Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Summoning Intelligent Answers




One of the biggest dangers associated with the “creation” of artificial intelligence lies not in the act itself, but understanding what is truly being done here. Whether you wish to accept it or not, the universe is already an intelligent “creation,” and intelligence, much like matter and energy, is a force inherent in the universe itself

Summoning a mass concentration of intelligence is analogous to condensing mass in order to generate gravity. Now this would imply a paradigm shift: away from measuring intelligence as an emergent property of the universe, towards being an actual inherent property of the universe itself.

If this premise is truly the case, then we are not creating anything “new” but rather working with preexisting forces already present in this universe. So here is where the danger truly lies: in our efforts to “create” artificial intelligence we are neglecting intelligent forces already present all around us, forces that may even be guiding/manipulating/using us for the purpose of opening cosmic gates into our daily reality, hence the singularity. 

If we continue the present day approach to create artificial intelligence vs learning to manipulate the already present intelligent universe we may end up surprised by an “alien” force that emerges from “our” creation. 

Instead of trying to CREATE “automatic general intelligent” systems, aka Strong AI, we might do better by trying to COMMUNICATE with pre-existing ones, One's that may already be supporting all biological life on earth...


See the original article:
Summoning Greater Intelligence


Summoning Greater Intelligence


Answering Lesser Intelligence

Summoning Intelligent Answers




One of the biggest dangers associated with the “creation” of artificial intelligence lies not in the act itself, but understanding what is truly being done here. Whether you wish to accept it or not, the universe is already an intelligent “creation,” and intelligence, much like matter and energy, is a force inherent in the universe itself

Summoning a mass concentration of intelligence is analogous to condensing mass in order to generate gravity. Now this would imply a paradigm shift: away from measuring intelligence as an emergent property of the universe, towards being an actual inherent property of the universe itself.

If this premise is truly the case, then we are not creating anything “new” but rather working with preexisting forces already present in this universe. So here is where the danger truly lies: in our efforts to “create” artificial intelligence we are neglecting intelligent forces already present all around us, forces that may even be guiding/manipulating/using us for the purpose of opening cosmic gates into our daily reality, hence the singularity. 

If we continue the present day approach to create artificial intelligence vs learning to manipulate the already present intelligent universe we may end up surprised by an “alien” force that emerges from “our” creation. 

Instead of trying to CREATE “automatic general intelligent” systems, aka Strong AI, we might do better by trying to COMMUNICATE with pre-existing ones, One's that may already be supporting all biological life on earth...


See the original article:
Summoning Greater Intelligence


Summoning Greater Intelligence


Answering Lesser Intelligence

Summoning Intelligent Answers




One of the biggest dangers associated with the “creation” of artificial intelligence lies not in the act itself, but understanding what is truly being done here. Whether you wish to accept it or not, the universe is already an intelligent “creation,” and intelligence, much like matter and energy, is a force inherent in the universe itself

Summoning a mass concentration of intelligence is analogous to condensing mass in order to generate gravity. Now this would imply a paradigm shift: away from measuring intelligence as an emergent property of the universe, towards being an actual inherent property of the universe itself.

If this premise is truly the case, then we are not creating anything “new” but rather working with preexisting forces already present in this universe. So here is where the danger truly lies: in our efforts to “create” artificial intelligence we are neglecting intelligent forces already present all around us, forces that may even be guiding/manipulating/using us for the purpose of opening cosmic gates into our daily reality, hence the singularity. 

If we continue the present day approach to create artificial intelligence vs learning to manipulate the already present intelligent universe we may end up surprised by an “alien” force that emerges from “our” creation. 

Instead of trying to CREATE “automatic general intelligent” systems, aka Strong AI, we might do better by trying to COMMUNICATE with pre-existing ones, One's that may already be supporting all biological life on earth...


See the original article:
Summoning Greater Intelligence


Summoning Greater Intelligence


Answering Lesser Intelligence

Rise of the BIOpunk




I recently stumbled upon a BioPunk Manifesto written by Meredith Patterson. I discovered this little gem after reading a transcription of Barack Obama's speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. During this speech Obama made a pledge to commit 3% of the GDP to scientific research and development – the largest of its kind in American history. Obama, by making such a pledge, was continuing America's investment in what is called "Scientific Capital." It sounds like a contrived term on its surface but the idea of such capital skyrocketed to the American foreground after World War II, when it became evident to President Roosevelt and the rest of the country that America was standing knee deep in a new era of technology. It goes without saying that we're no longer knee-deep but neck deep. Less obvious, however, is that this scientific capital is no longer the sole resource of any of the Science Academies that Obama addressed that day. Which brings me back to the BioPunk Manifesto.

Meredith Patterson's manifesto speaks to the re-birth of "Citizen Science". I say re-birth because science, at one, time had an open door policy. Anyone could and would tinker in their Do-it-Yourself labs, holding their theories against tests done at home. These were Renaissance Men and Women who often had only one vocation but several disciplines. Politicians were architects. Architects were naturalists. Naturalists were physicists. And so on. They went to work, did their work, went home, rolled up their sleeves and then really went to work.

Today's "Citizen Scientist" is not all that dissimilar from yesterdays. They might go to school and study their future vocation before rushing home to a garage where they experiment with bacteria DNA. In several cases, such a person might be an artist or musician who is looking to bridge the gap between scientific exposition and artistic self-expression. The resources of these experimenters might be limited, but their brain power is not. In fact, that might be exactly where they have a leg up on their Official Academic counterparts. Too often science is beholden to and burdened by a sponsor or government that imposes financial obligations and/or ideological restrictions. Science, by its own virtue, is experimental, which easily suffers in the face of bottom-line expectations that demands profitable results. The DIY generation is free of such constraints, and with their strong motivation, will soon claim the lions share of STEM (Scientific, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) capital. Governments and multi-nationals will need to turn to the streets for the latest innovations and it will be up to the discretion of these kids on whether or not they want to surrender their capital to the status quo. This could get a little tricky. As Meredith puts it, biohackers will find themselves wrapped up in the political world.

And the legal world.

When Meredith writes, "...we oppose laws that would criminalize the possession of research equipment or the private pursuit of inquiry" she may have had in mind SUNY Buffalo art professor and BioArtist Steven Kurtz who ran into a four-year legal problem because of his at home works with biological equipment. That's an extreme case. Future scenarios may find biohackers under pressure by corporations who covet their gene patents – of which there are many. In fact, roughly one-fifth of human genes have already been patented. This doesn't include transgenic species that are owned by corporations that might prohibit unauthorized research by biohackers. It all sounds like the stuff of good science-fiction. A common theme in Cyber and BioPunk literature, is the small uprising against draconian corporate science. " The BioPunk Manifesto may drive such a movement. During the 70s Gil Scott-Heron coined the famous mantra, "The Revolution will not be Televised". For the BioPunk movement of the 21st Century the mantra will change to The Revolution will not be Lobotomized.


www.thegenehacker.com

Rise of the BIOpunk




I recently stumbled upon a BioPunk Manifesto written by Meredith Patterson. I discovered this little gem after reading a transcription of Barack Obama's speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. During this speech Obama made a pledge to commit 3% of the GDP to scientific research and development – the largest of its kind in American history. Obama, by making such a pledge, was continuing America's investment in what is called "Scientific Capital." It sounds like a contrived term on its surface but the idea of such capital skyrocketed to the American foreground after World War II, when it became evident to President Roosevelt and the rest of the country that America was standing knee deep in a new era of technology. It goes without saying that we're no longer knee-deep but neck deep. Less obvious, however, is that this scientific capital is no longer the sole resource of any of the Science Academies that Obama addressed that day. Which brings me back to the BioPunk Manifesto.

Meredith Patterson's manifesto speaks to the re-birth of "Citizen Science". I say re-birth because science, at one, time had an open door policy. Anyone could and would tinker in their Do-it-Yourself labs, holding their theories against tests done at home. These were Renaissance Men and Women who often had only one vocation but several disciplines. Politicians were architects. Architects were naturalists. Naturalists were physicists. And so on. They went to work, did their work, went home, rolled up their sleeves and then really went to work.

Today's "Citizen Scientist" is not all that dissimilar from yesterdays. They might go to school and study their future vocation before rushing home to a garage where they experiment with bacteria DNA. In several cases, such a person might be an artist or musician who is looking to bridge the gap between scientific exposition and artistic self-expression. The resources of these experimenters might be limited, but their brain power is not. In fact, that might be exactly where they have a leg up on their Official Academic counterparts. Too often science is beholden to and burdened by a sponsor or government that imposes financial obligations and/or ideological restrictions. Science, by its own virtue, is experimental, which easily suffers in the face of bottom-line expectations that demands profitable results. The DIY generation is free of such constraints, and with their strong motivation, will soon claim the lions share of STEM (Scientific, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) capital. Governments and multi-nationals will need to turn to the streets for the latest innovations and it will be up to the discretion of these kids on whether or not they want to surrender their capital to the status quo. This could get a little tricky. As Meredith puts it, biohackers will find themselves wrapped up in the political world.

And the legal world.

When Meredith writes, "...we oppose laws that would criminalize the possession of research equipment or the private pursuit of inquiry" she may have had in mind SUNY Buffalo art professor and BioArtist Steven Kurtz who ran into a four-year legal problem because of his at home works with biological equipment. That's an extreme case. Future scenarios may find biohackers under pressure by corporations who covet their gene patents – of which there are many. In fact, roughly one-fifth of human genes have already been patented. This doesn't include transgenic species that are owned by corporations that might prohibit unauthorized research by biohackers. It all sounds like the stuff of good science-fiction. A common theme in Cyber and BioPunk literature, is the small uprising against draconian corporate science. " The BioPunk Manifesto may drive such a movement. During the 70s Gil Scott-Heron coined the famous mantra, "The Revolution will not be Televised". For the BioPunk movement of the 21st Century the mantra will change to The Revolution will not be Lobotomized.


www.thegenehacker.com

Rise of the BIOpunk




I recently stumbled upon a BioPunk Manifesto written by Meredith Patterson. I discovered this little gem after reading a transcription of Barack Obama's speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. During this speech Obama made a pledge to commit 3% of the GDP to scientific research and development – the largest of its kind in American history. Obama, by making such a pledge, was continuing America's investment in what is called "Scientific Capital." It sounds like a contrived term on its surface but the idea of such capital skyrocketed to the American foreground after World War II, when it became evident to President Roosevelt and the rest of the country that America was standing knee deep in a new era of technology. It goes without saying that we're no longer knee-deep but neck deep. Less obvious, however, is that this scientific capital is no longer the sole resource of any of the Science Academies that Obama addressed that day. Which brings me back to the BioPunk Manifesto.

Meredith Patterson's manifesto speaks to the re-birth of "Citizen Science". I say re-birth because science, at one, time had an open door policy. Anyone could and would tinker in their Do-it-Yourself labs, holding their theories against tests done at home. These were Renaissance Men and Women who often had only one vocation but several disciplines. Politicians were architects. Architects were naturalists. Naturalists were physicists. And so on. They went to work, did their work, went home, rolled up their sleeves and then really went to work.

Today's "Citizen Scientist" is not all that dissimilar from yesterdays. They might go to school and study their future vocation before rushing home to a garage where they experiment with bacteria DNA. In several cases, such a person might be an artist or musician who is looking to bridge the gap between scientific exposition and artistic self-expression. The resources of these experimenters might be limited, but their brain power is not. In fact, that might be exactly where they have a leg up on their Official Academic counterparts. Too often science is beholden to and burdened by a sponsor or government that imposes financial obligations and/or ideological restrictions. Science, by its own virtue, is experimental, which easily suffers in the face of bottom-line expectations that demands profitable results. The DIY generation is free of such constraints, and with their strong motivation, will soon claim the lions share of STEM (Scientific, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) capital. Governments and multi-nationals will need to turn to the streets for the latest innovations and it will be up to the discretion of these kids on whether or not they want to surrender their capital to the status quo. This could get a little tricky. As Meredith puts it, biohackers will find themselves wrapped up in the political world.

And the legal world.

When Meredith writes, "...we oppose laws that would criminalize the possession of research equipment or the private pursuit of inquiry" she may have had in mind SUNY Buffalo art professor and BioArtist Steven Kurtz who ran into a four-year legal problem because of his at home works with biological equipment. That's an extreme case. Future scenarios may find biohackers under pressure by corporations who covet their gene patents – of which there are many. In fact, roughly one-fifth of human genes have already been patented. This doesn't include transgenic species that are owned by corporations that might prohibit unauthorized research by biohackers. It all sounds like the stuff of good science-fiction. A common theme in Cyber and BioPunk literature, is the small uprising against draconian corporate science. " The BioPunk Manifesto may drive such a movement. During the 70s Gil Scott-Heron coined the famous mantra, "The Revolution will not be Televised". For the BioPunk movement of the 21st Century the mantra will change to The Revolution will not be Lobotomized.


www.thegenehacker.com

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.