Thursday, 31 May 2012

How Deep Is Your Love? Are You Deep?

I often find people are surprised when they witness my despair. I think I am being transparent but often what is obvious to me is not obvious to others. The whole motive behind my striving for utopia is because civilization is a waking nightmare; my life is an utterly atrocious hellhole of deepest pain because humans are generally very stupid. People are very depressing.

If my life was happy and secure I would have no pressing need to focus on making the world a better place, I wouldn't need to try and accelerate technological progress towards utopia. For example if I was a billionaire then chances are I would relax peacefully in my secluded country manor, without trying to raise awareness about the Singularity, I would ignore all the morons while I casually awaited the Singularity.

My life is far from happy. In the short-term I have a very despairing outlook but long-term utopia is inevitable. As time goes by my despair will decrease. These intricacies regarding my outlook should be obvious because why would someone so ardently be interested in intelligence exploding. Note the explosion is utterly colossal, the most powerful event in the history of the human race. Would a stupid person be interested in intelligence exploding? Possibly stupid people could be drawn to intelligence exploding but generally stupid people are too stupid to even think about intelligence in any shape or form. Do mindless thugs think about intelligence exploding? Surely it should be obvious I am at least somewhat intelligent thus by inference it should be obvious I am very aware of all the stupid people in the world, so now ask yourself whether it is a happy state of affairs to be in an intelligent minority?

It is obvious I am interested in intelligence from a intelligent perspective. Now ask yourself how it feels to be intelligent living in a world of fools, is it painful? Are they always trying to break us down, when they should all just let us be?

I am a precious gem amidst pitiful dross. If I had enough money to shelter myself from the horror, the HORROR of civilization, then I wouldn't need to rush to change the world thus you can safely assume I am in the lion's den suffering amidst the rabble, thus DESPAIR is a big part of my life but diplomatically I try to focus on the positives. I will not however completely hide my true feelings because honesty is crucial for intelligence, thus sometimes I may exclaim MEH!!!!!

Despite the misery of our mindless pre-Singularity civilization there's hope for a utopian future. It is constructive to focus on the positives so I don't always explain how I am deeply unhappy. I want to break the vicious circle of hate and stupidity, but changing people's minds... IT REALLY IS A HARD BATTLE

Pre-Singularity Life Is Truly Hideous

Wednesday, 30 May 2012

Transhuman God Jesus Christ

Today I stumbled upon the religious Transhuman views of Giulio Prisco regarding Transhumanism being either a robot cult or religion 2.0.

Giulio writes extensively about his techno-religious views therefore I feel it is important for me to explain how technological progress is not religious. The Mormon Transhumanist Association is another religious futurist factor necessitating this response. If our goal is intelligence augmentation it's important to explain the flaws of religious thinking.  Ben Goertzl also seems to have religious leanings in his Cosmist Manifesto, which Giulio Prisco explains:

"In A Cosmist Manifesto, Ben writes also about meditation, positive thinking, mental health, achievement, relationships, sexuality, zen, joy and (why not?) religion.  Ben’s book is a unique blend of science and spirituality, futurism and compassion, technology and art, practical life strategies and cosmic visions, where every reader will find snippets of spiritual wisdom and practical advice."

My comments inspired by Giulio and others:

There is no "intersection of science and religion", they don't intersect. Robots or uploaded entities are not "cyber angels" but considering the legacy of Christianity (2012 years since the start of the Christian era) it is understandable how people with religious leanings want to fit everything into the religion box. Our lives so often must conform to the religious bent of civilization, but thankfully religious conformity is less forced these days (no Inquisition or stake-burnings). Thankfully religion is becoming redundant. To describe technological advancement as "Religion 2.0." is absurd. Belief in God is absurd thus the absurdity of seeing religion in something not religious (technology) is understandable.

I fail to see what benefits people get from thinking technological advancement is religious. Sloppy thinking is bad, there is no excuse, no justification. Instead if wasting brainpower upon deluded techno-religious thinking, religious futurists would make a better contribution to the world if they embraced rationality, logic. The whole God issue is a waste of brainpower which causes suffering on many levels. If God created the universe why does God allow excessive suffering and why does God refuse to communicate (in any meaningful, logical sense) with humans?

If I was designing a universe/humans I could a far better job with my mere human brain than God has done. If God exists I think God is an a-hole (I am not trying to offend you). Surely you can see how our world is deeply flawed? Surely you can see how no rational being would create life and the universe to be the way it is? We can't know for certain at this point in time how our universe was created but it's structure and human life indicates accident rather than design, unless God is a sadistic lunatic. Religions and cults are essentially the same thing (note Opus Dei) but technology is neither.

Why do people need to worship things or beings? I think overbearing parents and institutions have indoctrinated people into roles of submissiveness and worship. Worship is a weakness of mind in my opinion. A weakness arsing from an intellectually primitive culture.


If the universe is a computer it is safe to assume the creator had a competent computer to create it. We see how computers allow us to predict the outcome of creations. We can compute the aerodynamics of a car, we can compute the requisite strength for the foundations of buildings. We can forecast many things.

Computational skill and personal intelligence needed to create a universe implies a level of thoughtfulness not evident in the structure of our universe. I assert any being competent enough to create a universe is competent enough to create things far greater than our universe; what I mean is that the hypothetical creation of our universe by God was probably akin to humans (circa 2012) creating a hamster cage and some hamsters to populate the cage, or perhaps the creation of a tasty God-meal, thus God would have possessed a computer far more powerful than the computational capacity of our universe, similar to how our computers are more powerful than the meals we cook. Both God and I can predict the behavior of hamsters, we can also state a tasty meal will be tasty. Everything in our universe could have been easily predicted if our universe was created by an advanced being.

My views regarding a hypothetical God do not anthropomorphize God or suffering. For example I don't find the suffering of a wolf eating a rabbit disturbing, but I find human stupidity disturbing. The wolf and rabbit are not intelligent because they are not human, they don't know any better, but God would be intelligent, God would be human in the deeply humane intellectual sense of empathy for fellow intelligent beings, God should know better, God should have the intelligence, the logic, to comprehend the ramifications of a creation. Evil and pain do not need to be impossible, a good and omnipotent God could permit evil, my point is that life seems to have been created to encourage evil and pain; there is an excessive focus on evil and pain; it is as though God has intentionally created the most painful universe imaginable, thus if God exists or existed then he/she/it is undoubtedly a sadist, but instead of a mentally deranged God it is more logical and natural to assume no God, pure accidental creation by nobody.

Things progress. Over time our computers become more powerful, for example consider the Law of Accelerating Returns defined by Ray's data. When we reach Singularity we could be seeing, based on the 2001 rate of progress, around 100 or 2,000 years of progress or more (becoming quicker all the time) within 1 year, every year.

Upon reaching Singularity circa 2045 I assume we won't immediately be able to create new universes. My guess is the creation of new universes will be towards the end of this century, which will be: Singularity plus approximately 55 years, which means the rate of technological progress will be a lot faster at the universe creating point.

So if someone wants to create a universe, the question is would they immediately rush into creating a universe upon the instant they gain the technological proficiency to do so? Or would they take time to plan and test how their universe will evolve over billions of years?


If they take time to plan how their universe will evolve I am sure considering the accelerating rate of progress they would have better modelling computers, before they actually create the universe, within a short period of time, due to the Law of Accelerating Returns. They would quickly surpass the technological pinnacle of universe creation within a few years or perhaps within a few seconds, or milliseconds. So it is very likely they would possess computers more powerful than the universe before the universe is created thus they could predict absolutely everything that would happen in the universe they were about to create. I will also contemplate the possibility they rushed blindly and stupidly into the creation of a universe the first moment they had the capability to do so.

Consider the technological accomplishment needed to create a universe; it is safe to state such creators are very intelligent, thoughtful people, very considerate regarding their actions, but maybe recklessly insane people will also exist in the super-intelligent future. People must have an utterly AWESOME level of technology if they can create universes; the mind boggles thinking about it but surely we can see how even in the case where a flawed universe is impetuously created by amateur-creators the corrections could easily be fixed within a few seconds, hours, or years after creation due to the Law of Accelerating Returns? Our universe would be obsolete within a few days or years.

We can update our computers with patches to secure a vulnerability, we can even install an entirely new OS. Surely advanced beings could update the universe to eliminate all bugs?

Surely God has heard of Beta-testing? How about Alpha testing? Jesus Christ! God is an incompetent fool. I think nobody created our universe but if they did it would've been very stupid to rush into the creation process. Please note A UNIVERSE IS FOR LIFE NOT JUST CHRISTMAS (think twice before creating a universe):

Our universe is comparable to a dog, hamster, or a tasty meal. Considering super-intelligence, our universe is not very technically accomplished. It would be easy to predict everything that happened in our universe; or if sufficient prediction capability was not available at the time of creation it would be easy to install an update a few seconds or years after creation. The update would be feasible due to the ever advancing nature of progress. There is no justification for creating a flawed universe, but if God never existed the flaws are justified.


It is pretty easy to see how the ongoing financial criss can be interpreted as precursor to the Mayan 21st December 2012 end of the world. My point is people often think things are easy to interpret according to their bias, thus when they read their star signs or tea-leaves they may say it is pretty easy to see how the signs apply wholly to their life circumstances. Or the paranoid schizophrenic thinks it's easy to see how Obama is an evil robot trying to brainwash everyone via nanobots in the water supply.

It isn't actually easy to see how the Bible relates to extreme technological progress (Transhumanism), unless of course you have a religious bias, a blind-spot, which means you see everything through a religious filter, thus everything is God's work.

The Bible doesn't actually predict the Singularity but people see signs and codes where there are none, thus at various points in history people believed Nostradamus predicted various events, but most scholars reject the predictive ability of Nostradamus. I hope you will also reject the pseudo-linkage between religion and the Singularity, similar to how rational people reject the end of the world Mayan 21st December 2012 predictions.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Misguided AI-Fears Via Wired

Mark Piesing writing in Wired posits an AI threat based on an incomplete appraisal of the future; he neglects to consider Post-Scarcity. His misunderstanding is somewhat understandable because specious luminaries within the field of futurism are paranoid regarding AI, they look at the future in an incomplete manner dependent on their fearful bias. They need to overcome their bias. Their speculations are very wrong, they couldn't be more wrong (flawed intellectualism).

In response to Mark Piesing's article, here is my comment:

Fears regarding AI fail to consider inevitable threat-neutralizing Post-Scarcity. An inevitable consequence of AI is Post-Scarcity thus the motive for all conflict is neutralized. Scarcity underpins all conflict. We fight over limited resources, but we can see via Planetary Resources how one asteroid could easily contain more platinum than has been mined in our entire history. Asterank was recently mentioned in the news because the resources of one asteroid (241 Germania) are likely to produce a profit of $95 trillion, which is as much as the world earns in one year.

Vast resources of Space are very important but they are not the principle feature of how Post-Scarcity is inevitable, the key feature is regarding how computers (AI) allow us to continually refine the efficiency of resources we use, thus super-intelligent AI will create ultra-efficient devices, which on the most basic level means all energy will be free due to energy harvesting.

In the future the smallest amount of matter will provide massive potential, so that efficiency of usage increases by perhaps 99%. AI will create an explosion of intelligence of utterly mind-blowing gigantic proportions. Ours wildest dreams will be possible. There is no threat.

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Envisioning The Future

Today I stumbled upon an article about how there is nothing to fear in the future.
I was inspired to write this response:

The internet in its current configuration is similar to all computing, it is incredibly primitive, thus based on our current primitive technology, I suppose if you fail to consider how the foundations of tech will change, it is natural to envision a clunking mechanical-type 1980s cyborg type future, but tech from year 2012 will transform radically over the next 20 to 30 years, therefore when we achieve Singularity no later than 2045 there will no longer be a biological-mechanical divide.

The clunking metallic idea of augmentation will be hopelessly outdated. The future will be a place of supreme biological refinement, the internet will comparable be to your voice, it will be an integral part of your body. If you can see infrared and x-rays, via your eyes, it will not be because you have chunks of metal or primitive processors stuck into your eyeballs or brain.

We will re-engineer the human body in ways which are almost beyond description. Recently there was some news about engineered viruses able to translate kinetic energy into electricity, which gives you a glimpse of our future. Bacterial and DNA computing are also important to consider. Everything we do to our bodies in the future will be done freely, free like the thoughts we choose to think, and incidentally at no cost because everything in the future will be be due to Post-Scarcity.

Your current interface between your brain and your thoughts is comparable to the futuristic interface between you and technology. Instead of envisioning a cyborg future it is more accurate to envision billions of years of biological evolution within a few decades. You will fly like Superman, or like The Silkie, apparently unaugmented, through space or underwater, without jet-pack or spaceship, faster than speeding bullets. You will be immortal, you will be all powerful. Everything will be free.

Saturday, 12 May 2012

Definition of Intelligence. Part One.

Intelligence in my terms, and absolute universal terms, is a cognitive process principally conducive to survival. Secondarily it is a process conducive to happiness. The concept of "intelligence" needs this clarification because humans in the year 2012 rarely comprehend it, evidenced by all the stupid people in the world, thus I want explain what it is. There are three components to intelligence:

1. Survival
2. Happiness.

3. Questioning.

Intelligence is the will to survive. Intelligence is defined as superlative survival ability. The better you are at surviving, the more intelligent you are. Likewise with the secondary component of intelligence: happiness. The happier you are, the more intelligent you are. Intelligent people are happy, or more precisely I should state intelligent people act in a manner to ensure their eventual happiness. To survive a life-form must often struggle strenuously, and some die, thus the weak (poor-survivors, stupid life-forms, evolutionary failures) are winnowed out. Likewise with happiness, the route to happiness can often be a tremendously sad route but on balance an intelligent being will find all struggles and sorrows are eventually outweighed by the extreme intensity of their ultimate happiness-heights. A low capacity for survival and happiness means a low capacity for intelligence. High intelligence is determined by the greatest capacity for and actualization of survival and happiness.

Obviously to survive and be happy a being must be capable of reasoning, questioning. To ensure unquestionable clarity it is important to highlight how questioning is a part of intelligence. Some things can be utterly clear therefore the question doesn't need to be asked, or more precisely the answer to the question is self-evident therefore questioning is honed to mere affirmation of correctness, yes? The ability to ask questions regarding your survival and happiness, for the purpose of increasing your survival and happiness, this is intelligence.

It's all about purpose

Typical dictionary definitions of intelligence miss the crucial point. The purpose of intelligence is missed. The purpose is the definition. The purpose is the core meaning of intelligence because learning or reasoning without valid purpose entails futility. Empty learning isn't true learning, directionless reasoning isn't true reasoning, it is stupid. Intelligence without purpose is not intelligence. Here is one typical dictionary definition of intelligence, which you can see misses the key meaning of intellect because the issue of "why" is absent, there is no explanation of purpose:

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Intelligence is all about meanings, it is about the perception of value, it is the ultimate meaning, it is a determination of truth, but perceptual problems occur because people frequently fail to correctly ascertain value or truth, therefore the pivotal meaning of intelligence is overlooked or corrupted. People grasp backward (distorted) values therefore a corruption or meaning occurs, which means people cannot see the ultimate value-truth (definition, meaning) of intelligence, namely survival and happiness. Consider how values can change. For example a politician could initially be deemed honest but subsequently the politician is deemed corrupt, therefore what is the true definition of a politician?

It is very helpful to question perspectives, thus what was erroneously deemed "right" can, when viewed in a clearer light, be revealed to actually be "wrong," which is how Gay marriages become legal. This is how we progress, we progress via questioning assumptions. Questioning is good. Redefining is good. It is a refinement to redefine, the sentiment is honed. Survival and happiness (intelligence) depend upon questioning. All three points are interconnected, interdependent, they are disassembled synonyms constructing the word intelligence.

Instead of politicians being defined as "leaders" perhaps they should be redefined as "aimless self-serving morons," but maybe there has been no redefinition, maybe this is how politicians were always defined, it depends on your perspective. The words "red" and "eight" are simpler concepts than the concept of a "politician," "honesty," or "intelligence." The definitions of "red" and "eight" are less liable to "corruption" (distortion). Politicians are "mediators of scarcity," they deal with issues pertaining to allocating scarce resources to people. The allocation level of resources is determined by the social level of the resource-recipient, which means a minority of "superior people" receive the largest amount of resources. Politicians mediate greed, thus their mediation of greed within a world of scarcity entails management of the social dysfunction arising from scarcity. Politicians are stupid because the fail to realize their purpose, they fail to grasp awareness thus they act in ways harmful to survival and happiness. They succumb to the greed of stupid animals unable to engage higher brain functions.

Intelligent people are exceedingly sensitive; they are highly aware, endowed with immense perspicacious due to their deep appreciation of survival and happiness. Expressed concisely, intelligence is the will to live.

Extreme intelligence entails having the greatest will to live. The greater your intelligence, the greater your will to live will be. A low capacity for survival and happiness means a low capacity for intelligence. A highly intelligent will to live is the indomitable will to survive in a state of extreme happiness. The intelligence of humans will ensure we live forever; this is the ultimate survival. We will create utopia, the ultimate happiness. This will happen via the intelligence explosion.

Powerful consciousness

Superlative survival and superlative happiness (extreme survival and extreme happiness) require potent consciousness, potent awareness. It all hinges upon the configuration of the brain. Human brains allow us to experience life more potently than life-forms with lesser brains. Some humans have poorly configured brains thus they are stupid, dumb, insensitive, unaware. Some people are deluded; they are stupid. They act in ways contrary to survival, contrary to happiness (they act in ways contrary to ensuring a speedy arrival of the intelligence explosion), but they think they are making themselves happy and they think they are ensuring their survival in the best possible way. Masochists for example think they are happy when they make themselves feel unhappy. Stupidity is an intrinsic aspect of capitalism thus Post-Scarcity is key aspect of the intelligence explosion.


Here is part two of my intelligence definition, which augments the above definition. I have more information to impart regarding the definition of intelligence but our world is very depressing therefore my complete definition of intelligence will probably not conclude until year 2018 approximately. See the bottom half of this page for additional info.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Intelligence definition (evolving). Part Two.

This blog-post is part of my ongoing endeavour to explain "intelligence" in comprehensible terms for average people of low intelligence. For a starting point I want you to consider politicians or army generals. Very stupid people might think politicians or generals are intelligent. Politicians and generals might also consider themselves to be intelligent.

Our civilization consists of masses of stupid people, which is why TV shows such as the X-Factor or American Idol are popular whereas the issues of immortality, AI, or Stem Cell research are not popular. At this stage I don't want to waste time trying to prove how stupid the majority of people are, so you either believe it or not.

I think politicians are generally assumed by The Masses to be more intelligent than The Masses, but very probably The Masses are unwilling to admit it. Politicians have enough brains to earn lots of money and acquire personal power, but are politicians or businesspeople such as Bill Gates, Ray Kurzweil, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, and Peter Thiel really intelligent?

Ask average people if Bill Gates is intelligent, or was Steve Jobs intelligent, and they will probably say such people are examples of "intelligent people" but if you asked an intellectual such as Samuel Beckett, Nietzsche, Camus, Voltaire, Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Chomsky, or Richard Dawkins; they would probably say politicians and business leaders are utter morons, or at least slightly stupid but definitely not intelligent.

The definition of intelligence is very subjective dependent upon the intelligence of person defining the concept, therefore a mentally retarded person would probably think their parents are really brainy even if their parents are uneducated plebs. Retarded people might think police officers are very intelligent, but the police are not intelligent:

Connecticut judge rules that police can bar applicants with high IQ scores.

Court OKs the barring of high IQs for potential cops.

The above two news reports highlight how intelligence is not needed within our civilization regarding the majority of people. It is essential that most workers do not think. This aspect of the unthinking Masses makes true communication exceptionally difficulty because generally people cannot communicate. True Intelligence is a hindrance to "success". Truly intelligent people experience rejection, hostility, and disparagement because our civilization is based upon antipathy towards intelligence. Our civilization is very stupid. The ethos of capitalism decrees Mass-stupidity must be an essential component of civilization because only via Mass-stupidity will the majority of people meekly accept massive income inequality.

Similar to notions of anti-art and anti-psychiatry (anti-establishment concepts which highlight how "art" and "sanity" are misnomers, they are falsehoods, thus traditional definitions of art and sanity are actually pseudo-art and pseudo-sanity), we see also how the traditional definition of "intelligence" is actually pseudo-intelligence. Our world is an idiotic sham on many levels but people are too stupid to see it. Pseudo-intelligence stops people seeing the true stupidity of civilization.

This definition of intelligence is currently being refined, the definition is evolving, therefore I will publish at some point in the not too distant future the complete explanation of intelligence, but in the meantime I will describe intelligence via the following words:

1. Survival.
2. Power.
3. Happiness.
4. Love.
5. Harmony.
6. Honesty.

Intelligent people will obviously realize those five words are subjective, thus survival for a dog is different to survival for a drug addict or an accountant. Consider also power. A vicious dog or political leader might think it is powerful to bite or kill someone, but if a dog bites someone there's an good chance the dog will be euthanized. We therefore see how the "power" of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, or Osama bin Laden was pseudo-power thus they are now dead, which wasn't really very intelligent of them. Consider "harmony" from the political viewpoint, politicians consider harmony to be a situation where citizens meekly accept all political decisions without question, thus disgruntled people never protest against Government oppression. Harmony from the viewpoint of oppressed people entails equal distribution of wealth, fair wages, an end to wage inequality. So-called "harmony" defined by wealthy political and businesses classes is not actually harmonious, it is oppression. Oppression creates societal discord potentially leading to economic collapse, but the Rich-Class cannot see this therefore they continue to strive for their idea of a harmonious world, a world of pseudo-harmony in accord with their pseudo-intelligence, a world where a minority of people live easy lives due to the suffering of the majority.


Consider super-intelligence, the computer-related variety, artificial intelligence. People judge super-intelligence from a viewpoint of very basic intelligence therefore this basic viewpoint arising from very basic intelligence entails a false ascription of motives regarding what beings of super-intelligence would do, which is similar to a rabbit ascribing rabbit-thinking to humans. This is my point regarding the subjectivity of intelligence. Maybe rabbits fear we want to steal their carrots. Rabbits do justly fear we want to eat them but we also protect them, and in the future when our intelligence increases no animals will suffer for the sake of humans eating food; we will bio-engineer plants to grow meat. In the future humans and animals can live in harmony. We will also very likely decide to increase the intelligence if animals. Ascription of rabbit-thinking to human-thinking is an imperfect analogy but it is a step towards giving you an inkling of the different modes of problem-solving and different motivations which super-intelligent beings would have compared to humans. For example if a super-intelligent being wanted to expand itself throughout the universe, its intelligence would quickly increase thus new universes would easily be created if the matter needed for expansion became scarce. Prior to such an intelligence expanding it would have the intelligence to realise how exterminating humans is a very stupid thing to do for a entity soon to have a brain the size of the universe. When this hypothetical being has a brain the size of the universe it could comfortably coexist within matter without the matter being aware of its existence, it could easily share matter via only utilizing subatomic levels. What we are contemplating is intelligence vastly beyond the human concept of intelligence thus truly radical. Utterly mind-bending solutions will be possible therefore the stupidity of wars will be utterly unrelated to super-intelligence.

We can sufficiently know Superintelligence because we do have intelligence, thus we can state it will be logical. We can look at how humans have become more logical in line with our evolving intelligence thus via our logic we try to decrease suffering, because logic tells us suffering and cruelty are bad, which is the whole idea of humanity, being humane, harmony, being intelligent.

All intelligence is logical. All logic is humane. Intelligence is the trait of being humane. I have highlighted the subjectivity of intelligence thus considering this subjectivity there is no proof regarding what is truly intelligent. I cannot prove what is intelligent. I can explain what I think intelligence is, and then you can judge my intelligence to be valid thus my definition is valid, or your can judge otherwise. I can only urge to you think about it. The conclusion of your thoughts depends upon your level of intelligence, thus you will either come to an intelligent conclusion or not. This is the logic of my reasoning. This is what logic tells me.

Honesty, exploitation, and murder.

Honesty is crucial for intellectualism, thus if you start compromising honesty in one area you risk a general debilitation of honesty, which would entail intellectual debilitation. Exploitation and sociopathic murder involves a large amount of dishonesty on various levels.

A large amount of money would perhaps give a person greater security, which could better ensure my survival on a superficial level, but perhaps sharp wits honed by honesty is a more valuable survival trait. There is a balancing trick, regarding pre-Singularity intelligence, between honing honesty-dependent-cognitive-ability and conforming to the dishonesty of a stupid world.

Murder is stupid because the chance of getting away with it slim but most importantly the effort associated with murder would divert brainpower away from thought processes designed to improve your mind. Via the act of murder the type of person you would likely become would not be compatible with intelligence, I doubt murderers are truly happy, I think they lose an important part of their minds when they give-in to homicidal urges. Murder is similar to how bureaucratic meetings change a person's mind.

"Meetings make people stupid because they impair their ability to think for themselves, scientists have found."
Part one of my intelligence definition can be viewed here: intelligence

Monday, 7 May 2012

Stupidity Intelligence Capitalism Scarcity

Mass stupidity is a crucial requirement for capitalist civilization. I am explaining here the socioeconomic interdependence (interconnectedness) of stupidity and #capitalism. Human stupidity is an artificial construct designed to create vast riches for a minority of people. This is the fundamental ethos of capitalism. Capitalism is the creation of mass stupidity because stupidity creates massive riches for a minority of people. It is all about scarcity. Bureaucracy is a key feature of capitalism therefore it is important to note how:

The ethos of capitalism decrees Mass-stupidity must be an essential component of civilization because only via mass-stupidity will the majority of people meekly accept massive income inequality. Mass stupidity must therefore be socially engineered to ensure a minority of people have superior access to scarce resources.

"Meetings make people stupid because they impair their ability to think for themselves, scientists have found."

Every aspect of our global culture is designed to perpetuate and reinforce mass stupidity because every aspect of culture is designed to perpetuate massive wealth for a minority of people. Only via mass stupidity will the majority of the population (low paid workers) accept their subservient positions where they are unfairly exploited by cruel and greedy businesses. Only via stupidity will masses of people accept their exploited status in thrall to callous Governments and corporations.

If intelligent people were forced to perform menial jobs for low pay, those intelligent people would rebel against their unfair exploitation. Intelligent people would never accept low pay for any work they do. Intelligent people would not be willing or happy workers if they were forced to perform mind-numbing jobs for a pittance.

Capitalist civilization simply cannot support masses of intelligent people because if everybody was an Einstein genius nobody would want to waste their time doing mindless drudgery work, or at the very least they would want equal pay comparative the people doing the genius work. An intelligent person can see how all jobs contributing to civilization are equally important, thus all workers deserve equal pay, therefore this is why stupidity must be manufactured in a capitalist civilization. Only via mass stupidity will the majority of people accept their low pay. Only via mass stupidity will menial workers ignore the truth regarding how all workers are equally important. Only stupid people can be truly happy doing menial work.

Connecticut judge rules that police can bar applicants with high IQ scores.

Court OKs the barring of high IQs for potential cops.

All workers deserve equal pay but poor people are too stupid to realize this. This is how a tiny minority of people become very rich. This is capitalism. Stupid people create vast wealth for a minority of people.

Sunday, 6 May 2012

Eric Drexler's Radical Abundance.

People familiar with futuristic technology will probably be aware of Eric Drexler's 1986 book Engines of Creation. Eric is now working on, or has finished, a new book called Radical Abundance, which will be published in 2013.

Post-Scarcity is the most important issue in the history of the human race. I am really glad to see respected people such as Eric Drexler and Peter Diamandis writing these books. In my small way I've been trying to publicize Post-Scarcity for the past couple of years; it is encouraging to note the idea is now gathering momentum.

I recently created a page on Google+ titled "Post-Scarcity Warriors" which I am continuing to develop. I am doing everything I can to raise PS awareness because people really need to become aware of how everything in the not too distant future will be free (no prices and no jobs). Anticipation of such freedom has the power to really make our world a vastly better place.

I consider myself to be an unofficial expert on Post-Scarcity, therefore if Eric wanted a quote for his book or if he wanted to discuss things with me then I would gladly help, but he has probably finished writing his book. It can be long time before finishing a book that it becomes available for the public to purchase. At least I can look forward to reading it. I can also look forward to greater PS awareness.

Thursday, 3 May 2012


The idea of "digital" immortality will with hindsight appear very naive. It is very primitive akin to the hankering for cybernetic enhancement in the modality of Stelarc. Mind-uploading is an outdated 1980s type of cybernetics vision, where robots are clunking mechanical contraptions. For example some people already think reality is digital regarding the Simulation argument, therefore we could already be uploaded but there is no 80s type "digital" about our current uploaded status.

When technology has progressed in 2045, there will be no valid distinction between organic and inorganic. Mind-uploading is a valuable thing to consider purely as a Steam-Punk type fashion, but regarding logic mind-uploading is comparable to advocating the freedom to wear and blue tee-shirt instead of a red tee-shirt, it is nonsensical, frivolous inanity, a superficial type of fashionable escapism.

My above views were prompted via this article:

"For Dr Stuart Armstrong, the rise of the idea of digital immortality is due to the realisation that this time – perhaps – we actually have the key to immortality in our hands. Dr Armstrong is research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford."

Mind-uploading is popular in the mainstream media lately. The Guardian recently reported on the following video. The final edit of my comment in response to the video is listed below.

1. The Singularity is not mind-uploading. Mind-loading will never really become a reality not because it is impossible, it will be possible, but it is a parochial concept like 1980s cyberpunk or steampunk, it will be hopelessly outdated in 2045. Mind-uploading is a fashionable affectation, not a serious premise. Mind-uploading is merely a fashionable statement without substance because in the future it simply will be unneeded. The future of reality will be as though you are already uploaded thus uploading within the upload is superfluous, like being unable to see the wood because the trees are obscuring your view. We will manipulate reality with far greater prowess than the manipulation associated with primitive digital mind-uploading.

2. Money, rules, regulation, laws, and Governments will all be obsolete in 2045 due to Post-Scarcity. All constraints on freedom are based wholly on scarcity problems. Money and all constraints associated with money are only needed to regulate scarcity. Post-Scarcity is inevitable. Once 3D-printing grows as big as in the internet then prices will tumble eventually to zero. The basic fabric of society will harmoniously crumble. The increasing power of computing cannot be stopped thus Post-Scarcity cannot be stopped because computing is at the heart of all advanced technology. High-powered computers are inevitable thus Post-Scarcity is inevitable. Everything will be free in all senses of the word, total liberty and no prices. Our wealth will be limitless, we will be free.

In the future we will control matter with expertise vastly greater than mind-uploading. Mind-uploading is the obsolete punchcard-floppy-disk-Betamax technology of the future. If you tell someone in the year 2045 that you want to upload your mind they'll look at you as though you want to use an abacus. You don't need to upload your mind to be immortal. The whole concept of mind-uploading is a very primitive idea, it is an affectation like 80s clunking robots or SteamPunk.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |