Origin > Living Forever > The Transhuman Singularity
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0144.html

Printable Version
    The Transhuman Singularity
by   Terry Grossman

Therapeutic human cloning, stem cell therapies, synthetic organs, molecular nanotechnology, and the digital-cerebral interface may allow us to achieve immortality in this century. But keeping bionic transhumans alive until immortalilty is achieved may prove very expensive. And not everyone will want it.


Originally published March 27, 2001 on KurzweilAI.net.

At 54 years of age, I am among the oldest of the baby boomers. Many of us, belonging to this and subsequent generations, don't really believe that we will have to die. Death for us, if and when it occurs, will simply be the result of some kind of awful mistake.

In accordance with my predictions for the near future, with a little luck, my generation of boomers may be the first ever to be presented with the option for physical immortality on Earth. For members of all younger generations, this may almost be guaranteed. It may even be a possibility, albeit only sporadically, for a number of today's seniors as well.

But, as a group, people who are less than 55 or so right now have the best chance of still being alive when the widespread availability of physical immortality becomes a reality. Experts predict that this dramatic extension in human lifespan will debut between 25 and 50 years from now1.

There is, needless to say, considerable controversy over the exact date that extreme human longevity will become widely available. Ron Klatz MD, president of The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, suggests that the human life span will reach 150 years within 30 years and physical immortality will be achieved by mid-century. Other futurists feel such dramatic breakthroughs may take a little longer.2 Ray Kurzweil even goes so far as to states that "life expectancy (will) no longer be a viable term in relation to intelligent beings" sometime between 2072 and 2099.3

This dramatic increase in human longevity will be the result of a number of imminent scientific breakthroughs. In my recent book, The Baby Boomers' Guide to Living Forever4, I discuss these concepts at further length and present a plan of action that can be taken by anyone (not just baby boomers, by the way!) to improve your chances of remaining alive long enough to experience these soon-to-be-available radical increases in human longevity.

In The Baby Boomers' Guide to Living Forever , I begin my discussion of how to plan for extreme longevity with "The Three Rules of Living Forever."

  • Rule #1: Don't die anytime soon.
  • Rule #2: Stay away from most doctors.
  • Rule #3: Follow "The Ten Pillars of Health."

In The Ten Pillars of Health I discuss specifically what types of things you can start doing right now to increase your chances of living a longer and healthier life. You can go to the website associated with this book, where brief descriptions of each of The Ten Pillars of Health are presented.

Defining the Singularity

Vernor Vinge popularized the concept of The Singularity--the point in time when machines become more intelligent than humans--in his essay, "The Technological Singularity."

I use the phrase here differently, to refer to the point in time when human beings cross over the line and become immortal. Vernor Vinge popularized this version of The Singularity in his science fiction novel Marooned in Real Time.

I feel that this singular event corresponding to the end of death's icy grip on human life will be among the most spectacular of triumphs for Life itself. This day that Death dies will join together with the day that Life took its first breath as the two most important dates in the history of life on our planet.

Not everyone feels this way about this. The majority of people now alive, in fact, have never even thought of this and even if they have, pay it little mind. This is because most people today feel that they are immortal already. They believe that they are already guaranteed life eternal as a result of their religious beliefs. The majority of Americans believe that their souls are immortal. As the reality of The Singularity approaches, however, the frequency and intensity of the debate regarding the relative merits of physical vs. ethereal immortality is certain to increase.

It will be interesting to see in which direction people are drawn when they really do have a clear-cut choice in the matter:

  • Stay here on earth on the physical plane with their current memories intact or
  • Die and then take their chances on getting in to heaven, the Happy Hunting Grounds, nirvana, Valhalla, etc.

The question comes to mind as to whether only "good" people will choose heaven, figuring that they have the best chance of getting in there. The sinners among us, on the other hand, would be more likely opt for staying right here on earth as long as possible rather than risk their summary deportation to the eternal flames of "the other place." Will this dichotomy serve as a form of natural selection and eventually lead to an increasingly unsavory populace increasingly comprised of criminals and other borderline types immortalized "down" here?

This decision making process of choosing between heavenly bliss (or the Happy Hunting Grounds, nirvana, Valhalla, etc.) or continuing with the "rat race" here on earth will not be a trivial matter either. The version of physical immortality that I foresee, wonderful though it is to me, will not be everyone's cup of tea.

Achieving this type of personal immortality will necessitate the use of therapeutics some people currently regard as dangerous (e.g., genetic engineering), other therapies that are currently illegal (e.g., human cloning) and still others that don't even exist yet (e.g., human consciousness "uploading"). In the eyes of some folks, these interventions are totally unacceptable or even blasphemous. To others the type of "life" available to us will be an abomination and we won't even meet the definition of being human any more. If history is any guide, a certain subgroup of our fellows will devote their lives to seeing that these options are not available to anyone.

The progression from where we are now, deeply mired in the quicksand of mortality, to the arrival of The Singularity will be characterized by a number of discrete quantum leaps that will be necessary to take us from where we are today to where we will need to be.

Some of the most notable of these biotechnological advances that will bring us to level where true human immortality will be possible include:

Therapeutic human cloning refers to the creation of human organs directly from an individual's own DNA. It is currently legal, unlike "human cloning," in which case an individual is duplicated in toto to create an entirely new genetically identical being.

Stem cells are specialized cells in the body that have the ability to turn into any of a number of diverse cell types. A particular type of these cells, the pluripotent stem cells, exist for just the first few weeks of embryonic development, but have the unique ability to turn into any cell type in the body whatsoever. These cells can also be used to create human replacement parts.

Another way to duplicate human replacement organs is in the factory. Engineers are working to fabricate entirely synthetic or artificial human organs and tissues. The availability of permanent artificial hearts, for example, is anticipated by 2010 followed in short order by synthetic, implantable lungs and kidneys by 2015. Predictions include the widespread availability of synthetic brains by 2035.5

Molecular nanotechnology (MNT) refers to engineering on a very tiny scale. Above all other technologies, MNT has the potential to irrevocably alter Life-As-We-Know-It by creating almost any product we desire from its raw materials at negligible cost. Infinitesimally tiny nanotechnological robots (nanobots) may some day circulate throughout our brains, systematically creating a digital record of the position of each molecule, providing a backup copy of our memories.

In accordance with Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns,"6 these advances will bring about ever more rapid changes in human Life-As-We-Know-It. A large part of these changes will be the result of the exponential increase in the computing power surrounding us. We will move from where we are today, increasingly dependent on external computers that help us conduct our business and access information, to the next level where computers gradually become part of us.

From the desktop, laptop and palmtop computers of today, we will soon progress to "belt tops" and then to non-visible computers implanted within our bodies. Within the next few decades, as suggested above, implanted computers will help our brains to think, while doctors also begin to implant organic as well as synthetic organs to replace worn out or diseased body parts.

This gradual change from carbon-based organic human beings into "transhumans" consisting of more than 50% bionic and/ or machine parts will be the next step in human evolution. The most notable feature of this evolutionary quantum leap will be our transformation from creatures of flesh and bone to being mostly machine-made, from being humans to becoming transhumans.7

It will be interesting to see the psychological changes that will occur to transhumans during this transitional period as people begin to grapple with the prospects for living an essentially indefinite period. In addition, as more and more people come to realize that they have a serious chance at immortality if they only survive for a few more years, our healthcare system will come under even greater pressure to keep people alive. Economic factors will play an ever-increasing role.

Keeping people alive as transhumans may prove very expensive. As more and more people look to keep themselves alive at whatever cost so that they will still around for The Singularity, more and more organs will need to be repaired, replaced or regrown. This could get very expensive indeed. The economic issues involved, as well as a number of others, will ensure that transhumanism won't last very long at all.

From transhumanism, where we are partly organic tissue and partly mechanical parts, the natural progression will be toward greater and greater dependence on ever more rapid computer-augmented thinking and consciousness. Simultaneously, our relationship with our physical bodies will become increasingly evanescent. We may choose to continue to spend part of our time as physical beings, but many of us may find further evolution into posthuman existence, where we exist as purely energetic beings far more to our liking.

In addition to allowing for much more rapid assimilation and processing of information, such existence will also be far less expensive than constantly repairing physical bodies. On a philosophical level, the dividing line between heaven and earth, or, perhaps between human existence and nirvana, will begin to disappear.

The ramifications of this quantum leap in evolution to an entirely novel state of being, to posthumanism, are gargantuan. Will we mere mortals of today ever be able to adapt to such an existence? Or will we, like the children of Israel many centuries ago, just wander about for another 40 years or so, yet be allowed no more than a glimpse of The Promised Land?

The children of Israel were forced into Brownian marching in the Sinai Desert just long enough to ensure that all among them who had been slaves in Egypt died off first. Will it be the same story for today's mortal humans? Having been born into lives of slavery under the yoke of mortality, perhaps we just can't be trusted in a world where there is no death. The powers that be may already know that this would be too much of a shock to our psyches. It's the ultimate caste system. You are either born an immortal or you're not. No one gets to change.

As a true digital-cerebral interface comes into existence and we are able to "upload" our memories and consciousness into a twin computer backup, true human immortality will follow automatically as a matter of course. This creation of a twin consciousness of self on the digital plane will be the defining moment of The Singularity. For as soon as this is done, and we are able to create backup copies of ourselves, by definition, we're immortal.

Should we want to, and I am not sure how many of us will even want to bother, this computer replication of self may then be downloaded into a newly cloned body (a 25 year old version, of course) and the process repeated indefinitely--- Eternal Youth and True Physical Immortality.

The Singularity, therefore, refers to human immortality, the chance to live in a physical body (or virtually if you prefer, of course) for as long as you want. And, I repeat, current estimates are that this option should be available sometime during the present century.

Conceptions About Death

I think that people who lived in previous times may have felt the same way--- that they would never die either--- at least they may have thought this when they were young. Young people don't usually spend a lot of time thinking about their own mortality. Have you ever met a teenager who didn't think of himself or herself as indestructible and immortal?

Yet, with the passage of time, things begin to change. The years take their toll, and these young people, now middle aged, see this one and that one around them beginning to make the baleful passage from this world. The idea that they too will die one day gradually seeps into their consciousness. Right now the inflection point, the age at which the transition occurs--- before which you think that you will never die and after which you know that it is only a matter of time--- roughly corresponds to the age of today's baby boomers.

Many who are younger than this age group still believe that they will never die--- or at least they don't think about death very often. On the other side, for people over 55 years of age or so, the thought patterns change. Very often, for instance, I ask some of my older patients, mostly retirees and other senior citizens, how long they expect to live or how long they might want to live if they had a choice in the matter.

Interestingly, very few of them ever show the remotest interest in immortality or even in a dramatic increase in life expectancy. Their expectations have been shaped by their perceptions. "What they see is what they get." They see many people their own age dying, so they feel it is only a matter of time for them as well.

In addition, many of them have already been stricken with the infirmities and disabilities that aging has wrought. As a result, they lack enthusiasm for continuing in their current condition, not to speak of what they anticipate would inevitably be an even worse condition, for a whole lot longer. Most of them lack the vision of their children and grandchildren to conceive of a future where your physical health actually gets better and you appear to grow younger with the passage of time.

Yet, when the rubber hits the road, it has also been my experience that the age to which many elderly people aspire keeps moving farther and farther away the closer they get to what they think might be their actual "endpoint." My impression is that even the oldest of the old almost always want to live a little longer. As Dr. Ron Klatz, founder of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine has said, "if you are wondering why anyone would want to live to be 120, anyway, just ask someone who's 119."

Most seniors don't really want to die, they just think they have to. So, they spend much of their energy getting ready. If you are a senior, I recommend that you consider spending at least as much time preparing for your possible immortality as you do making preparations for your death.

Individuals a little younger, however, have yet to suffer many of the more serious slings and arrows of that outrageous process commonly referred to as aging. The lightning bolts have still begun to strike us only sporadically. For young and not-so-young adults, the worst symptom of aging reported by even the most senior of us is the receipt of unsolicited literature urging us to join AARP. Senior citizen discounts at the movies remain, mercifully, a few years away. A not so occasional ache and pain here and there, some thinning or graying hair, and a few creases on the forehead or crow's feet around the eyes are the worst age related indignities suffered by this group.

This change in the way we view life itself with an increasing belief in the prospect for immortality will represent a huge paradigm shift in societal thought. The possible outcomes of that shift are staggering. Will we become uncontrollable risk takers with no thoughts of the consequences of our actions because we have no fear of death? Or fearing nothing, will we also care about nothing? Then again we may care more ... about the long-term health of the planet, for example, because we'll be sticking around so much longer. We may care more about one another since we'll be with one another so much longer, etc. What about the economy? And politics? What about education? So many unknowns lie ahead.

In the course of a lifetime measured in centuries, it could become common to have several marriages, many careers, recurring courses of higher education. Will economic status play a role in who gets to live forever and who doesn't, or will we truly have a world of "Forever for All"? The whole social structure will change, and Life-As-We-Know-It will change utterly.

Life Needs to be Fun

Still, no matter how long we live, for it to make any difference at all, life needs to be fun. Death and taxes, at least according to Benjamin Franklin, are the only certainties in life. I am not so sure of either of these certainties anymore. Some of my friends tell me they have no intention of dying--while others pay virtually no taxes.

Personally, I am more intrigued with the idea of dodging the Grim Reaper than the tax collector at this stage in my life. Should the concepts presented forthwith prove successful, then I suppose it would be fun to look at this other "inevitability" of life, paying taxes, and see if this, too, can be simply avoided.

A key concept here is that life needs to be fun. For my own part, I am more intrigued with the idea of living forever than with the reality. I like the challenge. Presented with the option of life everlasting, I don't know exactly how I would handle it. There are only so many types of ethnic restaurants one wants to try. Yet, as it is often said, it still beats the alternative.

But it really isn't necessary that we live forever anyway, we simply need to believe that we can. Having faith that one will never die, a concept well known to religious faithful worldwide, can take a lot of the wind out of Death's dark sails. I think that the main precondition for human happiness is simply being having the belief that we will still be alive tomorrow. As long as we have faith that tomorrow will be here for us, whatever is going on today is a lot easier to take.

In the words of George Bernard Shaw--- "There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it." Perhaps life needs to be a struggle, and wrestling with mortality is the Mother of All Struggles. By taking death out of the equation, a lot of the struggle disappears. But, if life needs to be a struggle, life will be a struggle, if by no other means than our making it be so.

Immortality for All

Furthermore, I don't believe there is anything sacrilegious about my position, although I know there are many who might disagree with me. Between the concepts presented here regarding physical immortality and the unpopular notions espoused by former governor of Colorado Richard Lamm in the distant 1970s that the "elderly have a duty to die" lies a wide spectrum of viewpoints. There are countless ideas about how long any of us should live or should even have the right to live.

Some people say that manipulating the human lifespan is an attempt to tinker with nature and that avoiding death is unnatural, running counter to the natural scheme of things. These people contend that humans have no business tinkering with something as inviolate as death. I completely disagree, and, to help clarify my reasoning, I wish to ask a few questions of them.

How do they feel about the use of antibiotics to treat a case of pneumonia, which would otherwise prove fatal? Doesn't this also violate the natural order of things and, thus, should also be forbidden? Well, these critics argue, you're still alive when you take the antibiotics.

Then, what about the use of a defibrillator to restore an absent heartbeat following a heart attack? In this case, they respond, it's only a "near death experience," during which the patient is not really dead, just "near-dead" briefly, for a few minutes or less.

How about someone who has suffered "near drowning"? Resuscitation efforts are often successful even if a person has been "drowned" for several hours. During this period in the water, the victim is usually cold, without either heartbeat or consciousness. That's pretty much dead in my book. Yet they often are restored to life and appear completely normal.

The bottom line is that humans have been tinkering with the natural order of things from before the days of the Neanderthals. Tinkering is what we do. We tinker with the natural order of things. I don't believe The Greater Power has any problem with our doing so, either. I don't believe The GP is in any great rush for us to join Him/Her. The Greater Power has been around for a long time, and is going to be around for a long time more. Whether any of us spend a few more years or a few more centuries "down" here or "up" here, as the case may be, doesn't make the slightest difference in that time frame.

A meek accountant, who was also a very religious man, prayed long and hard that The Greater Power would appear to him. One day, his prayers were answered.

"What can I do for you?" asked The Greater Power.

"I can't believe that You would take the time to visit me, a meek accountant. Compared to You, I am just a speck of dust, while You are so great and powerful," said the accountant.

"That's right," said The Greater Power.

"And a million dollars to You is just like a penny to me."

"You're right there, too. A million dollars is just like a penny to Me."

"And a million years to You is just like a minute to me," said the accountant.

"Right again, a million years is just like a minute."

"Well, Greater Power," asked the accountant, "do You think You might be able to lend me a few pennies?"

"Of course, my child," boomed the answer, "just wait a minute."

On the contrary, I think The-Greater-Powers-That-Be totally support our efforts. The priority of all living beings is to ensure the continuance of life. Anything we can do to sustain life is in keeping with the true natural order of things. We wouldn't have been given the brains and the imagination we possess if we weren't meant to use them.

So, here we stand at the gateway of a new millennium, with the light of The Singularity already a faint glimmer on a distant horizon. What a truly wonderful time to be alive! What an amazing series of challenges lie ahead for humankind along with a remarkable series of opportunities. In closing, I wish want to express my most fervent desire that each of us be granted the basic immortality wish: simply to be given the gift of one more day ... every day.

1. Klatz, Ronald. Grow Young with HGH, New York: HarperCollins, 1997, pp. 313-314 and "Making The Quantum Leap to Human Immortality in the Year 2029," Anti-Aging Medical News, pp. 1-12.

2. Even by the most conservative estimates, human life spans of 150 years are predicted by 2050 and of 200 years or more by 2100. (See The Wall Street Journal, 10/18/99, p. B-8.)

3. Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines, New York: Penguin Books, 1999, p. 280.

4. Grossman, Terry. The Baby Boomers' Guide to Living Forever, Hubristic Press: Denver CO, 2000.

5. Klatz, Ronald. Anti-Aging Medical News, Fall, 2000, pp. 8-12.

6. Kurzweil, Ray, op cit, 29-30.

7. For further information concerning transhumanism and posthumanism, please see www.extropy.org.

 Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

 
 

   [Post New Comment]
   
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:

Yes, Yes!
posted on 12/10/2001 8:06 PM by paul@floatingplanet.net

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Its hard to comment on an article that I agree with in every way, and which conveys my own thoughts precisley. I just wanted to add to the article another very salient reason for immortality - Wisdom. As a loose rule of thumb, longer lives bring greater wisdom. As it is now we must rely on the wisdom of dead people from bygone ages through writing and memory. But as we ourselves begin to live extremely long lives, there will emerge a new kind of wisdom - the kind of deep penetrating wisdom that could only emerge from a life lived over centuries. This kind of deep wisdom will bring with it a profound effect on the expanding post-human culture that spread into the universe.

Re: Yes, Yes!
posted on 02/03/2002 10:15 AM by box_eatr@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

i agree with many things in this article, but i feel it is too optimistic. there are still many hurdles in the way of achieving immortality within our lifetimes, the most persistant one being the ignorance of the general populace. im not saying that it cant happen in our lifetimes, but that it most likely wont because the research is both not extensive enough, and because of religeous ingnorance impeeding on critical aspects such as stem cell research. those of us who understand that immortality is possible within our lifetimes must not rely on chance. it is up to us to organize the efforts to achieve immortality, get enough funding (from wealthy, interested investors), and push the research to a level several times what it is currently at. the dream is within our reach. if we dont act now, we will never realize it.

Re: Yes, Yes!
posted on 07/21/2009 4:23 PM by richardP

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Long life does not necessarily equate to wisdom.

There's a proverb that goes something like this; "there's no fool like an old fool." Take a look around and you'll see more foolishness than wisdom in this world. A long life, therefore, may be assumed to prolong foolishness and stupidity as well as an individual's years of residence upon this planet.

Since the global impact of a successfully accomplished trans-human singularity may exceed that of the atomic bomb, it may serve us well to consider whether the pursuit of such technology is indeed wise.

"Experience is knowledge. Everything else is just information." - A. Einstein

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 09/10/2002 6:25 PM by truthlove@yahoo.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Some of this messagwe is for the search engines,
forgive me!

At age 31 I apparantly went translucid in the Destinial Priority for about 8 minutes, best that I can approximate. I have lived in a double reality ever since.

It's like I know what's coming because I saw it realized and then returned to the now, which was June 1972, where everyone looked zombie-fied and oblivious.

But finding this website is such a match for what I saw it is a great relief and re-assurnance.

I am creating and evolving 150 immortality websites in an attempt to explain in the limited language (english) what it is that I saw.

Peoples' intention does not belong to them.
Ego is a psychical mutiny of individualized
(shattered) singularity of one mind. The force/truth doesn't care about your vote or opinion about it. It waits for you to show up
to learn and contribute. There isn't another reality....just your confusion or blindness about the singularity.

crawlerbait : virtuebios destinial priority mandantory immortality superhumanity one mind singularity
intention relevance quotient univfied coordinated universal intent mortality resolution international psynamic wave quickening

robert ray hedges
Sedona Az usa

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 09/21/2002 7:21 PM by truthlove@yahoo.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

In order to fulfill the singularity prophecy I have devoted my entire life (the Last 30 years of it) to Mortality Resolution International as the Title of the electric truthlove Borg one mind earth version of coordinated universal intent in the Destinial Priority!
Intention Relevance Quotient feedback from every intent will be done with hyper-intuitive aptitude and supercomputing combined with emotional considerations, merged.

And now, the search engines need talking to...
Robert Ray Hedges is taking over the Internet - I am creating Physical Immortality in Sedona Arizona USA at 22:42:17 Saturday September 21 2002
Google delays internet takeover
Robert Ray Hedges is taking over the internet how to take over the internet
i am taking over the internet and I could really use a lot of help
Shall we stop killing all children yet
Mortality Resoultion International
virtuebios
Destinial Engineering Prophecy Fulfillment Aerobics
right use of will eternal
Physical Immortality
The Childrens Immortalyzation Network http://psychic.police.tripod.com
Mom said I could play

Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/12/2002 4:29 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Great article. Living longer seems to go hand-in-hand with exploring and colonizing the Solar System. After all, what is one going to do with all the time?

In order to live, one has to have a purpose. In order to live BIG, one has to have a BIG purpose. When the purpose for one's existence is non-existent, I don't see the purpose for one existing.

Lastly, I can see the author's view that the definition of the Singularity might actually the moment we achieve immortality, collectively or severally. After all, the ability to live forever would certainly provide one with insights that could not be predicted in any way prior to such a state -- because one would be able to witness the unfolding of Universal events, time-scales that the Universe operates on in general yet occluded from mortals. Thus one would be able to see vast changes over the course of a Posthuman lifetime. Isn't this the definition of the Singularity anyway -- that technological changes are happening so fast that one cannot keep up with them in a lifetime. But if one had a lifetime to keep up with them, the Singularity would have happened in the observer, not in the observed. The Singularity would be a subjective event, not an objective event -- an event of stretched-out time, not an event of increased pace. And perhaps these are related anyway, for if a Posthuman Power had such an increased pace, to it, the normal pace of mere humans would seem an eternity.

Perhaps an immortal being, by definition, would transit all time in an instant, at least from the point of view of the unconscious or the dead. What I mean by this is: Have you ever been put under for an operation? You count backwards from 10 and suddenly you're AWAKENING -- not going unconscious -- in a dark quiet room! I was very surprised when I first had this experience. In other words, the act of going UNCONSCIOUS felt like, or felt meshed with, the act of AWAKENING! I have been thinking about this since 1986, wondering if they could be one in the same, or if this could be similar to death: the moment you DIE you become ALIVE or you AWAKEN. Perhaps immortality is sort of like going UNCONSCIOUS to death. So if an immortal being can transit all time in what might seem like an instant to a dead person, maybe a dead person might be able to transit all time in what seems like an eternity to an immortal person.

James Jaeger

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/21/2002 10:51 PM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

One of the effects of immortality is that everyone would have to get a permit before having any more children. We can't just keep on increasing the population of the earth without regard to the consequences. If no one dies, that means only a limited number of new members can be added to society each year. At least until we can make off-earth habitats to soak up the excess bodies we are producing. I think that's possible but not something that will happen as quickly as we are reproducing these days. Every person on the planet needs a certain amount of space. That does not just mean the distance between two people walking down the street. It means room to grow the crops that person will eat, the room to house them, the room to provide transportation and stores and factories. I don't know how much room the average person needs to supply all of his/her needs, but there is a limit and right now the population is doubling every 25 to 30 years. For every person who achieves immortality, some other person will be denied the right to life.

The singularity may produce a way to solve this problem, but until we find one the only solution is to limit new births when we hit a sustainable ceiling. The current government thinks it's a crime to advocate such a policy (especially if the Chinese are doing it) and the Catholic church feels the same way. That means a lot of people are going to have to change their minds if the prospect of immortality becomes an issue before we find a solution to what we will do with new members of the club.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/21/2002 11:48 PM by Joe Smoe

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

genetically engineer more people to be homosexual.

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 1:40 AM by azb0@earthlink.net

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Joe,

> "genetically engineer more people to be homosexual."

:)

Or, genetically engineer more people to find immortality distasteful ...

Honestly, I think the immortality-seekers don't actually know what they seek.

The entire sense of "continuing individual identity" is nothing more than a momentary sensation, never anything more. Are you willing (say, during surgery) to be rendered completely unconscious for a few moments? If so, and you never wake up, that is really no different than "immortality", nor different than what you experience every day. The "you of the present moment" inherits a "sense of continuity" thanks to memories of past "moments" experienced by versions of "you" that are long gone. The "you" of the present moment only "looks forward" to a good tomorrow, but never gets to be there. Instead, some "future self" gets to experience tomorrow, and believe itself to be the continuence of the "you" of this moment.

I have tried to present thought-experiments to get the point of this across, some more lucid than others. Allow me to attempt another.

Imagine you are told you have only a few days left to live, and a magic genie happens by and says, "If you would like to experience "life" for another 100 years, I can grant that wish. The only caveat is that you will be transferred into the consciousness of some other person. You will wake up from bed as some other person, with all of their memories, and none of your own. You will believe yourself to be that person."

Go for it? You might think, "Well, why not? At least I wouldn't be dead. I will continue to experience "life".

But this is nonsense. Where would be the "I" in this version of "I would get to continue"? It is really no different than saying, "You will die, but don't worry, somewhere there are others who will continue to live."

It is all about memory, this sense of continuity. There is no psychic "self" that continues, not even for a moment. You eat well, and take care of your health today, so that someone else will enjoy your good health tomorrow morning when they wake up, and believe they are the "you" that fell asleep last night.

There is no "psychic continuity". Immortality is merely the "expectation" of endless tomorrows, and never the exercise of those tomorrows.

Come to realize this, and you will be as immortal as you will ever be.

Cheers! ____tony b____

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 6:10 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>At least I wouldn't be dead. I will continue to experience "life". But this is nonsense. Where would be the "I" in this version of "I would get to continue?

Okay Tony, let me play the devil's advocate here. What causes the continuity experienced in life? Is it memories or the "I."

Here's another thought experiment. Close your eyes right now and picture a cat in your mind. Can you do that? Okay, good. Now put boots on that cat. Can you do that? Okay, fine. Now, make that cat walk around in circles. Did you do that? Okay. (I am assuming that you could do all of the above.)

Now let me ask you: Who or what was looking at that cat?

Answer ____________________



James Jaeger

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 7:15 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James!

> Who or what was looking at that cat?

A small _self program_ inside *my* head.

It has run *here* yesterday, it will (hope so) run tomorrow and it has run, and it is running all around.

I don't remember or don't know for many occasions ... but it really doesn't matter. It was what it was.

Tony is right in a way. But it's not an infinite number of those selves, but it's one.

- Thomas

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 8:15 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>A small _self program_ inside *my* head.

A self_program in your head? Well seems to me that's just another picture, a picture of a self_program instead of a cat. So who's looking at this self_program?

James

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 8:46 AM by tomaz@techemail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

> So who's looking at this self_program?

Here is, where the line ends. Where is the circle.

Self_program itself - is the answer.

- Thomas

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 10:10 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>Here is, where the line ends. Where is the circle. Self_program itself - is the answer.

So the self_program is looking at the self_program?

Not that I have any answers, I hope we are at least getting each other to think possibly down some new channels. But alas, maybe this is all a matter of "Where is the circle?" or "If the circle is large enough it looks like a straight line." Maybe the very definition of intelligence (or of life, or of consciousness) is that it CANNOT BE defined? Possibly intelligence, life and consciousness are the EXACT SAME THING and the moment intelligence (or life or consciousness) attempts to define or ascertain what intelligence is it ceases to be intelligent (or it ceases to exist or be aware). Indeed, nothing makes me feel more stupid, less alive or aware than when I try and define or deal with this damn subject.

Having been up since yesterday at 5p, I will bid you goodnight.

James Jaeger

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 8:32 AM by azb0@earthlink.net

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

> "Who or what was looking at that cat?"

I would have to answer much as Thomas has.

There IS a continuing "thing", a dynamic process that senses, and lays down memories, and retrieves and interacts with those memories. That "thing" was looking at the cat, "the whole time". But my personal "sense of being" was replaced continuously during that cat-walkthrough. In this sense, the "me" that began looking at the cat was not the "me" that finished.

There was a continuing process that supported the "continuing-self-sensation".

But that continuing "process-thing" is selfless. It supports a sequence of sensations, each sensation a complex melding of memory and external stimuli together. This melding gives rise to a "sense of being and continuity" by virtue of those memories.

There is both something to be gained, and lost, in comparing the "body and mind" to a "computer and program". There are rough analogies, physical processor to "brain", and program to "thoughts occuring in the brain", with each perfoming "memory retrieval. But in this view, (computer-wise) memories are "inert", and only retrieved to be "examined", almost distinct from the imagined "examining process".

With the mind/brain, I believe that "memories" are so "at the fingertips of process" that the distinction breaks down. The memories are not "inert", but rather dynamically interacting with and restructuring "process" continuously, and we lose something in the translation if we think solely of "process driving memory/data retrieval", when it is just as much "memory driving process".

Cheers! ____tony b____

Who Sees the Cat?
posted on 09/22/2002 9:49 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>There IS a continuing "thing", a dynamic process that senses, and lays down memories, and retrieves and interacts with those memories. That "thing" was looking at the cat, "the whole time".

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Question: Who was looking at the cat?

Answer: I was looking at the cat.

Question: Who or what is "I"

Answer: "I" is me, a thing.

So this thing called I, or me, is capable of ACTION such as: processing, laying down, retrieving, interacting, looking.

Well if our "sense of being" is nothing but our memories, how can these memories be capable of action, especially when there is no continuum and it's just "all about memory, this sense of continuity"? In order to have action, there MUST be at least an appearance of a continuum. A movie is an apparent continuum made up of static pictures (memories), but the static pictures are given "life" because some observer is able to remain stationary as they pass by the gate of the projector. No? If the observer were in the same motion or of the same "stuff" as the observed, I don't see how there could be differentiation, hence any observation of a continuum. If I, the observer, is the same "stuff" as the memories, the pictures, then what differentiates the two, what makes the potential difference between a static and a dynamic we know as "reality." I don't see how "reality", or life for that matter, could exist if there isn't a differentiation between the observed and the observer.

Again, if memories are capable of action, how could a continuum of motion be observed unless the "observer" were static or motionless? If such observer of motion were a static, how could it also be characterized as a process or a program, both of which are dynamic?

>But my personal "sense of being" was replaced continuously during that cat-walkthrough. In this sense, the "me" that began looking at the cat was not the "me" that finished.

Why not just say that YOU, the being, the I, the entity that is aware that you are aware, is looking at a collection of mental image pictures that is your "mind." Why invoke all sorts of other machinery and processes to explain what might be just two distinct entities: YOU and your MIND? If the MIND is knowable, perhaps the YOU is NOT knowable. This arrangement seems to strike some sort of an equilibrium, that of possibly: in LIFE you can know only your MIND (a collection of memories expressed in energy-pictures) but not your BEINGNESS (your self), yet after life, if any after-life, you can know only your BEINGNESS but not your MIND (thus the apparent amnesia of death).

James Jaeger





Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
posted on 09/23/2002 10:31 AM by azb0@earthlink.net

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

You are right, in that I could simply have said, "I saw the cat".

But the point of my posting, as it relates to "immortality", is that my "sense of being in the world" exists only in each present moment. In this sense, the "I" that began to see the cat is not the "I" that is writing this post about it.

My central thesis is that immortality is the "Expectation of unending tomorrows", and ONLY the expectation.

Imagine that you were convinced, by some magic, that you actually had gained immortality, would live forever. Great, you go out and do all sorts of things, and at some point you feel like you want to rest, say, take a short nap. So you do, ... and suppose you never wake up.

Where is the "you" that would regret such an outcome? Certainly not the non-future you(s) that will not exist. Only the present you, that feels this would be "cheating the imagined future you(s) of existing."

That is my point about immortality. The present "you" never gets to "be there", one way or the other. You only get to "expect to be there".

Cheers! ____tony b____

Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
posted on 09/25/2002 9:46 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>James, You are right, in that I could simply have said, "I saw the cat".

Okay.

>But the point of my posting, as it relates to "immortality", is that my "sense of being in the world" exists only in each present moment. In this sense, the "I" that began to see the cat is not the "I" that is writing this post about it. My central thesis is that immortality is the "Expectation of unending tomorrows", and ONLY the expectation

What I understand of your central thesis is this (and please correct me if I'm not getting it): There is only the present time. The "I" of the person exists only in this present time. This "I" will be different tomorrow because with each passing moment, our brains develop new layers of awareness that the older versions of "I" did not, and could not, have(1). Thus, each current version of "I" can only "imagine" the future, not GO THERE, because only the new versions of "I," the more intelligent ones, can "go" there. Thus the future is but an "expectation," not a temporal event.

This thesis works for me and actually might work even if there were some sort of a transcendent element to the entity we call a human being. For instance, let's say you are a SOUL who has, as one of his possessions, a MIND. And this mind is nothing more than a database of mental pictures of everything you have experienced in your life. And it is YOU that ARE this SOUL, this BEING that lives forever. You ARE a SOUL or SPIRIT as opposed to the idea that you HAVE a soul or spirit. Since the terms SOUL and SPIRIT have so much baggage, let me just roll them into the term TRANSCENDENT BEING. . . or just BEING for short. Thus you are a BEING with a MIND and a BODY.

Obviously I have no better idea than any one else if any of this is true, or what's true in this arena, but let's just kick some of this around some more.

One of the recent developments that has got me wondering if in fact we just might be immortal BEINGS(2) is the recent advancements in Superstring- and M-theory. M-Theory postulates, actually requires, more dimensions than just 3 in order to work. IF it's true, that there ARE more dimensions than just H x W x L, THEN perhaps a component of human existence utilizes these other dimensions. If so, this might explain some of the yapping about out-of-body experiences, exteriorization, astro-projection, life after death, near-death experiences, apparitions, and other phenomenon. I don't think you can just write off most of the Human race as crazy when they claim these things exist or they have experienced them. Although I have never had any experiences with any of the above, and have no empirical reason to believe that any of them exist, I am still willing to retain the possibility of certain validity. I WAS willing to write it all off until I booked up a little on M-Theory several years ago. Now I'm in neutral.

So my point is this: If you ARE a BEING that persists through time and this BEING has the ability to review the various mental image pictures of his existence, then that BEING is the same BEING now as in the future. Some say that this BEING is actually GOD (in other words YOU are actually GOD) and this BEING, in order to have a "game" called life, occludes all of his knowledge about existence. IF this is true, THEN your thesis falls completely apart because the "I" of today is the same "I" of tomorrow, the only difference being that, instead of LEARNING MORE, the "I" of tomorrow has OCCLUDED LESS of his universal knowingness of all things. In other words, you start out knowing everything because you are actually GOD playing the role of this little piece of meat down on a planet (known as a Human Being), but in order to have some fun with your power -- you have to "forget" you HAVE that power. Thus you "become" so-called Human. Logically this all makes sense, because if you relegate all power and all ability to the idea of GOD, AND GOD actually exists, THEN such a BEING would be able to do and be anywhere, and appear as anything, including a Human BEING with a meat body on a watery planet. As such a BEING you would also be able to create all other Human BEINGS as "extras" and "bit payers" in your Universe or Reality.

>Imagine that you were convinced, by some magic, that you actually had gained immortality, would live forever. Great, you go out and do all sorts of things, and at some point you feel like you want to rest, say, take a short nap. So you do, ... and suppose you never wake up.
Where is the "you" that would regret such an outcome? Certainly not the non-future you(s) that will not exist. Only the present you, that feels this would be "cheating the imagined future you(s) of existing."

Depends on what you want to define "you" as. Does your MIND never wake up? Does your BODY never wake up? Which MIND? Which BODY? Suppose you are operating many MINDS and many BODIES or all MINDS and all BODIES, a distinct possibility if GOD were pretending to be a BEING or the Human BEING you happened to be using to perceive reality with.

>That is my point about immortality. The present "you" never gets to "be there", one way or the other. You only get to "expect to be there".

Provided the present you isn't GOD or a BEING that transcends physical death.

James Jaeger

>Cheers! ____tony b____


----------------------------------
(1) Yudkowsky goes into some of this in "Staring into the Singularity" at http://sysopmind.com/singularity.html

(2) And by this I mean, we actually experience the future after body-death with the same collection of mental image pictures. We go there and we are more intelligent because we have available a larger collection of pictures, i.e., experiences.

Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
posted on 09/25/2002 10:43 PM by azb0@earthlink.net

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

Yes, you get the gist of my thesis, except one can equally view it as "there is only the present, and I am always there", as well as "time passes, the present exists but for a moment, and what I habitually call 'me' is never the same me, nor the I that does the calling.

I think of "sense of selfness" (and I mean the sensation, not necessarily any underlying reality) is like a wave traveling across the ocean. You can follow it with your eye, and "see" it continue and move, yet if if passes from blue water, through a narrow section of red water, and then back to blue, the wave becomes only momentarily red. The "redness" does not get carried along with the wavefront, only the "time-space location of the form" is traveling. The wave is essentially different substance at every moment.

Of course, if there is a soul, or soul-like transcendence of materia, then this could exist "through time", but there is no particualr evidence of such (despite similarities among OOB experiences, etc. They can have varied explanations.)

And if there were a soul-like existence, there is little need to "do anything" to be immortal, right?

I guess my problem with the soul-like view (as in, "one per individual", at least) is that I see no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul". It would be, rather, that there is only really one such entity (god as you might describe it). Then, you and I are all the same manifestation of consciousness, and when I die, the rest of humanity is my immortality, so to speak.

But to argue that, somehow, this "sense of being the same Tony" continues, I cannot see it. For otherwise, I would right now feel like the "same Fred", or the "same Sally", or a billion others.

Alternately, if my conscious awareness is the continuation of some past Fred, but with no memories of being that Fred, then I cannot see what good this is to the Fred that has passed. That Fred cannot appreciate "being this Tony."

It is THAT sense of continuity which seems incongruous (and which the immortality-seekers want so desperately.)

It is only the "present experiencer" who maintains a sense of identity, who anticipates future experiences, and upon seeing death, anticipates the end of experiencing. And this is true, whether or not there is an actual-continuing as an underlying reality.

We often consider and debate the possible nature of the underlying reality, but this may be akin to what someone posted several months back, "trying to turn on the light so fast, you can see what the room looked like in the dark, before the light spoils it..." In essense, an "unexperienceable" thing.

Cheers! ____tony b____

Motion: An Illusion?
posted on 09/26/2002 7:31 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>Yes, you get the gist of my thesis, except one can equally view it as "there is only the present, and I am always there", as well as "time passes, the present exists but for a moment, and what I habitually call 'me' is never the same me, nor the I that does the calling.

Yes. I don't really believe that TIME is a dimension. Time is only a unit of change of position of particles. As "time" passes, what you are really saying is, all the atoms that make up your body and brain are moving and changing position while the entire body itself sits on a larger "particle" that moves around the sun also changing its position and generating increments of motion we have sliced up into the calendar and hours, minutes and seconds, etc, etc. So the YOU of yesterday is simply a different YOU than the YOU of today because all the atoms and subatomic particles that comprise you have changed positions thus creating the variations of patterns that are each successive "YOU." This all makes sense, but let me take it a step further (and in fact you have with your next paragraph in a way I was going to agree with).

>I think of "sense of selfness" (and I mean the sensation, not necessarily any underlying reality) is like a wave traveling across the ocean. You can follow it with your eye, and "see" it continue and move, yet if it passes from blue water, through a narrow section of red water, and then back to blue, the wave becomes only momentarily red. The "redness" does not get carried along with the wave front, only the "time-space location of the form" is traveling. The wave is essentially different substance at every moment.

This is EXACTLY right. The wave doesn't "move" it only generates the appearance of movement. So let's take this idea a step farther. Let's say those atoms I stated above which change position (move) thus generating the illusion of so-called time, let's say that they don't move at all. Let's say the 1-dimentional strings that are postulated to comprise the subatomic particles don't MOVE at all, but simply provide a universal substrate upon which an all-encompassing illusion of motion is manifest. Sort of like the sea in your analogy, except the "sea" here is the entire fabric of space, matter and energy. Thus MOTION is a total ILLUSION. Everything that seems like it moves, from the earth's revolution around the sun to electrons "orbiting" the nucleus of atoms. It's all just wave fronts passing through giving the illusion of motion, hence the illusion of TIME. If this is true, if this is the larger reality (and I believe it is), then the YOU of yesterday, as defined by the patterns your neural net happened to be formed into, exhibits only an illusion of change in the YOU of today because your neural net only manifest an illusion of motion, hence time. The substrate, never changed, it only gave an ongoing illusion of a continuum of change. It is this substrate that I am interested in and how it relates to us as BEINGS or us as entities that are able to perceive and operate in a Universe. Are we related to this substrate? Do we exist in or above or around this substrate? Do we interact with this substrate? Are WE this substrate? A part of it? Is this substrate us? Is this substrate what is referred to as God or universal intelligence? Are we a part of universal intelligence? These are all questions that have to be answered?

>Of course, if there is a soul, or soul-like transcendence of material, then this could exist "through time", but there is no particular evidence of such (despite similarities among OOB experiences, etc. They can have varied explanations.)

Right, the evidence is almost always, or always, subjective. I believe that objective evidence IS possible if the phenomenon IS real. Your definition of a Universe was very good, in that you said any place you could go to FROM this Universe (as in "escape from" this Universe into "another" Universe) is actually the same Universe. Boy is that a mind-twister to shut up all these multi-Universe freaks that are doing nothing but complicating the idea and definition of a Universe. The Universe is the Universe.

>And if there were a soul-like existence, there is little need to "do anything" to be immortal, right?

One would think. Maybe this is the joker -- all us poor saps here on the MIND-X are trying to figure out a way to reach immortality when we are already immortal and can be no otherwise.

>I guess my problem with the soul-like view (as in, "one per individual", at least) is that I see no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul". It would be, rather, that there is only really one such entity (god as you might describe it). Then, you and I are all the same manifestation of consciousness, and when I die, the rest of humanity is my immortality, so to speak.

I would say in answer to your Q about "no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul"" that there is no such THING as a NEW soul. All souls exist and have always existed, even before the advent of this particular Universe. In other words, in this particular cosmology, the Universe was created by souls. In other words WE collectively, you and I created this Universe and then, in order to have a game, forgot that we created it. If, in fact we are collectively or severally God, then, by definition, this would be possible because there is nothing that God cannot do. Thus, the pivotal question becomes IS there any such thing AS God. If the answer to this is yes, and the qualities in infinite ability are given to such an entity, then we have to expect any and all outcomes or possibilities -- including the possibility that each of us are GOD or are a part of GOD. For a scientist, all this still leaves one limp. I'm just going through the logic as best I can.

>But to argue that, somehow, this "sense of being the same Tony" continues, I cannot see it. For otherwise, I would right now feel like the "same Fred", or the "same Sally", or a billion others.
Alternately, if my conscious awareness is the continuation of some past Fred, but with no memories of being that Fred, then I cannot see what good this is to the Fred that has passed. That Fred cannot appreciate "being this Tony."

I don't know the answer to this, but one thing that has always concerned me and that is, how is data passed on from being to being? Once we die, once our brain rots in the ground, then technically all that was learned by that brain while alive is gone (except that data which was passed from father to child, genetically or verbally, or to others in the form of verbal and/or written life-long communications). So the question becomes for me, if these are the only ways data can be passed, is that sufficient for civilization to continue? We all know how sloppy and misunderstood communication is from human to human. Would a Universe, or a GOD, if any, leave the advancement of species and civilization and possibly the very Universe itself up to the vagaries of during-life communication? Or would some other device exist? Could all the data a human acquires in a lifetime get quantum encoded the moment before death and transferred out of the dying brain? If so where is the data transferred? Could the data be transferred? I don't see why not as we would only be talking about terabytes of data to a Human's memory? Perhaps, upon death the life-record is transferred directly to the substrate of the Universe at the one-dimensional string level where it is dispersed to all other living organisms or uploaded to new organisms taking physical form (i.e. babies). Since 98 percent of the genome seems to be unused, perhaps these are just write-only files that hold the data record of an eternity of lifetimes of any given BEING.

>It is THAT sense of continuity which seems incongruous (and which the immortality-seekers want so desperately.) It is only the "present experiencer" who maintains a sense of identity, who anticipates future experiences, and upon seeing death, anticipates the end of experiencing. And this is true, whether or not there is an actual-continuing as an underlying reality.

I don't know.

>We often consider and debate the possible nature of the underlying reality, but this may be akin to what someone posted several months back, "trying to turn on the light so fast, you can see what the room looked like in the dark, before the light spoils it..." In essense, an "unexperienceable" thing.

I am optimistic that the underlying reality will begin to be revealed if they can find the super-partners that they will be looking for in the new Supercollider being built in Switzerland. If these are found, them this is evidence that Superstring theory is moving in the right direction. If it is, everything will change and we will throw out most of science and physics as we know it today.

James Jaeger

>Cheers! ____tony b____


Population Formula?
posted on 09/22/2002 5:50 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Grant,

I pretty much agree with you, but I might add we should place limits on "procreation rights." While I feel every human being has the right to procreate, I don't feel every human being has the right to OVER-procreate. We see much of this now. IMO, two children is enough for any two people -- one to replace the father's body and one to replace the mother's body.

I don't know what the capacity of a planet is, but we should damn well find out. . . and soon. If we end up screwing up this one before we can get other planets on-line, we're all in deep trouble.

One thing I have been toying around with is the idea of granting every human being a "license" to have X number of children -- X being proportionate to the global birth rate less the global death rate modified by sustainable population factors. I don't know what the exact formula would be (I'll leave that up to Tony B :), but once a prudent population is determined given ALL the factors, X could be assigned to each person, either universally, or within certain regions or countries.

Once X is determined, we might recognize that some people won't WANT to have ANY children whereas some will want MANY, at least two, or perhaps they would be quite satisfied with X. Thus I submit: why couldn't one sell their procreation rights to those who want more than X children? People sell their blood and bodies! No? This way those that wanted more children could have them, so long as they could AFFORD to HAVE them.

Procreation rights could also be purchased by richer people and donated to poorer people who might want more children but couldn't afford the procreation rights.

Such a transfer of procreation rights might keep everyone happy (happier) and give the planet's ecosystem a breather. Commoditizing procreation rights could also end up being a nightmare if not done properly or ethically. People could end up being "farmed" just so their procreation rights could be harvested. So perhaps a cap on what they should cost might be in order.

As long as I'm on this subject; I have often felt that some people are not fit to be parents. Every time I hear of someone being executed by the state -- other than being abhorred at being forcibly made a party to state-sanctioned murder -- I can't help realizing that that person (usually a man) was once a DEAR little boy . . . before his irresponsible, criminal or drug-ridden "parents" fucked him up. You can say it's society or heredity, blah, blah, blah. . . but please don't -- unless YOU have a little boy and are a parent, because you're simply NOT qualified to comment. The reason you're not qualified to comment, is because you have no way of experiencing the effects of parenting. Parenting CANNOT be observed objectively, it can ONLY be experienced SUBJECTIVELY. And the reason for this is because at least half of parenting is the EMOTION, and the DYNAMICS of that emotion, of dealing with, guiding and nurturing developing minds -- NON AI minds. You can put all the 24-hr video cameras you want on a "typical" family to "empirically" observe them for your sociology project -- but that's mostly horse, because there is NO WAY to understand the subjective dynamics of the intimate relationship between a parent and a child.

I realize that there are exceptions to what I have said, were good parents end up with little boys that ultimately get gassed by "society" -- but I bet they are one in a thousand. Just because the parents "look" good, look sane, look able -- never forget: THE MOST INSANE AND DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE NEVER INSITUTIONALIZED. THEY'RE ON THE STREETS. IN THE CORPORATE SUITE. AT THE TRIGGER. IN THE HOME. And yes, THEY'RE "PARENTS" as well.

As we develop other worlds to inhabit and longevity increases, the procreation laws (as well as society's killing laws for capital punishment and Rothschild-instigate war) should be modified. A formula should be devised for X. If Drake can devise a formula for the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations out there, a population density formula should be cake.

James Jaeger

Re: Population Formula?
posted on 09/22/2002 12:11 PM by wclary5424@aol.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

See my post responding to Grant...but based on the amount of land needed to support our food supply, we'll probably be reaching the limits of human growth in 20 years or less. If the birth rate levels off before then, it might take longer. On the other hand, I am assuming that fish stocks in the ocean will continue to hold up, and that's probably unlikely--the amount of seafood harvested yearly has outstripped the sustainable growth rate for more than 20 years.

We have two choices--we can either slow the birth rate to equal the death rate, or we can increase the death rate to equal the birth rate. If we don't consciously do the former, nature will take care of the latter with famine.

If per-capita consumption increases at its current rate, it will require the equivalent of several new Earths to sustain human population in less than 50 years. And we only have one. Even if we knew of another planet, to export the annual population increase of the Earth would require launching nearly 100 thousand Saturn V size rockets per day.

I sometimes get very depressed when I think about this subject.

BC




The Real Cost of Meat
posted on 09/23/2002 5:27 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>... the average human being requires the equivalent of 20 acres of arable land, covered by several inches of topsoil, and thousands of gallons of potable fresh water.

It is my understanding that one of the reasons this figure is so high is because of the over-consumption of meat products. I don't have the facts at hand, but the amount of land it takes to raise one pounds of beef for a Big Mac, for instance, is staggering.

One way people could help with the problem would be to eat less meat. There are now bean substitutes on the market that are literally indistinguishable from hamburgers, and turkey and chicken make perfectly fine hotdog material.

The real cost of meat is also the partial destruction of the world.

James Jaeger








Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/22/2002 11:47 AM by wclary5424@aol.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Grant,

Even without hypothetical immortality, we are rapidly reaching the carrying capacity of the earth.

Lieblig's Law, a principle of agronomy gives us a good idea of the precariousness of our situtaion. Given today's consumption patterns, the average human being requires the equivalent of 20 acres of arable land, covered by several inches of topsoil, and thousands of gallons of potable fresh water.

At the current rate of population increase, the hard limit will be reached sometime before 2020. We would have actually reached the limit a couple of decades ago, were it not for petroleum-based synthetic fertilizer. And without "modern" sources of energy, it would require the surface of ten earths to support the population we have now.

BC

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/23/2002 12:16 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

That's pretty much the way it looks to me, too. Unless something comes along that is smarter than we are (the singularity?) I don't see much hope for us beyond 2020. Some people worry about us taking the resources of primitive people to satisfy our own greed. What we are looking at is a world of depleted resources, regardless of where we live.

There is a great aquifer of underground water that stretches from North Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico. We are sucking it dry. Boon Pickens has invested huge amounts of money to tap buy land from which he can tap that aquifer and sell the water he brings up to Dallas and Houston. The water level in that ground is falling at a rapid rate because of drought and irrigation. If it runs out, we may have to suck the great lakes dry to make up for it. There are few good solutions to the water problem or any other problem being caused by population pressure. We certainly aren't equipped to solve them. Our solution is to grab as much of what's left as we can and to hell with those who miss out. It reminds me of musical chairs. There is a dwindling supply of everything and whoever doesn't get his/hers will be left out.

To solve the dwindling fish supply, people are turning farms into fish farms and growing shrimp and other fish in huge ponds filled with sea water. The water salts the earth and makes it unfarmable and the fish get diseases they wouldn't be bothered with if they were left in the ocean. They made huge profits at first but the number and quality of fish being farmed is dwindling and the land they were farmed on is being ruined by the process.

There are no easy solutions. The way society is organized today makes it unlikely that we will be able to find any in the time we have available. We don't have until the end of this century. We'll be lucky if we are able to enjoy life until the middle of the century if we don't get our act together and stop squabbling about everything. That's the first problem the singularity will have to give us a solution for.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Subjective Singularity
posted on 09/23/2002 12:34 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Here's one example of what's happening:

Mexico: Growing opposition to industrial shrimp farming

Shrimp, considered as the country's pink gold, became the focus of Mexico's export-oriented fishing activity because of the importance and economic value of the crustacean in the international --particularly US-- market. Five Mexican states along the Pacific coast (Sonora, Sinaloa, Nayarit, Oaxaca, and Chiapas) and two along the east coast (Tamaulipas and Campeche) have developed shrimp aquaculture.

Sinaloa is currently the state with the largest number of shrimp farms and the highest production levels of cultivated shrimp and where environmental problems associated with the industry's development are most prominent. The rapid proliferation in the number of shrimp farms is affecting the coastal ecosystems and the rural communities that depend on the resources provided by these ecosystems.

Despite existing regulations, there is a consensus that the aquaculture industry is transforming the coastal ecosystems of Sinaloa in a way that is affecting the livelihood and quality of life for residents of the many rural coastal communities.

The coastal lagoons and estuaries that characterize Sinaloa contain a diversity of habitats including mangrove forests, salt-marshes, inter-tidal pools, swamps, freshwater inner lagoons, and brackish and seawater systems. A key environmental concern is the impact of shrimp farm construction on ecosystems. This issue is most prominent in the southern region of the state, where a single lagoon system can contain many shrimp farms. During the rainy season, the region's lagoons are habitats and nurseries for postlarvae and a variety of fishery resources, which form the basis of the commercial fishing activity and are also exploited by the rural coastal communities as common property. When these lagoons dry up with the end of the rains, they have traditionally been mined for salt both by individuals gathering it for home consumption as well as by some cooperatives.

Today, in order to guarantee a permanent water supply to the shrimp farms, canals have been built to connect the lagoons with estuaries or the ocean, leading to permanent flooding. The government has granted concessions, mostly to private investors, to build shrimp farms in these coastal lagoons. Moreover, the concessions have converted a highly diverse coastal ecosystem into a monocrop system. This has resulted in a greater marginalization and displacement of the social sector and in an increased distrust of the government agencies in charge of developing the aquaculture industry. By transforming common-property lagoons into a privately owned resource, the concessions have exacerbated Sinaloa's social conflicts.

The discharge from shrimp ponds is considered to be one of the more recent and serious direct sources of pollution in Sinaloa's coastal waters. Shrimp-farm wastewater contains large amounts of organic material, fertilizers, chemicals, and antibiotics, which cause eutrophication in the lagoons and estuarine systems. In Sinaloa, wastewater from shrimp aquaculture activities has been linked to the formation of phytoplankton blooms, eutrophication, and the development of red tides in coastal marine waters

An additional environmental concern is the impact of the industry on mangrove ecosystems. In Mexico, there are approximately 123 coastal lagoons, most bordered by mangrove swamps. Mexico is home to four mangrove species: red (Rhizophora mangle), white (Laguncunaria racemosa), black (Avicennia germinans), and buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta). Mexico's mangrove forests cover approximately 660,000 hectares. Sinaloa's mangrove forests serve as nesting and feeding grounds for a large number of resident and migratory birds and as nurseries for shrimp, which form the basis of the inshore fishing industry. The trees are also used by the rural population as firewood and lumber. Over time, mangrove ecosystems in Sinaloa have been transformed by mining, agriculture, and the cattle industry. Currently, the shrimp aquaculture industry is also contributing to the ecological transformation of these ecosystems. It has been estimated that by 1994, 10,000 hectares of mangrove forests were destroyed to build shrimp ponds. Untreated shrimp-pond effluents are also contributing to the damage.

The global concern over the negative impact of commercial shrimp farming on the environment and humans has fueled the emergence of various grassroots social movements to resist the expansion of the industry. Among the causes igniting this resistance are local people's concerns with increasing pollution, and the loss of common-pool resources. In Mexico, resistance to the industry's expansion is slowly starting to appear and for the most part, this opposition has been developed by several of the fishing cooperatives in southern Sinaloa and northern Nayarit. Activities of fishing cooperatives in these states have included confrontations with personnel of shrimp farms and negotiations with government agencies in order to limit the expansion of the industry.

Among the most important grassroots organizations to oppose large-scale shrimp aquaculture near fishing grounds is the Federation of Fishing Cooperatives of Southern Sinaloa (The "Guerreros del Sur" --Warriors of the South), which comprises 21 fishing cooperatives with a total of 2,000 fishermen. In 1998, the Guerreros del Sur openly opposed the construction of a shrimp farm in their granted fishing area, claiming that seven cooperatives would no longer be able to fish in the area because the shrimp farm would invade their space. The Federation had previously prevented the construction of a shrimp farm in another nearby community. In that case, the majority of the members of this community supported the effort, and the shrimp farm was not constructed. Members of this Federation have also actively opposed the collection of wild shrimp larvae in coastal areas near their fishing grounds. In some instances, they showed up with truncheons to confront marine biologists and other shrimp farms personnel to demand they stop harvesting shrimp larvae. A number of fishing cooperatives in northern Nayarit have also opposed the construction of a shrimp farm near their fishing areas. In this case the fishermen have accused a private company of destroying large tracts of mangroves with their shrimp-pond operations. The fishing cooperatives were joined by an environmental organization, Grupo Manglar.

As more people become aware of the potential effects of the shrimp aquaculture industry, the fishing cooperatives and community groups opposing the expansion of the industry will get more support. There is no doubt that industrial aquaculture farming has had important ecological and social impacts, which in the long run may lead to the further erosion of the coastal and marine ecology and the ability of rural households to make a living.

Source: WRM's bulletin N' 51, October 2001

Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/23/2002 6:00 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>Unless something comes along that is smarter than we are (the singularity?) I don't see much hope for us beyond 2020. . . .What we are looking at is a world of depleted resources, regardless of where we live.

Grant,

This is a reason more science-oriented people MUST run for government positions and especially Congress. Right now Congress is filled with a bunch of lawyers that don't know much about science. Lawyers don't even represent the People. Scientists and technologists better-represent the People than lawyers as there are far more of them for starters.

The voice of reason needs to be heard, and reason comes from science. We need to stop allowing the welfare of the World to hijacked by a bunch of career politicians, lawyers and the corporate MAKING MONEY-mentality.

The way scientists and technologists can VICE their way into power is simple. Every time some lawyer, politician or corporate-type needs your services, grant them, but grant them WITH STRINGS ATTACHED. Let that client or employer know that your continued cooperation, insights and expertise demand that your voice be heard and counted in the political and corporate governance arena.

If they won't, or don't, play that game, cut them off. The world RUNS on science and technology. Without these folks, and people like us here on this forum, the powers-that-be are powerless. You hold the ultimate power even though they are studied in strategy and guile.

Just because they wield the paycheck, scientists and technologists MUST NOT BACK DOWN.

As an extreme example, the MDs in Philadelphia finally got so pissed off at the ridiculously high costs of insurance they were being forced to pay by the political/corporate machinery -- they revolted: either the system is changed or people will be left in the streets outside the hospitals to DIE. WHO has the ultimate power? The scientists and technologists, and I include physicians in this group because they are applied scientist/technologists when you get right down to it.

Run for Congress. Run for President. Become CEO. Don't just sit in a back-room lab and wish for a better World. REFUSE to allow the political/corporate mentality to build the world any further UNLESS YOU have a say in exactly WHAT is being built!

James Jaeger

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/23/2002 11:16 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

I see two problems with your solution. First of all, you have to get scientists who are seldom interested in anything but science to become interested enough in politics to run for office. Then there's the weeding out process. Many people who can deal with science have a problem dealing with people. It requires a certain EQ (emotional IQ) to be a people person rather than a science person. After you go through a selection and recruitment program, you need to convince people that it makes sense to vote for a scientist to fill a political office. What prior experience would such a person have to use as a basis for choosing him/her? Most voters want a representative who will bring jobs and money to their community. They seldom take kindly to people who tell them they will have to tighten their belts and stop using so much of the world's resources.

So between finding good candidates who are qualified and eager to enter the world of politics and convincing voters to vote for what they call "nerds," the time it will take to implement your solution may be longer than the time we have left on earth.

I would be happy to talk to some scientists today, but I really don't know any. They are not a social bunch and seldom hang around with people who don't share their particular interests.

The kinds of people who put up money to get politicians elected would also have to be convinced that this is a good investment for them. What they look for is people like G.W. Bush who aren't too smart but have a lot of charisma and a reputation based on prior electability. They will be surrounded by people like the vice president and secretary of state to do the actual thinking for them.

Anyone can run for office, but it takes a lot of the "right stuff" to actually get voted into office.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/24/2002 1:41 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>James, I see two problems with your solution. First of all, you have to get scientists who are seldom interested in anything but science to become interested enough in politics to run for office. Then there's the weeding out process. Many people who can deal with science have a problem dealing with people. It requires a certain EQ (emotional IQ) to be a people person rather than a science person.

Yes, they are perfect examples of idiot-savants --a person or machine that is exceedingly good at just one thing (or a very narrow range of functions). John Nash is an idiot-savant person. The IBM computer (Deep Blue), that beat Gary Kasparov in chess in 1997, is an idiot-savant machine. The type of people that I am suggesting run for office are more like Carl Sagan than John Nash.

>After you go through a selection and recruitment program, you need to convince people that it makes sense to vote for a scientist to fill a political office.

We need to re-educate people as to what kinds of people they NEED in office, NOT what kinds of people they WANT in office. In life you don't always get what you WHAT, but you usually get what you NEED. It is time PEOPLE remind SOCIETY that this applies to THEM collectively as well -- given Society does not have a death wish.

>What prior experience would such a person have to use as a basis for choosing him/her?

His entire scientific career is his "prior experience." But you're right, such a person might not have other political skills, such as how to lie and cheat, screw interns and spin the English language . . . but alas, I guess we will just have to suffer through without these "qualities" in our representatives.

>Most voters want a representative who will bring jobs and money to their community. They seldom take kindly to people who tell them they will have to tighten their belts and stop using so much of the world's resources.

Again, People will have to re-educate themselves on how to PROPERLY evaluate political candidates. That this is not being done is another failure of the media and a prime reason I constantly reference the book, IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID.(1) Just as, several decades back, American car manufactures had to re-educate themselves on how to PROPERLY evaluate the car market so they could produce cars that could compete with the Japanese, people will have to undergo a re-evaluation of what qualities are REALLY important to their well-being. If the planet goes down, then their hometown will go down. People need to get the bigger picture. And if they don't, they will perish. It's up to the more intelligent members of Society to ram this through. Democracy is ONLY the most prudent form of government when you have an informed and educated electorate. When you have an ignorant and stupid electorate, or a short-sighted electorate, Democracy is probably the most insidious form of "government."(2)

>So between finding good candidates who are qualified and eager to enter the world of politics and convincing voters to vote for what they call "nerds," the time it will take to implement your solution may be longer than the time we have left on earth.

Not at all. As soon as the MEDIA is handled the problem will resolve because informed and educated people are effective. The MEDIA is, of course, the first issue that must get handled as it prevent all the other issues from being resolved due to the paucity of intelligent and practical discourse available. Again, the People are collectively very smart -- so long as they have proper and complete information. Garbage in = garbage out. Media garbage in = moron electorate out.

>I would be happy to talk to some scientists today, but I really don't know any. They are not a social bunch and seldom hang around with people who don't share their particular interests.

That's funny, I know many scientists, in fact about one quarter of my friends are scientists, and they are some of the most outgoing and social people of all. (The other three quarters are basically writers, lawyers and filmmakers, a motley bunch :). Plus Grant, if you don't know any scientists, how can you really be sure they would not be suitable for political office?

>The kinds of people who put up money to get politicians elected would also have to be convinced that this is a good investment for them.

The kinds of people who put up money to get politicians elected need to be shot , not convinced. :)

>What they look for is people like G.W. Bush who aren't too smart but have a lot of charisma and a reputation based on prior electability.

Ho hum. Not that you're wrong Grant. You're an idiot-savant at telling it like it is. :) I'm looking for general and specific ways to change it to a situation where a more robust and safe world might exist.

>They will be surrounded by people like the vice president and secretary of state to do the actual thinking for them.

Yep. A moron-in-the-middle with nothing but idiot-savants all around. Could this be worse than a government full of John Nash clones?

>Anyone can run for office, but it takes a lot of the "right stuff" to actually get voted into office.

Unfortunately!

James Jaeger

---------------------------
(1) See IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID, a book report at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/stupid.htm

(2) See "Hollywood's Disdain for Democracy" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/disdain.htm



Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/25/2002 10:30 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>That's funny, I know many scientists, in fact about one quarter of my friends are scientists, and they are some of the most outgoing and social people of all. (The other three quarters are basically writers, lawyers and filmmakers, a motley bunch :). Plus Grant, if you don't know any scientists, how can you really be sure they would not be suitable for political office?

It's not that I haven't met a lot of scientists, I did, after all, graduate from UCSD. But a man in my financial situation doesn't do lunch in La Jolla or contribute to the funds scientific minds are fond of. Politicians aren't the only ones who seek the company of the rich and/or famous. Scientists live by the grant or die by the grant, but have little use for the Grant.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/26/2002 7:38 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>Scientists live by the grant or die by the grant, but have little use for the Grant.

I grant you that Grant, but now grant me this: is not finance important to this discussion here, for without finance there would be no grants?

James

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/26/2002 10:36 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

I've always felt finance was important. I just don't think endless diatribes about the Fed are. The way China suckered money from the biggest corporations in the world started them on the road to scientific accomplishment in fields besides war and domination of their neighbors. Our own domination of the money markets in the world arena is what made the U.S. the only world power still in operation. The communists, blinded by Marxist theory, just couldn't see the value of money and money markets. Deng xiaoping woke them up and got his people to join the club that presently runs the world as we know it.

IMO, the third world war was fought with money and we won. Now we are going into the fourth world war and it seems to be based on faith. The Muslims are getting behind religious faith and the Christian West is getting behind science and technology. I'm betting on the West again. Killing people is a stupid way to try and save them.

Ultimately, however, it's a war between genes and memes. Money is a meme we use to control the direction of people's energy. Muslims and Christians try to do the same thing with faith and fanaticism. But the path of faith is only rewarded in a heaven we can't get into until we're dead and unable to enjoy the joke that there's no tomorrow.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/26/2002 12:43 PM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

>James, I've always felt finance was important. I just don't think endless diatribes about the Fed are.

Grant, I just looked up the word "diatribe" in the American College Dictionary to MAKE SURE I understand what it means, and it says "a bitter and violent denunciation." So I ask myself, have I been bitter about the Fed? Have I been violent in my denounciations of it? And the answer I come up with is: true I have been denounciating it often, and true, I probably DO feel a little bitter about the idea that these guys that formed it, and who profit from it, do so at my expense and the expense of others. But you know Grant, most of the time my lanugage and tone in connection with the Fed can't really be characterized as "diatribe." The reason for this is because my language and tone have mostly been of calm reason with the intention to educate and back up all my assertions with studies and reference materials. Someone who is just out there spewing diatribe, does not do this. I am what you call concerned and persistent. If you characterize this as diatribe, then you will also have to characterize Collin Powell's concern and persistence in making people aware about Iraq's threat as diatribe.

>The way China suckered money from the biggest corporations in the world started them on the road to scientific accomplishment in fields besides war and domination of their neighbors. Our own domination of the money markets in the world arena is what made the U.S. the only world power still in operation. The communists, blinded by Marxist theory, just couldn't see the value of money and money markets. Deng xiaoping woke them up and got his people to join the club that presently runs the world as we know it. IMO, the third world war was fought with money and we won. Now we are going into the fourth world war and it seems to be based on faith. The Muslims are getting behind religious faith and the Christian West is getting behind science and technology. I'm betting on the West again. Killing people is a stupid way to try and save them. Ultimately, however, it's a war between genes and memes. Money is a meme we use to control the direction of people's energy. Muslims and Christians try to do the same thing with faith and fanaticism. But the path of faith is only rewarded in a heaven we can't get into until we're dead and unable to enjoy the joke that there's no tomorrow.

All I can say is: wow! Profound; and I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I still say the Fed has to go however. Is there any chance you will read the documents posted at http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/oldupdates/2002/0913.htm and http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/oldupdates/2002/0920.htm to see when the bond market is going to crash and what the Fed will have to do with this?

James

>Cheers, Grant

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/26/2002 6:24 PM by grantc4@hotmail.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

James,

I'm sorry if the word "diatribe" makes you uncomfortable. It is just how the endless posting of attacks on the Fed look to me. It's a personal reaction that may not be shared by others. Just because I see it that way doesn't make it either true or false. It just reflects my own personal reaction.

The Fed is going to go, as will many other institutions in the upheaval that will follow the destruction of our environment. If we achieve an overarching AI, the Fed is still likely to be a victim of its own uselessnes in a world where money takes on new meanings and uses. Democracy as we know it (or don't know it) will probably suffer the same fate. No matter what I do or don't do, the chages we are rushing toward will create a world we are unlikely to recognize, any more than our ancestors a mere two or three hundred years ago would recognize the world we live in today.

I suspect the bond market, as well as every other market we have, will crash more than once in the fairly near future. But the cause is bigger than the Fed and will no doubt resemble the pain of a growing body as some parts grow faster or slower than others. It can't be helped. It's just part of the process. We're reaching a point in the growth of our society where we either change or die. There are forces fighting against change who are willing to die for that cause. Others are fighting to bring it about. That's the war of genes and memes I was referring to.

Change has always brought war with it. People fight for what they believe in, even when what they believe in no longer exists. The weapons and the territories are what have changed. Today, it's a battle for intellectual territory. Be thankful that men are the only creatures to have created such a land because all animals fight for their territory. The forces of Hollywood are fighting just as hard for the territory they created as the forces of the internet are fighting to wrest it from them and create their own territory out of silicon and minds. You're in the middle of that war, but you don't seem to have taken a side in it yet.

The weapons in the new wars are being created in the court rooms and the minds of men and women. Every time some corporation or agency that wants to keep things like they are attacks through the courts, some hacker invents a new way to grab intellectual property and pass it around to his buddies and neighbors. The same process is going to take place in biotechnology and nanotechnology.

As matter and life become tools of memetic forces, the idea of value will change the way we look at everything. People will find they know the price of everything as it changes from day to day and the value of nothing because science and technology will change what has value just as it is changing the nature of nature.

Even now, what will make you richer, a new idea that changes the world or a ton of gold? Bill Gates knew the answer. World changing ideas used to occur once every thousand years. Then it became every couple of hundred years. In the near future, it will be every day. That's the era we refer to here as the singularity.

World changing ideas automatically bring with them a certain amount of pain and destruction as the old is replaced by the new. Instead of periodic upheavals washing over our society, they will become constant. Life will resemble a roller coaster ride. Markets will rise and fall like changes in the weather. New markets will be created that destroy old ones and leave people who invested in the old pennyless while making kings (relatively speaking) of those who gambled on the new.

People who can ride the waves instead of being crushed while trying to face them head on will rise to the top. Those who cling to the rocks and try to hang on to the little spot they now inhabit will be swept aside. Look at Isael and Palestine. They are killing each other to dominate a piece of earth while the world passes them by and time washes over them.

After they've finished killing each other, some other group will come behind them and use that land for the betterment of the world rather than the fanatic desires of a few who refuse to see that the territory available to the mind is infinite while that available to the body barely lasts a lifetime. And for people trying to kill each other, it's a short lifetime at that.

Well, that was my diatribe. It's getting too long and is probably of no interest to anyone but myself. Time to wrap it up.

Cheers,

Grant

Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
posted on 09/27/2002 7:15 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Very good points Grant. You are a wise being.

James

---------------------------
>James, I'm sorry if the word "diatribe" makes you uncomfortable. It is just how the endless posting of attacks on the Fed look to me. It's a personal reaction that may not be shared by others. Just because I see it that way doesn't make it either true or false. It just reflects my own personal reaction.

The Fed is going to go, as will many other institutions in the upheaval that will follow the destruction of our environment. If we achieve an overarching AI, the Fed is still likely to be a victim of its own uselessnes in a world where money takes on new meanings and uses. Democracy as we know it (or don't know it) will probably suffer the same fate. No matter what I do or don't do, the chages we are rushing toward will create a world we are unlikely to recognize, any more than our ancestors a mere two or three hundred years ago would recognize the world we live in today.

I suspect the bond market, as well as every other market we have, will crash more than once in the fairly near future. But the cause is bigger than the Fed and will no doubt resemble the pain of a growing body as some parts grow faster or slower than others. It can't be helped. It's just part of the process. We're reaching a point in the growth of our society where we either change or die. There are forces fighting against change who are willing to die for that cause. Others are fighting to bring it about. That's the war of genes and memes I was referring to.

Change has always brought war with it. People fight for what they believe in, even when what they believe in no longer exists. The weapons and the territories are what have changed. Today, it's a battle for intellectual territory. Be thankful that men are the only creatures to have created such a land because all animals fight for their territory. The forces of Hollywood are fighting just as hard for the territory they created as the forces of the internet are fighting to wrest it from them and create their own territory out of silicon and minds. You're in the middle of that war, but you don't seem to have taken a side in it yet.

The weapons in the new wars are being created in the court rooms and the minds of men and women. Every time some corporation or agency that wants to keep things like they are attacks through the courts, some hacker invents a new way to grab intellectual property and pass it around to his buddies and neighbors. The same process is going to take place in biotechnology and nanotechnology.

As matter and life become tools of memetic forces, the idea of value will change the way we look at everything. People will find they know the price of everything as it changes from day to day and the value of nothing because science and technology will change what has value just as it is changing the nature of nature.

Even now, what will make you richer, a new idea that changes the world or a ton of gold? Bill Gates knew the answer. World changing ideas used to occur once every thousand years. Then it became every couple of hundred years. In the near future, it will be every day. That's the era we refer to here as the singularity.

World changing ideas automatically bring with them a certain amount of pain and destruction as the old is replaced by the new. Instead of periodic upheavals washing over our society, they will become constant. Life will resemble a roller coaster ride. Markets will rise and fall like changes in the weather. New markets will be created that destroy old ones and leave people who invested in the old pennyless while making kings (relatively speaking) of those who gambled on the new.

People who can ride the waves instead of being crushed while trying to face them head on will rise to the top. Those who cling to the rocks and try to hang on to the little spot they now inhabit will be swept aside. Look at Isael and Palestine. They are killing each other to dominate a piece of earth while the world passes them by and time washes over them.

After they've finished killing each other, some other group will come behind them and use that land for the betterment of the world rather than the fanatic desires of a few who refuse to see that the territory available to the mind is infinite while that available to the body barely lasts a lifetime. And for people trying to kill each other, it's a short lifetime at that.

Well, that was my diatribe. It's getting too long and is probably of no interest to anyone but myself. Time to wrap it up.

Cheers,

Grant


trend setters and followers
posted on 09/27/2002 11:22 AM by economica@moneyfiles.org

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Grant surely has a point here but his analyze proves that he rather contemplates, follows a trend... alas the trend[s] he choses to believe in were generated by Trend Setters. That very way to react, comtemplation, is very darwnistic in itself: in other words "if others are stupid because of ignorance of political manupilation, too bad for them."

I believe that he will care about the isse of Honest Money when he will among the next victims. I dont believe in darwinistic behaviors and a friendly A.I to be honest. AI will be friendly "if" the level of global consciouness is seriously improved and rational information spread as fast as possible. I believe that finally world citizens have reached a point where personal/self-interest is merging with global interest. IHMO

NOTHING IS MORE FRIGHTENING THAN ACTIVE IGNORANCE - GOETHE

GOLDEAGLE: 29 CRASH LOOKING LIKE SUNDAY SCHOOL OUTING
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_02/maund092302.html

Re: Subjective Singularity - Correction
posted on 09/22/2002 4:43 AM by jjaeger@mecfilms.com

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

. . .in what seems like an INSTANT to an immortal person.

Sorry.

James



Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 01/02/2003 5:19 PM by Neman

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I am very sure that we will present only danger and will be destroyed as obsolete by SuperIntelligence (AI). Singularity will continue beyond our Space and beyond our physical laws. We, humans, are not able to understand that future events.

sorry for grammar, spelling, etc. English is not my native language.

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 02/04/2008 1:38 PM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

is critical thinking native to ur brain?

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 02/04/2008 1:41 PM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

i just noticed that i insulted a guy that did a post 6 yrs ago.

franco, pls do NOT search out ancient threads, just so u can spam ure damn rings!!!

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 02/04/2008 5:40 PM by NanoStuff

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Don't be naive, he clearly said it's not spam.

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 02/05/2008 7:06 PM by martuso

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"...One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness spam them."

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 08/14/2004 5:24 AM by Enigma

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

*sniff* *sniff*

Cult!

Nice Rottweiler. You get 3 treats for that.

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 02/04/2008 11:17 AM by francofiori2004

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Immortality is already been invented!
See www.alexchiurings.com

no joke, no spam!

Re: The Transhuman Singularity
posted on 05/12/2009 7:57 PM by neurohacker

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The Last Will and Testament of
Joseph M. Graham Jr.
Apt. 26D
1701 Ocean Ave.
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712 United States
Social Security Disability Insurance.

The proposal which requires the least advancement of technology goes like this: the patient's brain (possibly entire head) is made solid, either by perfusing with (for example) paraffin, or by freezing to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Next, the brain is cut into very thin slices. Each slice is scanned by a computer using very high-resolution instruments (e.g., the electron microscope). The computer uses this data to reconstruct the patient's brain circuitry in an artificial substrate (probably dedicated brain-simulating hardware). The simulation is activated, and the patient finds herself or himself in a shiny new body.

This procedure requires relatively modest extensions of current technology. Anatomical reconstruction from serial sections has been done for many years. Currently, only a very tiny piece of tissue can be scanned in this way at the resolution needed for circuit reconstruction, and the process is both slow and labor-intensive. Researchers are currently working to automate the process, increase the speed, and increase the sample size. Eventually these developments should permit the scanning of an entire brain ' but there's still a long way to go to that point (unless, of course, someone starts pouring lots of money into development).

As a word of caution, it may not be enough to capture just the structure of the neurons and connections; functionally relevant information is undoubtedly contained in, for example, the ratios of chemicals in the synapses and the distribution of ion channels in the cell membrane. Staining techniques will probably permit all relevant variables to be read during the scan, but it's something to keep in mind.
1/27/97 . . . . . . . Joe Strout

Its now 2009 And I feel that we could Do all the above without cutting the Brain to get the resolution need to copy the Brain/Mind of ones Brain. Maybe T-Rays or microscope with pico scale.-resolution Laser microtome
Microtome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A microtome is a mechanical instrument used to cut biological specimens into transparent thin sections for microscopic examination. Microtomes use steel, glass, or diamond blades depending upon the specimen being sliced and the desired thickness of the sections being cut. Steel blades are used to prepare sections of animal or plant tissues for light microscopy histology. Glass knives are used to slice sections for light microscopy and to slice very thin sections for electron microscopy. Industrial grade diamond knives are used to slice hard materials such as bone, teeth and plant matter for both light microscopy and for electron microscopy. Gem quality diamond knives are used for slicing thin sections for electron microscopy.

The most common applications of microtomes are:

* Traditional histological technique: tissues are hardened by replacing water with paraffin. The tissue is then cut in the microtome at thicknesses varying from 2 to 25 'm (micrometers) thick. From there the tissue can be mounted on a microscope slide, stained with appropriate aqueous dye(s) after prior removal of the paraffin, and examined using a light microscope. See histology for more details.
* Cryosection: water-rich tissues are hardened by freezing and cut in the frozen state with a freezing microtome or microtome-cryostat; sections are stained and examined with a light microscope. This technique is much faster than traditional histology (5 minutes vs 16 hours) and is used in conjunction with medical procedures to achieve a quick diagnosis. Cryosections can also be used in immunohistochemistry as freezing tissue stops degradation of tissue faster than using a fixative and does not alter or mask its chemical composition as much.
* Electron microscopy: after embedding tissues in epoxy resin, a microtome equipped with a glass or gem grade diamond knife is used to cut very thin sections (typically 60 to 100 nanometers). Sections are stained with an aqueous solution of an appropriate heavy metal salt and examined with a transmission electron microscope. This instrument is often called an ultramicrotome. The ultramicrotome is also used with its glass knife or an industrial grade diamond knife to cut survey sections prior to thin sectioning. These survey sections are generally 0.5 to 1 micrometer thick and are mounted on a glass slide and stained to locate areas of interest under a light microscope prior to thin sectioning for the TEM. Thin sectioning for the TEM is often done with a gem quality diamond knife.
* Botanical microtomy: hard materials like wood, bone and leather require a sledge microtome. These microtomes have heavier blades and cannot cut as thin as a regular microtome.
* Spectroscopy, especially FTIR or infra-red spectroscopy, where thin polymer sections are needed in order that the infra-red beam will penetrate the sample under examination. It is normal to cut samples to between 20 and 100 micrometres in thickness. For more detailed analysis of much smaller areas in a thin section, FTIR microscopy can be used for sample inspection.

Microtome blades are extremely sharp, and should be handled with great care. Safety precautions should be taken in order to avoid any contact with the cutting edge of the blade. If one should accidentally drop NEVER try to catch it with the unprotected hand!

A recent development is the laser microtome, which cuts with a femtosecond laser instead of a mechanical knife. This method is contact-free and does not require sample preparation techniques. The laser microtome has the ability to slice almost every tissue in its native state. Depending on the material being processed, slice thicknesses of 10 to 100 'm are feasible.

Microtome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

microscopy enters the picometer scale
July 24th, 2008 in Physics / Physics
EnlargeUsing electron microscope methods of a hitherto unknown accuracy,
scientists from Forschungszentrum Juelich have succeeded in locally
demonstrating polarization in the ferroelectric PbZr0.2Ti0.8O3 and measuring it
atom by atom. The broken line forms the boundary of two areas with different
electrical polarization marked by the arrows. This is due to the fact that the
atoms (Pb: lead; Z: zircon; Ti: titanium; O: oxygen) are displaced from their
positions and therefore their electrical charges cannot compensate for each
other. On the left, the oxygen atoms are displaced 38 pm downwards, and on the
right to the same degree upwards out of the zircon/titanium atomic row. This row
itself is displaced vertically by 10 pm from the center line between the lead
atoms. In order to write information in applications for data storage, the
boundary between these two areas of different polarization directions is
displaced to the left or to the right so that only one polarization direction
exists in the material. Image: Forschungszentrum Juelich
J'lich scientists have succeeded in precisely measuring atomic spacings down to
a few picometres using new methods in ultrahigh-resolution electron microscopy.
This makes it possible to find out decisive parameters determining the physical
properties of materials directly on an atomic level in a microscope. Knut Urban
from Forschungszentrum J'lich, a member of the Helmholtz Association, reports on
this in the latest issue (25 July) of the scientific high-impact journal
Science.
Progress in research in the area of physics is very frequently connected to an
increase in the accuracy of measurements, which help researchers to track
natural phenomena. With the aid of new methods in electron optics, researchers
were able to microscopically measure atomic displacements precisely to a few
picometres. A picometre corresponds to a billionth of a millimetre a distance
that is one hundred times smaller than the diameter of an atom.
This is one of the highlights that Knut Urban, director of the Ernst
Ruska-Centre in J'lich, reports on in Science as part of a review of ten years
of electron microscopy with aberration-corrected lenses.
J'lich scientists investigated, for example, the configuration of atoms in
orthogonal grain boundaries of the oxide superconductor YBa2Cu3O7. These atoms
mark the boundary between two areas of the crystalline material with atomic
structures that are tilted at an angle of exactly 90' to each other. From
microscopic images taken under different conditions, the physicists succeeded in
using computers to calculate the quantum-mechanical wave function of the
electrons, which served as a basis for determining the exact position of the
atoms.
In doing so, it became apparent that the relatively heavy atomic species barium,
copper and yttrium are systematically displaced a few picometres from their
ideal position in the grain boundary and that the leighter oxygen atoms follow
this displacement. This provides an explanation for the attenuation of
superconducting properties, which can be observed when electric current flows
over such a grain boundary. This phenomenon is undesired if the superconductor
is intended to be used for a loss-free current transport. However, it is useful
for the construction of so-called SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference
devices), which exploit the magnetic field dependency of this disturbance to
measure smallest magnetic fields, for example, to measure brain waves
(magnetoencephalography).
Displacements of a few picometres decide on a whole number of physical
properties, which are of eminent importance for technology. Another example is
the ferroelectricity of titanates materials. Here, the electrical charges of the
individual types of atoms inside the building blocks of crystals, the unit
cells, cannot fully compensate for each other as they are not arranged in the
necessary symmetry.
Therefore, electric dipoles are formed inside the unit cells, which add up over
a larger crystal area to form the so-called polarisation. This is used to write
information bits. An example is PbZr0.2Ti0.8O3 which is used in chip cards for
data storage. With the aid of new electron optical methods, atomic displacements
can be measured atom by atom thus making it possible to determine local
polarisation for the first time.
Knut Urban explains: 'This is the beginning of a new physics of materials which
enables researchers to determine physical parameters and properties in the nano
range through highly precise measurements of the atomic spacings. This will also
provide clues on how these properties may be manipulated in order to gain new
functions and better functional performance.'
Source: Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres



I want to copy My Brain matter and put every scan into a Hlographi Data Base'

Joseph M. Graham Jr.

I hope someone will set this up for Me.
Because I can not.