhanced distinction. But how do we handle people who are cognitively challenged or disabled or illiterate today? In some societies they are treated very poorly, and in others their rights are respected and they are supported to achieve their full potential. In the future the unenhanced will only be treated as well or as badly as the poor and powerless are treated in those societies. So it is all our interests to create a more humane and egalitarian world.


-Considering that the intelligence gap could increase exponentially would it be ethical to let humans remain humans?

It depends on whether we are talking about adults or children. I would like to live in a society where all adults can refuse enhancement. But I think children are owed the ability to achieve their fullest potential in their lives. If their parents try to radically limit that ability - say by locking them in a box, or refusing to send them to school, or refusing to give them a safe, common and radically beneficial IQ enhancement - then society has to step in and require it. Ensuring that children have enhancements that provide health and longevity will be even more morally pressing.


-In your H+ interview you briefly described how neurology has the ability to enslave us in more profound ways. What would you suggest we do to prevent such a scenario from arising? Would prevention even be possible?

I'm optimistic that our ability to fix addicted brains will develop as quickly as our ability to addict them. But I'm pessimistic about our ability to figure which brains need to be fixed. In some sense many people are harmed by the beliefs they have been raised with, but "fixing" those would create a totalitarian society. In another sense people do "rationally decide" to become opiate addicts. But not fixing the brains of addicts when we are able to would be immoral. We have to negotiate this new terrain, and figure out what choice and freedom will mean in that world.


-Your upcoming book is titled "Cyborg Buddha: Using Neurotechnology to Become Better People." Do you think that genetic engineering and neurotechnology will help bring us closer to world peace?

The project is more about individual peace and moral behavior than world peace. Presumably there is some connection between individual and world peace, mutually reinforcing, but this is about how individuals can use our new technologies to improve their own moral behavior and explore our capacities for spiritual transcendence. Hopefully that will make the world more peaceful.


-Could posthuman existence literally become an altered state of consciousness? If so, could this bring Enlightenment?

I'm a materialist about Buddhist Enlightenment, in that is a particular arrangement of physical neurons in brains and not a supernatural phenomenon. So yes, I think the enlightenments (since there are many kinds of transcendent experiences and mental states for Buddhists and in other traditions) will all become more accessible as we increase our understanding and control of the brain.


-What is your take on techno-spirituality?
-Do you see Singularitarianism turning into a religion?


Transhumanism is a product of the European Enlightenment, and most transhumanists (H+) and singularitarians (S^) are secular rationalists. But there are a significant minority of H+ and S^ who are also religious, representing every religious tradition, as well as adherents of metaphysical philosophies such as panpsychism. In my essay on the compatibility of religion and transhumanism I point out that most of transhumanism is compatible with most of the core philosophical ideas of most religions, and that many religious apocalyptics have noted the correspondence of their prophecies with the Singularity scenarios. One fast-growing example is the Mormon Transhumanist Association, which sees transhumanism and the Singularity as fulfillments of Mormon prophecy. So I foresee many such examples of trans-religions and trans-spiritualities developing.


-In terms of ethics, how could you bring global government to countries and individuals who are fundamentally opposed to it?

Almost all individuals are born in societies with governments, and they are at best given an opportunity to influence their governments, not whether to live with government at all. So I see the question not as whether we should impose government on one another, but rather what kinds of government we all want to have. I want governments that aren't just armed gangsters but that are liberal, transparent, accountable and that provide collective goods, such as prosperity and security. Some of those goods can be provided by local and national governments, but others - collective security, climate control, global economic stability and growth - have to be provided by transnational government. Barring catastrophe, increasingly powerful transnational governance is really inevitable, so the question is how quickly we can democratize it and use it to start building a better world.


-Considering that all technology is at some point implemented into military applications, isn't there a danger of a single totalitarian government system arising to global dominance?

The risks of national states using technologies of social control are greater than the risks of a transnational state using those technologies, since the transnational state will be far more constrained by the diversity of cultures and values. So think of a specific example, military robots. I suppose it makes us Americans more secure knowing that most military robots will be deployed outside our borders, but I suspect most people would feel better if the army of robots were controlled by the United Nations and deployed to suppress genocide in Darfur, rather than to protect American oil assets in Iraq.



-Technology has done as much good as it has bad for our societies, should we explore using these technologies to possibly propel the species out into space as a means of self preservation from global catastrophic risks?


Yes. The farther we spread intelligence in the galaxy the better chances it will have for survival.

Peter Voss speaks on AGI




Peter Voss speaks on AGI




Peter Voss speaks on AGI




Transhumanism internet history




Data via google trends



Time capsule 6-4-09
google search for transhumanism returns 359,000 results
youtube search for transhumanism returns 977 (wow I did not see that one coming.)


google search for transalchemy returns 4,580
youtube search for transalchemy returns 120

The debate will only grow from here and there we will be challenging you for what is right for what is ethical but most importantly for what is human.

Transhumanism internet history




Data via google trends



Time capsule 6-4-09
google search for transhumanism returns 359,000 results
youtube search for transhumanism returns 977 (wow I did not see that one coming.)


google search for transalchemy returns 4,580
youtube search for transalchemy returns 120

The debate will only grow from here and there we will be challenging you for what is right for what is ethical but most importantly for what is human.

Transhumanism internet history




Data via google trends



Time capsule 6-4-09
google search for transhumanism returns 359,000 results
youtube search for transhumanism returns 977 (wow I did not see that one coming.)


google search for transalchemy returns 4,580
youtube search for transalchemy returns 120

The debate will only grow from here and there we will be challenging you for what is right for what is ethical but most importantly for what is human.

My Riddles

Dear Antz Particleion Is Hacking your Universe (live)

I will give your universe/Mind back to you if you answer my riddles.

Call your answers in!

(305) 735-9490

A) Is your universe real?

B) Are you real?

C) Who currently has {source}?

D) What is {Root}?

When you got the answer email it to

Key.universe@gmail.com

and I will give you back your universe assuming your right ;-)

Rules subject to change but will be posted.

`

! It will be Billions of years till I let you just have it... Till then I urge you try to get your key back.