Friday, 10 December 2010

Supercomputers faster than human brain: Facebook discussion

This "Facebook discussion" arose from a wall post I made regarding the following news article:

"By 2018, supercomputers could operate 100 times faster than the human brain"

I will only include my comments because otherwise this blog would be too long. The comments are open for everyone to see on Facebook but you will probably need to log-in:



You have to see the connection between consequences and causes. The cause of civilization is the collective will of all humans. Civilization is a consequence of human causality. We are all interconnected. Civilization is a manifestation of our collective consciousness. Many people have not fully unleashed their consciousness; perhaps they were mentally unable to unleash their consciousness, thus The Masses delegated intellectual responsibility to corporate and political leaders and that delegation of intellectualism will soon be returned to everyone when high powered computing becomes widely available and helps to augment human brains. Expect utopia.

The Masses are dis-empowered because they want to be. I don't subscribe to the blame-game. I believe we are all responsible for our own destiny and people should take responsibility for their lives instead of blaming their misfortune on other people. I believe the existential approach is the most logical. The blame-game is a childish, infantile symptom of willful dis-empowerment. Blaming others adds to the dis-empowerment. People are dis-empowered because they blame other people for their circumstances. People should not let circumstances control their destiny, but people do want to be controlled, technology will change this.

People should take control of their lives but people have forgotten how to take control of their lives so people blame other people or organizations for their misfortune; technology and science will change this.
I am highlighting the value of technology. I highlight the reason why technology exists and I highlight the nature of the corporate agenda. I highlight how the purpose of technology is not merely just doing something because we can, it is about creating utopia. The interconnections are plain to see if you can look close enough but perhaps you need to wait a few years yet for your perspicaciousness to grow in tandem with technology. Sci-Tech will enhance human perspicaciousness.

Here's one source: and for other sources here you can see the health benefits of sci-tech:

Vision has also been restored, via stem cells, for people suffering chemical burns to their eyes:

Here is a more recent trial regarding stem cells curing blindness:

Here is a trial regarding stem cells being used on a stroke victim:

The internet (via Wikileaks etc) is also a valuable aspect of how technology will create utopia because our communication abilities are enhanced. Information is power. Information will be free.

The Wikileaks arrest warrant is about the personal life of Assange not his public life. Who created the internet? The internet was part of the Establishment agenda and it is used for good egalitarian things. Yes there is some resistance to utopia, such as net censorship, but these obstacles will be overcome eventually. Stem calls treatments will eventually be available to everyone via national health services where insurance is not needed. When mobile phones first were marketed there were very expensive and only a few people had them and now almost everyone has mobile phone. It will take 35 years for utopia to arise (year 2045 at the latest). Post-Scarcity is coming but I am aware of the potential dark side of technology. All obstacles will be overcome.

I'm not here to discuss my personal life. The details of my "education background" are irrelevant and I am mystified why you consider such a question to be relevant.

I am not saying people should completely ignore unpleasant realities but I feel it is far more beneficial to focus on positive aspects.

Sorry what questions and issues do you think I have I completely ignored in this supposedly logical conversation?

The answer to your earlier question is this: It would be more beneficial for everyone to focus on the positive aspects of sci-tech. I am also an Anthropologist and I speak of the Masses from an anthropological viewpoint. I have said before I am not here to discuss my personal life but you insist upon pushing the matter. My personal life is not relevant to the issue and your disparaging allegation of a 'disconnect in my responses' is an invalid distraction from the issue. Rather than trying to poke holes in my personal identity I suggest you should use logic to try and refute my views; but having said that, I think, due to your apparent hostility, we should draw this discussion to a close and agree to disagree.

Finally, I just want to say that the corporate agenda is moving towards altruism slowly. The creation of the internet, advances in health-care, and computing progress are at a very early stage. Over the next ten years we will see greater strides forward towards Post-Scarcity but in the year 2010 people can already watch many films online for free and music is freely available on YouTube. Free software is also another altruistic example of tech. In the year 2020 it will be easier to see the move to towards egalitarian Post-Scarcity. Medicine will vastly improve during this decade and eventually high quality healthcare will be freely available to everyone. It will take 35 years at the most for a Post-Scarcity utopia to occur. Utopia will occur by the year 2045 at the latest.

I've not skipped back from anything, I was merely responding to an earlier question you asked, which I had not fully answered. You have accused me of not answering your questions thus I thought it only fair that I clarify that point.

You are paraphrasing Mary Midgley with her "philosophical plumbing" nonsense, which I previously exposed to you as flawed regarding how Midgley views Singularitarians.

"...poses a cerebral void of what appear to be a lot of nonsense."... so you say, but I'd like to point out that your insults would be more sensible (logical) if you could have added "because...." by which I mean you need to explain WHY the optimistic view is a cerebral void. When people use insults they are not really seeking logical discourse therefore it is understandable that you fail to explain why optimism is a cerebral void.

Focusing on positives is beneficial because negatives are mentally draining. Negatives lead to despair. Merely by focusing on positives many of the negatives are fixed. Optimism is more productive on many levels. Problems do need to be addressed but our overall focus should be on the positives, an optimistic focus.

I am surprised people value incompetent philosophers such as Midgley She is incompetent regarding logic because she fails to see how creations beyond-human-level can solve intractable human problems. Electricity would be magic for cavemen (Stone-Age-primitives), and the Singularity would appear magic if we could jump instantaneously 35 years into the future. Humans evolve, our culture progresses. What is unsolvable today can be magically cured tomorrow.

As anthropologists we should be aware of history:

Problems do need to be addressed but our overall focus should be on the positives, an optimistic focus.

How can electricity (and light blubs etc) solve the problem of creating artificial light for cavemen who cannot create electricity, the answer is time solves things. Humans create solutions beyond themselves.

All definitions vary somewhat. Intelligence will be created artificially and like the human variety of intelligences, AIs will have a variety of minds.

There is no weakness in education there is only weakness in minds and weakness of mind is a self-imposed punishment. Humans do not depend upon someone educating them for them to be intellectually brilliant. Mental dependency on others and intellectual brilliance are not compatible, they are mutually opposed therefore education provided "to" people will always be flawed no matter how great the intentions are to make the education good. Truly good education only happens when a person independently seeks out knowledge rather than being spoon fed knowledge like a baby, people need to grow up and technology will help with this. There is a certain degree of irony or contradiction regarding technology finally being able to impose mental awaking on people, but this contradiction is resolved comparatively via analogous parents giving (bestowing) life to a child. An appropriate push in the right direction can in certain revolutionary circumstances create great independence, a liberation from the womb. Technology will allow people to become self sufficient.

Listen, I don't know who you think I am but my life is not a sheltered life. Far from it indeed. I'm not rich and I never have been. I have no aristocratic notions about my heritage being genetically superior to the common man. If I am superior it is due to my free-thinking, which I believe is the genetic heritage of all humans.

The education is not weak. Poverty of education is a symptom of poor minds. The minds are weak and education merely conforms to the minds of those to be educated. You can't improve 'education' because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Can we drop this now? We seem to be going nowhere.

No problem, glad I could help.

There is a distinction between: a large section of the population blithely, obliviously, trundling through life without considering the deeper intellectual ramifications of existence; and on the other hand you have an intellectual minority ...of deep thinkers. I termed the large unthinking (narrow-minded) section of the population "The Masses" but you could also label them "Hoi polloi" or "common people" or "the unthinking multitudes"; the disparaging term "sheeple" is also used. Whatever way you look at it, there is currently a distinction between thinkers and mentally apathetic multitudes.

You are welcome to speculate upon my intellectual state but I do not consider it necessary to justify my intellect. You are also welcome to insult my vocabulary and again I do not feel it is necessary to justify myself. The topic of this post is: "By 2018, supercomputers could operate 100 times faster than the human brain." My personal intelligence and my usage of language is a diversion from the issue. Insults (personal attacks) shouldn't divert attention away from the issue therefore I will not respond to personal attacks with the one exception of this comment, which states I will not respond.

One final time I will repeat myself on this issue because maybe you missed the first time when I mentioned my background. For the record I do NOT come from a privileged background. I haven't had a good quality education provided by any institution. I consider your claim to be insulting regarding my vocabulary being "prep school" but maybe you didn't consider it an insult. It seems your upbringing, which you admit to being in an Elitist environment, has caused you to make unjust assumptions. I also have great sympathy for the poor because I am poor but I don't starve. It seems you have a prejudice towards intellectual ability. You say I fail to address the negatives of technology but if you scroll down the wall for this group you will see a note I have posted regarding the dark side of tech: "DARK SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY DEMANDS A POST-SCARCITY ANTIDOTE" and the note is in CAPS so hopefully you will not miss it, furthermore the note has a skull and crossbones logo. I have also posted on the wall for this group a note which touches upon the injustice of capitalism: "Singularity Seeds: How to avert economic collapse (collapse of civilisation) via Post-Scarcity-Awareness. How to create utopia." (see the circular PS symbol).

You mention "... a struggle for dominance and superiority"; "...for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power." You believe such things refute a Post-Scarcity-Utopia, but both concepts you mention are based on scarcity of resources. The whole concept of POWER is about control of scarcity. People only need to dominate other people when they must fight over resources due to scarcity. The hole history of mankind has been about scarcity. Food, shelter, and luxury do not grow on tress; people have been forced to fight to survive.

Religion is a system of control similar to Government. Religions have fought wars for ideological dominance, which is no different to a Government fighting a war for ideological dominance. Religious people have wars and those wars are due t...o scarcity. Religion in itself, at the very foundations, is due to scarcity. The scarcity of eternal physical life (the shortness of our life-spans) leads religions to invent the concept of eternal spiritual life. Heaven is an invention based on the finite duration of our lives (the scarcity of our lifespans). The need to dominate is due to scarcity in all circumstances. Religions are systems of control. Systems of control are needed in situations of scarcity.

Thanks for the Wikipedia religious war link, but I was already aware of religious wars throughout history. Seeing as you want to educate me maybe I should turn the tables and educate you? Do you know the meaning of this:


Everlasting eternal life in heaven is a religious form of existential Post-Scarcity, but if the leaders of religion discover heaven was merely their fictional creation to become powerfully rich; then at least the delusion of everlasting life in heaven and their great wealth on Earth will have made their religious lives easier.

It's all about scarcity. Governments, religions, etc.

Ideological wars are territorial wars. If you put rats in a cramped cage they will fight because the territory is not big enough, or you could say each rat fights for its ideology. Fighting for your ideology is fighting for your mental-space and physical-space. Ideas are extensions of desires. When conditions are cramped your mind will feel constrained by the presence of other minds. Each mind is an ideology in its own right. The whole concept of ideology is a cultural glorification of basic desires: territory, sustenance, procreation, shelter. Each ideology is based on how best to configure our environment so that the aforementioned basic needs are best fulfilled. Territory is needed for natural resources thus people fight because each ideology has thinks it knows best how the utilize the territory. Men and woman also fight for procreational rights. Our future understanding of matter and biology will effectually create unlimited resources and procreation will not depend upon women becoming pregnant.

Sheeple is not a term I prefer to use, I merely mentioned it as an example of different terms people use to describe the divide. Terms such as The Masses verses the intelligentsia or cognoscenti are generalizations thus the general nature of the terms means they are imprecise. Nothing is blank and white. Grey areas exist but generalities can be helpful. Wise people can occasionally be foolish and the foolish can occasionally be wise. A person can be predominately foolish or predominantly wise therefore such predominant states need to be described, especially when large groups of people are either foolish or wise. The KKK could be described as foolish and such a definition is helpful. A President can be described as wise and such a definition is helpful, or all Presidents can be described as foolish and such a definition could be helpful. Language needs a great variety of terms, phrases, and definitions so that all circumstances can be described. The concept of The Masses describes a large portion of people who go-with-the-flow meekly accepting political or business propaganda, but this is a generalization because not every member of The Masses will always go with the flow. Some people are VIPs, some people travel First Class, some people are part of an Elite, some people have very low intelligence, and some people have very high intelligence. Most people are average, mediocre perhaps? Variety is the spice of life.

But what does "ideology" stem from? It stems from basic needs such as territory etc. Ideology is an abstraction of basic desires. You say the Civil War was wholly ideological, it was regarding slavery issues, but let's look at the root of this ideology: slavery.

Slavery arises due to scarcity of resources. Slavery is an overreaction to scarcity, therefore wars based on *slavery-disagreements* are wars based on disagreements regarding the levels of scarcity. The root of it all is scarcity whatever war you cite. Reread my previous post and maybe you will get my point.

Scarcity can cause people to overreact thereby committing atrocities. Supposedly ideological wars arise, but the underpinning of ALL war is scarcity: there is the fear that the overreaction to scarcity (the atrocities perpetrated in the name of ideology) could spread and the next atrocity could be on your doorstep.

Regarding the Dark Side of tech here is a note I wrote prior to these comments:

This note, which I again wrote before the above debate, also raises the possibility of dsytopia:

I earlier I stated: "Yes there is some resistance to utopia, such as net censorship..." and in the above notes you can see how I am aware of possible dystopia.

It may transpire (it looks exceedingly likely) that Julian Assange's arrest regarding his personal life was a politically motivated arrest/prosecution; but despite all the pitfalls, perils, and resistance to utopia, such as net censorship, spying, and injustice, I am confident utopia will arise. The Establishment does good in addition to the bad. The internet was created by the Establishment and the internet is a great tool for gaining freedom but censorship issues do exist. Things hang in the balance and they could tip either way therefore people should be careful not to tip things into dsytopia.

Expectations are especially powerful when things teeter on the edge of uncertainty, because when things are precariously balanced the slightest bit of effort can cause things to tip one way or another. We can move mountains merely via a few simply key events. A few strategically placed words here and there can dramatically alter the path of history. We are changing the future via these comments, and with greater awareness of how we change the future, the changes become more dramatic. UTOPIA IS COMING. Feel the power of the the Singularity. Imagine what the future will be like. You can make your wildest most special dream come true. Via a Self-Fulfilling prophecy our actions change reality according to our expectations. We must expect utopia.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |