Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Existential Risk the Alpha Post





"Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions." Nick Bostrom

Existential risk the alpha post is the beginning of a series of posts I will be making on the topic of existential risk. If by some means unknown the threat of human extinction vanishes there will be an existential risk omega post.

If at any time I'm killed in a global catastrophic event, consider that the omega post, and while I'm being a tad playful with the subject I am being serious over continuing this series of posts until one of those two events comes.
Ok, let's begin shall we?

Lets begin by defining what we will be exploring. Nick
Bostrom, being the pioneer in this topic, has written extensively on it, and has put forth his own definition as to what existential risk means, therefore we shall begin here.






In his paper Nick categorizes existential risk with the following diagram. The top left being the most extreme case of potential dangers we can reach factoring in it's global impact, and intensity, or to put it in his words.




"Existential risk – One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.An existential risk is one where humankind as a whole is imperiled. Existential disasters have major adverse consequences for the course of human civilization for all time to come."

There's a few things that I must point out right out of the gate, we must not forget this paper was written by the founder of the World Transhumanist Association. This is highly important as we explore what he means by "permanently and drastically curtail its potential."

Here lies something I will have to debate the transhumanists about, Nick strongly believes that the human species is on the verge of becoming something greater than human, something more intelligent and rational. This posthuman being is believed to be what the human race should aspire to become, "posthuman" is just that, a non human entity. Therefore when he says existential risk, his talking from a posthuman/transhumanist standpoint.

In his paper he is very clear to mention to you that derailing the development of
posthumanity is an existential risk.

If you think I'm stretching this, take a look at his taxonomy.

classification of existential risks

We shall use the following four categories to classify existential risks[6]:

Bangs – Earth-originating intelligent life goes extinct in relatively sudden disaster resulting from either an accident or a deliberate act of destruction.

Crunches – The potential of humankind to develop into
posthumanity[7] is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form.

Shrieks – Some form of
posthumanity is attained but it is an extremely narrow band of what is possible and desirable.

Whimpers – A
posthuman civilization arises but evolves in a direction that leads gradually but irrevocably to either the complete disappearance of the things we value or to a state where those things are realized to only a minuscule degree of what could have been achieved.

This is explored in greater detail in video below @ the 10 min 30 sec mark.

TIME OUT...

I can't help, but to see a flaw from the start!

If the Creation of
Posthumanity possesses an existential risk to humanity greater than zero, while at the same time, diverting the creation of posthumanity is considered an existential risk to the transhumanist, then who's existence is more important, and what would be the greatest risk?

Hold that question in your mind while you watch a video presentation on this topic by Nick himself @ the Singularity Summit. By the way don't forget we are heading to the Singularity Summit this year and still need monetary help to seek out some answers to these questions and more. Grab a chair this presentation is 20
mins long, but well worth watching.


Returning to our question, the answer is easy, it depends if you're a human or a
transhumanist. Transhumanists will see not creating posthumanity as an existential risk, while humans will see the creation of posthumanity as an existential risk. This is where the true problem lies, folks.

It appears that this is not a real worry over the destruction of intelligent life, but a mere persuasion as to why the plan must never be derailed. Nothing can get in the way of creating the posthumans i.e their transformation into"immortal beings."

There is still way more to talk about and dive into, as there exist many catalytic events with multiple existential outcomes.

This is so mind numbing to me I say we take break for now.
Also as promised this is the alpha post...I will close not in writing but in video form, enjoy :)


Existential Risk the Alpha Post





"Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions." Nick Bostrom

Existential risk the alpha post is the beginning of a series of posts I will be making on the topic of existential risk. If by some means unknown the threat of human extinction vanishes there will be an existential risk omega post.

If at any time I'm killed in a global catastrophic event, consider that the omega post, and while I'm being a tad playful with the subject I am being serious over continuing this series of posts until one of those two events comes.
Ok, let's begin shall we?

Lets begin by defining what we will be exploring. Nick
Bostrom, being the pioneer in this topic, has written extensively on it, and has put forth his own definition as to what existential risk means, therefore we shall begin here.






In his paper Nick categorizes existential risk with the following diagram. The top left being the most extreme case of potential dangers we can reach factoring in it's global impact, and intensity, or to put it in his words.




"Existential risk – One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.An existential risk is one where humankind as a whole is imperiled. Existential disasters have major adverse consequences for the course of human civilization for all time to come."

There's a few things that I must point out right out of the gate, we must not forget this paper was written by the founder of the World Transhumanist Association. This is highly important as we explore what he means by "permanently and drastically curtail its potential."

Here lies something I will have to debate the transhumanists about, Nick strongly believes that the human species is on the verge of becoming something greater than human, something more intelligent and rational. This posthuman being is believed to be what the human race should aspire to become, "posthuman" is just that, a non human entity. Therefore when he says existential risk, his talking from a posthuman/transhumanist standpoint.

In his paper he is very clear to mention to you that derailing the development of
posthumanity is an existential risk.

If you think I'm stretching this, take a look at his taxonomy.

classification of existential risks

We shall use the following four categories to classify existential risks[6]:

Bangs – Earth-originating intelligent life goes extinct in relatively sudden disaster resulting from either an accident or a deliberate act of destruction.

Crunches – The potential of humankind to develop into
posthumanity[7] is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form.

Shrieks – Some form of
posthumanity is attained but it is an extremely narrow band of what is possible and desirable.

Whimpers – A
posthuman civilization arises but evolves in a direction that leads gradually but irrevocably to either the complete disappearance of the things we value or to a state where those things are realized to only a minuscule degree of what could have been achieved.

This is explored in greater detail in video below @ the 10 min 30 sec mark.

TIME OUT...

I can't help, but to see a flaw from the start!

If the Creation of
Posthumanity possesses an existential risk to humanity greater than zero, while at the same time, diverting the creation of posthumanity is considered an existential risk to the transhumanist, then who's existence is more important, and what would be the greatest risk?

Hold that question in your mind while you watch a video presentation on this topic by Nick himself @ the Singularity Summit. By the way don't forget we are heading to the Singularity Summit this year and still need monetary help to seek out some answers to these questions and more. Grab a chair this presentation is 20
mins long, but well worth watching.


Returning to our question, the answer is easy, it depends if you're a human or a
transhumanist. Transhumanists will see not creating posthumanity as an existential risk, while humans will see the creation of posthumanity as an existential risk. This is where the true problem lies, folks.

It appears that this is not a real worry over the destruction of intelligent life, but a mere persuasion as to why the plan must never be derailed. Nothing can get in the way of creating the posthumans i.e their transformation into"immortal beings."

There is still way more to talk about and dive into, as there exist many catalytic events with multiple existential outcomes.

This is so mind numbing to me I say we take break for now.
Also as promised this is the alpha post...I will close not in writing but in video form, enjoy :)


Existential Risk the Alpha Post





"Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions." Nick Bostrom

Existential risk the alpha post is the beginning of a series of posts I will be making on the topic of existential risk. If by some means unknown the threat of human extinction vanishes there will be an existential risk omega post.

If at any time I'm killed in a global catastrophic event, consider that the omega post, and while I'm being a tad playful with the subject I am being serious over continuing this series of posts until one of those two events comes.
Ok, let's begin shall we?

Lets begin by defining what we will be exploring. Nick
Bostrom, being the pioneer in this topic, has written extensively on it, and has put forth his own definition as to what existential risk means, therefore we shall begin here.






In his paper Nick categorizes existential risk with the following diagram. The top left being the most extreme case of potential dangers we can reach factoring in it's global impact, and intensity, or to put it in his words.




"Existential risk – One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.An existential risk is one where humankind as a whole is imperiled. Existential disasters have major adverse consequences for the course of human civilization for all time to come."

There's a few things that I must point out right out of the gate, we must not forget this paper was written by the founder of the World Transhumanist Association. This is highly important as we explore what he means by "permanently and drastically curtail its potential."

Here lies something I will have to debate the transhumanists about, Nick strongly believes that the human species is on the verge of becoming something greater than human, something more intelligent and rational. This posthuman being is believed to be what the human race should aspire to become, "posthuman" is just that, a non human entity. Therefore when he says existential risk, his talking from a posthuman/transhumanist standpoint.

In his paper he is very clear to mention to you that derailing the development of
posthumanity is an existential risk.

If you think I'm stretching this, take a look at his taxonomy.

classification of existential risks

We shall use the following four categories to classify existential risks[6]:

Bangs – Earth-originating intelligent life goes extinct in relatively sudden disaster resulting from either an accident or a deliberate act of destruction.

Crunches – The potential of humankind to develop into
posthumanity[7] is permanently thwarted although human life continues in some form.

Shrieks – Some form of
posthumanity is attained but it is an extremely narrow band of what is possible and desirable.

Whimpers – A
posthuman civilization arises but evolves in a direction that leads gradually but irrevocably to either the complete disappearance of the things we value or to a state where those things are realized to only a minuscule degree of what could have been achieved.

This is explored in greater detail in video below @ the 10 min 30 sec mark.

TIME OUT...

I can't help, but to see a flaw from the start!

If the Creation of
Posthumanity possesses an existential risk to humanity greater than zero, while at the same time, diverting the creation of posthumanity is considered an existential risk to the transhumanist, then who's existence is more important, and what would be the greatest risk?

Hold that question in your mind while you watch a video presentation on this topic by Nick himself @ the Singularity Summit. By the way don't forget we are heading to the Singularity Summit this year and still need monetary help to seek out some answers to these questions and more. Grab a chair this presentation is 20
mins long, but well worth watching.


Returning to our question, the answer is easy, it depends if you're a human or a
transhumanist. Transhumanists will see not creating posthumanity as an existential risk, while humans will see the creation of posthumanity as an existential risk. This is where the true problem lies, folks.

It appears that this is not a real worry over the destruction of intelligent life, but a mere persuasion as to why the plan must never be derailed. Nothing can get in the way of creating the posthumans i.e their transformation into"immortal beings."

There is still way more to talk about and dive into, as there exist many catalytic events with multiple existential outcomes.

This is so mind numbing to me I say we take break for now.
Also as promised this is the alpha post...I will close not in writing but in video form, enjoy :)


Implantable Brain Chip History Lesson

By:  Aaron Franz

transalchemy.com


In an effort to save the humans, TransAlchemy is providing some very necessary history regarding implantable chips.  Not only is electronic brain stimulation possible, it has been tested since the early part of the 20th century.  Consider this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLfT548u_fQ



Dr. Jose Delgado did his bull experiment in the 1960's, but before that he had tested his "stimoceiver" implants on cats, monkees, and chimpanzees.  His book "Physical Control of the Mind:  Toward a Psychocivilized Society"  outlined his experiments in great detail, and even featured pictures of Delgado's experiments.  The title of the doctor's book explains the broader implications of these horrific tests.  "A Psychocivilized Society"  would be a society consisting of human beings who use stimoceiver implants, or other similar technologies, to intelligently alter their emotions.  Undesirable behavior such as violent crime could be removed by using such technology.  



picture from Delgado's "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society"

Transhumanists often speak of their desire to control emotions with technologies such as these.  To them, unwanted emotions are problematic, so they say, why don't we alter them?  Well...  there are a few reasons, but instead of getting into them let us instead reflect on an ancient story involving our mind, emotions, and the control of both that directly relates to all of this.




It is interesting that Delgado's most famous experiment was performed on a bull.  The bull of course is representative of the zodiac sign Taurus.  Taurus is a very important sign, as it was worshipped in ancient times as Apis.  During the Taurian age great masses of people paraded through the streets worshipping bull idols.  There were annual sacrificial rites performed in which living bulls were killed.  The priesthood encouraged this strange behavior, but all the while they wore special headdresses which symbolically told a greater story.  Because they were "wise as serpents" the priests had snakes wrapped around their heads (minds, brains, intellect.)  This was symbolic of their cunning, as the serpent represents the zodiac sign Scorpio, a sign usually depicted by a scorpion (serpents and eagles are also used.)   Scorpio is associated with betrayal, and it is also the opposing sign to Taurus.  The two signs are on exact opposite sides of the great wheel.  The priesthood were the intellectual elite of the Taurian age, and as such they worshipped the exact opposite sign than that of the ignorant masses.  The fact that people could be led to worship false idols indicated that they were base creatures.  By appealing to the chaotic emotions of the "profane"  the priesthood could get them to do whatever they pleased.  The sign of Taurus is symbolic of man's lower nature, his emotions.  High positions of power are reserved for those individuals who can rise above this base nature by using their intellect.  So basically, Taurus represents the lower nature of man, his emotion.  


Low = emotion, matter, chaos, masses, Taurus

High=intellectt, mind, order, elite, Scorpio  (don't forget deception)


As above, so below.  Violence exists within all levels of human society.  The only difference is that the elite have always carried out violent acts in an "intelligent" manner.  The profane do it because of "emotion", they are reactionary.  This is an interesting dynamic to consider when talking about chips that are implanted in the brain for the purpose of controlling emotions.  Does this represent a possible end to violence, or the ultimate pacifier for the chaotic herd?  Transhumanists would have us believe that  by "controlling our emotions" we will obtain greater freedom.  I say "bull shit."


more implantable chip history to come...


Implantable Brain Chip History Lesson

By:  Aaron Franz

transalchemy.com


In an effort to save the humans, TransAlchemy is providing some very necessary history regarding implantable chips.  Not only is electronic brain stimulation possible, it has been tested since the early part of the 20th century.  Consider this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLfT548u_fQ



Dr. Jose Delgado did his bull experiment in the 1960's, but before that he had tested his "stimoceiver" implants on cats, monkees, and chimpanzees.  His book "Physical Control of the Mind:  Toward a Psychocivilized Society"  outlined his experiments in great detail, and even featured pictures of Delgado's experiments.  The title of the doctor's book explains the broader implications of these horrific tests.  "A Psychocivilized Society"  would be a society consisting of human beings who use stimoceiver implants, or other similar technologies, to intelligently alter their emotions.  Undesirable behavior such as violent crime could be removed by using such technology.  



picture from Delgado's "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society"

Transhumanists often speak of their desire to control emotions with technologies such as these.  To them, unwanted emotions are problematic, so they say, why don't we alter them?  Well...  there are a few reasons, but instead of getting into them let us instead reflect on an ancient story involving our mind, emotions, and the control of both that directly relates to all of this.




It is interesting that Delgado's most famous experiment was performed on a bull.  The bull of course is representative of the zodiac sign Taurus.  Taurus is a very important sign, as it was worshipped in ancient times as Apis.  During the Taurian age great masses of people paraded through the streets worshipping bull idols.  There were annual sacrificial rites performed in which living bulls were killed.  The priesthood encouraged this strange behavior, but all the while they wore special headdresses which symbolically told a greater story.  Because they were "wise as serpents" the priests had snakes wrapped around their heads (minds, brains, intellect.)  This was symbolic of their cunning, as the serpent represents the zodiac sign Scorpio, a sign usually depicted by a scorpion (serpents and eagles are also used.)   Scorpio is associated with betrayal, and it is also the opposing sign to Taurus.  The two signs are on exact opposite sides of the great wheel.  The priesthood were the intellectual elite of the Taurian age, and as such they worshipped the exact opposite sign than that of the ignorant masses.  The fact that people could be led to worship false idols indicated that they were base creatures.  By appealing to the chaotic emotions of the "profane"  the priesthood could get them to do whatever they pleased.  The sign of Taurus is symbolic of man's lower nature, his emotions.  High positions of power are reserved for those individuals who can rise above this base nature by using their intellect.  So basically, Taurus represents the lower nature of man, his emotion.  


Low = emotion, matter, chaos, masses, Taurus

High=intellectt, mind, order, elite, Scorpio  (don't forget deception)


As above, so below.  Violence exists within all levels of human society.  The only difference is that the elite have always carried out violent acts in an "intelligent" manner.  The profane do it because of "emotion", they are reactionary.  This is an interesting dynamic to consider when talking about chips that are implanted in the brain for the purpose of controlling emotions.  Does this represent a possible end to violence, or the ultimate pacifier for the chaotic herd?  Transhumanists would have us believe that  by "controlling our emotions" we will obtain greater freedom.  I say "bull shit."


more implantable chip history to come...


Implantable Brain Chip History Lesson

By:  Aaron Franz

transalchemy.com


In an effort to save the humans, TransAlchemy is providing some very necessary history regarding implantable chips.  Not only is electronic brain stimulation possible, it has been tested since the early part of the 20th century.  Consider this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLfT548u_fQ



Dr. Jose Delgado did his bull experiment in the 1960's, but before that he had tested his "stimoceiver" implants on cats, monkees, and chimpanzees.  His book "Physical Control of the Mind:  Toward a Psychocivilized Society"  outlined his experiments in great detail, and even featured pictures of Delgado's experiments.  The title of the doctor's book explains the broader implications of these horrific tests.  "A Psychocivilized Society"  would be a society consisting of human beings who use stimoceiver implants, or other similar technologies, to intelligently alter their emotions.  Undesirable behavior such as violent crime could be removed by using such technology.  



picture from Delgado's "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society"

Transhumanists often speak of their desire to control emotions with technologies such as these.  To them, unwanted emotions are problematic, so they say, why don't we alter them?  Well...  there are a few reasons, but instead of getting into them let us instead reflect on an ancient story involving our mind, emotions, and the control of both that directly relates to all of this.




It is interesting that Delgado's most famous experiment was performed on a bull.  The bull of course is representative of the zodiac sign Taurus.  Taurus is a very important sign, as it was worshipped in ancient times as Apis.  During the Taurian age great masses of people paraded through the streets worshipping bull idols.  There were annual sacrificial rites performed in which living bulls were killed.  The priesthood encouraged this strange behavior, but all the while they wore special headdresses which symbolically told a greater story.  Because they were "wise as serpents" the priests had snakes wrapped around their heads (minds, brains, intellect.)  This was symbolic of their cunning, as the serpent represents the zodiac sign Scorpio, a sign usually depicted by a scorpion (serpents and eagles are also used.)   Scorpio is associated with betrayal, and it is also the opposing sign to Taurus.  The two signs are on exact opposite sides of the great wheel.  The priesthood were the intellectual elite of the Taurian age, and as such they worshipped the exact opposite sign than that of the ignorant masses.  The fact that people could be led to worship false idols indicated that they were base creatures.  By appealing to the chaotic emotions of the "profane"  the priesthood could get them to do whatever they pleased.  The sign of Taurus is symbolic of man's lower nature, his emotions.  High positions of power are reserved for those individuals who can rise above this base nature by using their intellect.  So basically, Taurus represents the lower nature of man, his emotion.  


Low = emotion, matter, chaos, masses, Taurus

High=intellectt, mind, order, elite, Scorpio  (don't forget deception)


As above, so below.  Violence exists within all levels of human society.  The only difference is that the elite have always carried out violent acts in an "intelligent" manner.  The profane do it because of "emotion", they are reactionary.  This is an interesting dynamic to consider when talking about chips that are implanted in the brain for the purpose of controlling emotions.  Does this represent a possible end to violence, or the ultimate pacifier for the chaotic herd?  Transhumanists would have us believe that  by "controlling our emotions" we will obtain greater freedom.  I say "bull shit."


more implantable chip history to come...


Nick Bostrom on the possible extinction of the human race



Nick Bostrom on the possible extinction of the human race



Nick Bostrom on the possible extinction of the human race



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.