Thursday, September 3, 2009

Genetic Manipulation The path to Human 2.0



While I had another science fiction movie lined up for our movie Friday, I decided on a documentary instead this week. This is a great must watch documentary on the history of the genome project and it's implication of how gene manipulation will help us "design" a new society. If this sounds a lot like the talk of the current transhumanist movement it is all as stated in the documentary itself part of the new eugenics.

Other topics that are addressed in this documentary are:


A key concept to understand here is that transhumanism will not come when we start placing microchips into our bodies, transhumanism is more of an active on going tweaking of the human body at the genetic level. Sure future technology will aid and rapidly increase the speed at which we can decode and encode the human body. Therefore everything we have been talking about and will continue to talk about is currently in "production", and I did mean to say it this way as you are becoming a product. A product that all of science has given up on, and has launched a world wide effort to redesign, yes us humans are no longer the cutting edge model.

Things once believed to be enviromental are slowly turning into genetic defects, anger depression, sadness, and loneliness will soon be targets to be fixed. Only theres a catch, you sir/madaam are too old and broken to be fixed, no what will be done is all of the best upgrades will be giving to your children. I know you can say at this point that this is natural evolution, and that is what is expected, and you would be wrong. Natural selection is well just that, natural! What we are doing as a species is eugenics, as all of this is self directed evolution. We want to be the designers of the new man, we want to play god. I know some of you out there will believe that my statement is over barring and borderline technophobic, and I will respond to you by asking you a series of questions.

  • When will it stop?
  • Will it ever stop?
  • When will we say we have tweaked humanity enough?
  • Will we know when a person can be considered not human anymore?
  • Who or what will be orchestrating the creation of the new man?
  • Will all genetic manipulation be for good purpose?
  • Is our ecosystem ready or capable to accept genetic engineered plants and animals?
  • What if we genetically engineer an incurable virus?

As you can see there so many questions still not fully addressed as we dive into this field, and to complicate the matter in more where on the verge of handing genetic engineering over to Ai.

So to continue on our latest trend of artificial intelligence post, we ask where does Ai fit into the field of genomics. Ben Goertzel founder of Novamente also founded a company called Biomind which uses Ai algorithm to learn and test large junks of genetic data that may be to large for humans to comprehend.

Where does this all lead? The truth is, nobody knows and that alone should worry you as we continue to march forward at an accelerating rate, towards something we truly don't really understand.

One thing we can almost say for sure is that whatever does come out of this, it wont be Human, maybe just maybe at best it will be Human 2.0, but even that version will one day become out dated.

So what is the expiration date on Humanity?
Only our genes will tell...

Genetic Manipulation The path to Human 2.0



While I had another science fiction movie lined up for our movie Friday, I decided on a documentary instead this week. This is a great must watch documentary on the history of the genome project and it's implication of how gene manipulation will help us "design" a new society. If this sounds a lot like the talk of the current transhumanist movement it is all as stated in the documentary itself part of the new eugenics.

Other topics that are addressed in this documentary are:


A key concept to understand here is that transhumanism will not come when we start placing microchips into our bodies, transhumanism is more of an active on going tweaking of the human body at the genetic level. Sure future technology will aid and rapidly increase the speed at which we can decode and encode the human body. Therefore everything we have been talking about and will continue to talk about is currently in "production", and I did mean to say it this way as you are becoming a product. A product that all of science has given up on, and has launched a world wide effort to redesign, yes us humans are no longer the cutting edge model.

Things once believed to be enviromental are slowly turning into genetic defects, anger depression, sadness, and loneliness will soon be targets to be fixed. Only theres a catch, you sir/madaam are too old and broken to be fixed, no what will be done is all of the best upgrades will be giving to your children. I know you can say at this point that this is natural evolution, and that is what is expected, and you would be wrong. Natural selection is well just that, natural! What we are doing as a species is eugenics, as all of this is self directed evolution. We want to be the designers of the new man, we want to play god. I know some of you out there will believe that my statement is over barring and borderline technophobic, and I will respond to you by asking you a series of questions.

  • When will it stop?
  • Will it ever stop?
  • When will we say we have tweaked humanity enough?
  • Will we know when a person can be considered not human anymore?
  • Who or what will be orchestrating the creation of the new man?
  • Will all genetic manipulation be for good purpose?
  • Is our ecosystem ready or capable to accept genetic engineered plants and animals?
  • What if we genetically engineer an incurable virus?

As you can see there so many questions still not fully addressed as we dive into this field, and to complicate the matter in more where on the verge of handing genetic engineering over to Ai.

So to continue on our latest trend of artificial intelligence post, we ask where does Ai fit into the field of genomics. Ben Goertzel founder of Novamente also founded a company called Biomind which uses Ai algorithm to learn and test large junks of genetic data that may be to large for humans to comprehend.

Where does this all lead? The truth is, nobody knows and that alone should worry you as we continue to march forward at an accelerating rate, towards something we truly don't really understand.

One thing we can almost say for sure is that whatever does come out of this, it wont be Human, maybe just maybe at best it will be Human 2.0, but even that version will one day become out dated.

So what is the expiration date on Humanity?
Only our genes will tell...

Genetic Manipulation The path to Human 2.0



While I had another science fiction movie lined up for our movie Friday, I decided on a documentary instead this week. This is a great must watch documentary on the history of the genome project and it's implication of how gene manipulation will help us "design" a new society. If this sounds a lot like the talk of the current transhumanist movement it is all as stated in the documentary itself part of the new eugenics.

Other topics that are addressed in this documentary are:


A key concept to understand here is that transhumanism will not come when we start placing microchips into our bodies, transhumanism is more of an active on going tweaking of the human body at the genetic level. Sure future technology will aid and rapidly increase the speed at which we can decode and encode the human body. Therefore everything we have been talking about and will continue to talk about is currently in "production", and I did mean to say it this way as you are becoming a product. A product that all of science has given up on, and has launched a world wide effort to redesign, yes us humans are no longer the cutting edge model.

Things once believed to be enviromental are slowly turning into genetic defects, anger depression, sadness, and loneliness will soon be targets to be fixed. Only theres a catch, you sir/madaam are too old and broken to be fixed, no what will be done is all of the best upgrades will be giving to your children. I know you can say at this point that this is natural evolution, and that is what is expected, and you would be wrong. Natural selection is well just that, natural! What we are doing as a species is eugenics, as all of this is self directed evolution. We want to be the designers of the new man, we want to play god. I know some of you out there will believe that my statement is over barring and borderline technophobic, and I will respond to you by asking you a series of questions.

  • When will it stop?
  • Will it ever stop?
  • When will we say we have tweaked humanity enough?
  • Will we know when a person can be considered not human anymore?
  • Who or what will be orchestrating the creation of the new man?
  • Will all genetic manipulation be for good purpose?
  • Is our ecosystem ready or capable to accept genetic engineered plants and animals?
  • What if we genetically engineer an incurable virus?

As you can see there so many questions still not fully addressed as we dive into this field, and to complicate the matter in more where on the verge of handing genetic engineering over to Ai.

So to continue on our latest trend of artificial intelligence post, we ask where does Ai fit into the field of genomics. Ben Goertzel founder of Novamente also founded a company called Biomind which uses Ai algorithm to learn and test large junks of genetic data that may be to large for humans to comprehend.

Where does this all lead? The truth is, nobody knows and that alone should worry you as we continue to march forward at an accelerating rate, towards something we truly don't really understand.

One thing we can almost say for sure is that whatever does come out of this, it wont be Human, maybe just maybe at best it will be Human 2.0, but even that version will one day become out dated.

So what is the expiration date on Humanity?
Only our genes will tell...

The Future History of Artificial Intelligence



The future history of Ai as suggested by others may not be measured in decades or years but could reach a point where it will be measured in minutes. This rapid accelerated take off of Ai is not at all desired though.

A hard take off defined by Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Inc is

"The Singularity scenario in which a mind makes the transition from prehuman or human-equivalent intelligence to strong transhumanity or superintelligence over the course of days or hours. "

What puzzles me is the following. The very nature of the singularity is this extreme exponential growth in technology. This same level of growth is what is not desired by the Ai community, while at the same time the same researchers that are working on Ai are also part of the singularity community.

I guess my question is this, how can you take part in aiding the creation of the singularity, while at the same hold the position that rapid exponential growth of Ai is not only indesirable but also dangerous?

I will make sure to ask Ben Goertzel this question come the singularity summit. It just appears from everything I have read heard and seen that the creation of Ai is a critical technology needed to bring about the singularity, so if both things are so entangled how can we avoid a hard take off?

Again I will make sure to ask this or a variation of this.

Now why is this not desired you ask?

Well the short answer is, our chances of survival are drastically increased if we know how our technologies work. This may seem like an obvious concept as we dont let children drive cars till they fully understand the machine. Well to continue this analogy what happens to children that steal dad's car not knowing how to drive the thing, good chances are they can get hurt or worse kill themselves. Well this is why we need to know how Ai and more importantly how the technology that Ai creates works.

A hard take off greatly reduces the changes of us having the necessary time to understand and learn how the new technology Ai is creating works.

There also exist the concept of a soft take off, but I argue how long can a soft take off be sustained before it turns into a hard take off?

In short the point I want to make with this article is that we may not have time to write the history of true super intelligence.

The Future History of Artificial Intelligence



The future history of Ai as suggested by others may not be measured in decades or years but could reach a point where it will be measured in minutes. This rapid accelerated take off of Ai is not at all desired though.

A hard take off defined by Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Inc is

"The Singularity scenario in which a mind makes the transition from prehuman or human-equivalent intelligence to strong transhumanity or superintelligence over the course of days or hours. "

What puzzles me is the following. The very nature of the singularity is this extreme exponential growth in technology. This same level of growth is what is not desired by the Ai community, while at the same time the same researchers that are working on Ai are also part of the singularity community.

I guess my question is this, how can you take part in aiding the creation of the singularity, while at the same hold the position that rapid exponential growth of Ai is not only indesirable but also dangerous?

I will make sure to ask Ben Goertzel this question come the singularity summit. It just appears from everything I have read heard and seen that the creation of Ai is a critical technology needed to bring about the singularity, so if both things are so entangled how can we avoid a hard take off?

Again I will make sure to ask this or a variation of this.

Now why is this not desired you ask?

Well the short answer is, our chances of survival are drastically increased if we know how our technologies work. This may seem like an obvious concept as we dont let children drive cars till they fully understand the machine. Well to continue this analogy what happens to children that steal dad's car not knowing how to drive the thing, good chances are they can get hurt or worse kill themselves. Well this is why we need to know how Ai and more importantly how the technology that Ai creates works.

A hard take off greatly reduces the changes of us having the necessary time to understand and learn how the new technology Ai is creating works.

There also exist the concept of a soft take off, but I argue how long can a soft take off be sustained before it turns into a hard take off?

In short the point I want to make with this article is that we may not have time to write the history of true super intelligence.

The Future History of Artificial Intelligence



The future history of Ai as suggested by others may not be measured in decades or years but could reach a point where it will be measured in minutes. This rapid accelerated take off of Ai is not at all desired though.

A hard take off defined by Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Inc is

"The Singularity scenario in which a mind makes the transition from prehuman or human-equivalent intelligence to strong transhumanity or superintelligence over the course of days or hours. "

What puzzles me is the following. The very nature of the singularity is this extreme exponential growth in technology. This same level of growth is what is not desired by the Ai community, while at the same time the same researchers that are working on Ai are also part of the singularity community.

I guess my question is this, how can you take part in aiding the creation of the singularity, while at the same hold the position that rapid exponential growth of Ai is not only indesirable but also dangerous?

I will make sure to ask Ben Goertzel this question come the singularity summit. It just appears from everything I have read heard and seen that the creation of Ai is a critical technology needed to bring about the singularity, so if both things are so entangled how can we avoid a hard take off?

Again I will make sure to ask this or a variation of this.

Now why is this not desired you ask?

Well the short answer is, our chances of survival are drastically increased if we know how our technologies work. This may seem like an obvious concept as we dont let children drive cars till they fully understand the machine. Well to continue this analogy what happens to children that steal dad's car not knowing how to drive the thing, good chances are they can get hurt or worse kill themselves. Well this is why we need to know how Ai and more importantly how the technology that Ai creates works.

A hard take off greatly reduces the changes of us having the necessary time to understand and learn how the new technology Ai is creating works.

There also exist the concept of a soft take off, but I argue how long can a soft take off be sustained before it turns into a hard take off?

In short the point I want to make with this article is that we may not have time to write the history of true super intelligence.

Computers with Commonsense: Artificial Intelligence at the MIT Round Table


Source
Visiting the San Diego Zoo’s orangutans and chimpanzees inspires Patrick Henry Winston to ponder what makes humans different from our primate cousins. His field of artificial intelligence extends that question to thinking about how humans differ from computers. Winston’s goal is to “develop a computational theory of intelligence.”

Bridging the gap from people to machines requires a complex understanding of how we think. Winston asserts we think with our eyes, our hands, our mouth. Humans rely upon visual, motor, and linguistic faculties to learn and solve problems. Perceptual powers enable naming, describing, categorizing and recalling. In the aggregate, these processes are “commonsense,” a hallmark of cognition that Winston aims to vest in computer programs -- to endow transistors with the nuanced capabilities of neurons.

Crucially, we also think with our stories. Throughout childhood and formal education, we are taught via fairy tales, myths, history, literature, religion, and popular entertainment. Professional disciplines like law, science, medicine, engineering, and business are conveyed through stories too.

Recognizing patterns, relationships, and mistakes, as well as abstract concepts like revenge or success, helps us explain, predict, answer questions. The delicate processes of extracting knowledge and capturing meaning may appear seamless or instinctive in the evolved mind, but must be parsed syntactically to “teach” a computer to achieve the same ends.

What might be practical applications “for systems that understood stories”? Winston suggests that decision-making in business and military strategy would benefit. And no less, comprehending cultures. If a computer program could derive clues from context, perhaps it could determine why “what plays in Peoria” doesn’t translate to Baghdad.

Early efforts to build a computational theory of intelligence focused on “symbolic integration…We figured out how to make programs do calculus by 1960…but computers remained as dumb as stones,” Winston says. When we progressed to building robots -- “things that move” -- language was still lacking. “We forgot that the distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence is that linguistic veneer that stands above our perceptual apparatus,” he remarks.

A paradox emerging from Winston’s study of how humans think is that “computers make us stupid.” For instance, when students are freed from taking notes, absence of “forced engagement” with the material hinders learning. He cautions that teachers confuse the “presentation of information with the delivery of information.” Too many words on a slide (or talking too fast) “jams the language processor” and impedes digesting content.

Winston summarizes with an appealing prescription for becoming smarter. “Take notes…draw pictures…talk and imagine…tell stories!” The very act of explaining to another elucidates a lesson for oneself."

Computers with Commonsense: Artificial Intelligence at the MIT Round Table


Source
Visiting the San Diego Zoo’s orangutans and chimpanzees inspires Patrick Henry Winston to ponder what makes humans different from our primate cousins. His field of artificial intelligence extends that question to thinking about how humans differ from computers. Winston’s goal is to “develop a computational theory of intelligence.”

Bridging the gap from people to machines requires a complex understanding of how we think. Winston asserts we think with our eyes, our hands, our mouth. Humans rely upon visual, motor, and linguistic faculties to learn and solve problems. Perceptual powers enable naming, describing, categorizing and recalling. In the aggregate, these processes are “commonsense,” a hallmark of cognition that Winston aims to vest in computer programs -- to endow transistors with the nuanced capabilities of neurons.

Crucially, we also think with our stories. Throughout childhood and formal education, we are taught via fairy tales, myths, history, literature, religion, and popular entertainment. Professional disciplines like law, science, medicine, engineering, and business are conveyed through stories too.

Recognizing patterns, relationships, and mistakes, as well as abstract concepts like revenge or success, helps us explain, predict, answer questions. The delicate processes of extracting knowledge and capturing meaning may appear seamless or instinctive in the evolved mind, but must be parsed syntactically to “teach” a computer to achieve the same ends.

What might be practical applications “for systems that understood stories”? Winston suggests that decision-making in business and military strategy would benefit. And no less, comprehending cultures. If a computer program could derive clues from context, perhaps it could determine why “what plays in Peoria” doesn’t translate to Baghdad.

Early efforts to build a computational theory of intelligence focused on “symbolic integration…We figured out how to make programs do calculus by 1960…but computers remained as dumb as stones,” Winston says. When we progressed to building robots -- “things that move” -- language was still lacking. “We forgot that the distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence is that linguistic veneer that stands above our perceptual apparatus,” he remarks.

A paradox emerging from Winston’s study of how humans think is that “computers make us stupid.” For instance, when students are freed from taking notes, absence of “forced engagement” with the material hinders learning. He cautions that teachers confuse the “presentation of information with the delivery of information.” Too many words on a slide (or talking too fast) “jams the language processor” and impedes digesting content.

Winston summarizes with an appealing prescription for becoming smarter. “Take notes…draw pictures…talk and imagine…tell stories!” The very act of explaining to another elucidates a lesson for oneself."

Computers with Commonsense: Artificial Intelligence at the MIT Round Table


Source
Visiting the San Diego Zoo’s orangutans and chimpanzees inspires Patrick Henry Winston to ponder what makes humans different from our primate cousins. His field of artificial intelligence extends that question to thinking about how humans differ from computers. Winston’s goal is to “develop a computational theory of intelligence.”

Bridging the gap from people to machines requires a complex understanding of how we think. Winston asserts we think with our eyes, our hands, our mouth. Humans rely upon visual, motor, and linguistic faculties to learn and solve problems. Perceptual powers enable naming, describing, categorizing and recalling. In the aggregate, these processes are “commonsense,” a hallmark of cognition that Winston aims to vest in computer programs -- to endow transistors with the nuanced capabilities of neurons.

Crucially, we also think with our stories. Throughout childhood and formal education, we are taught via fairy tales, myths, history, literature, religion, and popular entertainment. Professional disciplines like law, science, medicine, engineering, and business are conveyed through stories too.

Recognizing patterns, relationships, and mistakes, as well as abstract concepts like revenge or success, helps us explain, predict, answer questions. The delicate processes of extracting knowledge and capturing meaning may appear seamless or instinctive in the evolved mind, but must be parsed syntactically to “teach” a computer to achieve the same ends.

What might be practical applications “for systems that understood stories”? Winston suggests that decision-making in business and military strategy would benefit. And no less, comprehending cultures. If a computer program could derive clues from context, perhaps it could determine why “what plays in Peoria” doesn’t translate to Baghdad.

Early efforts to build a computational theory of intelligence focused on “symbolic integration…We figured out how to make programs do calculus by 1960…but computers remained as dumb as stones,” Winston says. When we progressed to building robots -- “things that move” -- language was still lacking. “We forgot that the distinguishing characteristic of human intelligence is that linguistic veneer that stands above our perceptual apparatus,” he remarks.

A paradox emerging from Winston’s study of how humans think is that “computers make us stupid.” For instance, when students are freed from taking notes, absence of “forced engagement” with the material hinders learning. He cautions that teachers confuse the “presentation of information with the delivery of information.” Too many words on a slide (or talking too fast) “jams the language processor” and impedes digesting content.

Winston summarizes with an appealing prescription for becoming smarter. “Take notes…draw pictures…talk and imagine…tell stories!” The very act of explaining to another elucidates a lesson for oneself."

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.