DARK SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY

DARK SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY

I have recently been reflecting upon privacy regarding biometrics and other ways technology could be utilized to control people, such as smart bullets or nanobots able to search out and rewire brains of dissidents. We live in a age where releasing contentious classified Government information into the public domain resulted in an informal call for Julian Assange to be assassinated. Sarah Palin wants Julian Assange hunted down, and she asks: "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172920/Julian-Assange-should-be-assassinated-Canadian-official-claims.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8171269/Sarah-Palin-hunt-WikiLeaks-founder-like-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-leaders.html

There have also been calls for the the death penalty to be applied to the whistle-blower responsible for the current Wikileaks saga. We are told Wikileaks could have blood on its hands, although Wikileaks doesn't yet have blood on its hands unlike collation forces (http://www.collateralmurder.com/) who've killed over 100,000 civilians. We are told it is treasonous to expose Government corruption.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8172916/WikiLeaks-guilty-parties-should-face-death-penalty.html

So in this age where smart bullets are being developed, and drugs are being developed to delete specific memories, I've been reflecting upon privacy, Governmental control, and Post-Scarcity. I feel greater awareness of Post-Scarcity is the only way to avert dystopia and create utopia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334114/New-US-Army-rifles-use-radio-controlled-smart-bullets-used-Afghanistan.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1325834/Eternal-sunshine-Scientists-technique-delete-traumatic-memories-good.html

SINGULARITY UTOPIA

I am generally known for presenting a highly optimistic utopian outlook, but many people don't realize my optimistic outlook is due to my VAST despair and pessimism. I am very aware of possible dystopian scenarios. Often I privately think we would all be better off dead but I realize how focusing on negativity can easily create more negativity due to the mechanism of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, therefore I focus on hope because the creation of utopia is easy if enough people want to create it. Maybe, due to the influence of my despair, you will feel my optimism is deluded-wishful-thinking but such a view would be incorrect because the power of our intentions and expectations can change the world.

We are VERY close to utopia but maybe people cannot see this because they are too cynical. Maybe people have heard too many false cries of utopia, like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, therefore our pessimism blinds us to the reality before our eyes. Sadly this pessimism hinders utopia because a Self-Fulfilling prophecy can create good or bad. It all depends upon what you expect. Your expectations and perceptions are crucial.

STEM CELL CURES ARE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1299877/British-cancer-girl-saved-windpipe-stem-cells.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7852745/Stem-cell-breakthrough-for-blind-patients-after-treatment-restores-vision.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1331903/On-trial-stem-cells-cure-blindness-Injections-end-problem-young-elderly.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329899/Stem-cells-injected-stroke-victims-brain-world-procedure.html

Stem Cells are one aspect of how science and technology progresses rapidly in beneficial ways, but in this note I want to highlight the DARK SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY. I want to address the concept of privacy. I want to focus on how Post-Scarcity-Awareness can avert dystopia and create utopia, but utopia will only happen if enough people want it to happen. Currently it seems business-leaders and politicians do not want utopia to happen: this is the dark side of technology.

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

1. PRIVACY

• Terrorist Watch Lists

The whole concept of privacy is about State/Government control.

Privacy is one of the many ramifications arising from “The Power Elite” controlling “The Masses”. Greed of the Rich Class, the bankers, politicians, CEOs CFOs, Directors, and oligarchs is fundamentally hostile, selfish; it's an inhuman way to configure so-called civilisation. This capitalist greed creates the need for privacy. Inequality creates the need for privacy. Capitalist selfishness, perpetuated by The Power Elite, creates the need for privacy .

• Privacy is a system of control and privacy is also a symptom of control.

Utopia will arise due to the creation of Post-Scarcity via a molecular-nanotech bio-computer-induced explosion of intelligence, revolving around humans (transhumans) and AI.

BUT, the continual failure by "The Power Elite" to mention or publicise the concept of Post-Scarcity causes me to fear the dark side of technology. I sometimes fear technology could merely be used to enslave The Masses.

Classifying people who are not normally considered terrorists as "terrorists" causes me great anxiety.

Sometimes we seem to be moving towards a situation where questioning authority, criticising the Establishment, or criticising the Government is seen as a potential terrorist threat.

I was concerned about recent demands made to classify Julian Assange as a terrorist and Wikileaks as a terrorist organisation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334112/WikiLeaks-classed-terrorists-Julian-Assange-faces-police-probe.html

I thought terrorists killed people and blew things up, but it seems mere distribution of contentious information is now a terrorist threat.

That Wikileaks may be classified as terrorist organisation was on its own not enough to provoke my fears, although I was deeply concerned. My fears finally culminated after reading the following report about actor Mark Ruffalo being placed on a terrorist watch list due to his environmental concerns. Has Mark Ruffalo made any bomb threats? Is he likely to make any bomb threats? The answer is no, he is a respectable actor merely highlighting environmental concerns, but the reason he is classified as a potential terrorist is because he has opposed big-business, the natural gas business.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334159/Actor-Mark-Ruffalo-placed-terror-watch-list.html

• [UPDATE: apparently Mark Ruffalo is not on a terror watch list. What happened was that regarding a documentary Mark was involved with... "Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security was monitoring these screenings and feeding information to the gas industry. And they got busted. It was a huge embarrassment and the head of their Homeland Security had to resign over it." So maybe things are not as bad as initially they seemed.]

• [ADDITIONAL UPDATE: maybe things are as bad as they seem: "Microsoft Corp. officials are considering using the camera on their new Kinect videogame system to target ads to people watching the games." Mircosoft has the potential to spy on people via videos games the user is playing: "Is Your Videogame Machine Watching You"]

Regular Americans are currently suffering extremely invasive TSA pat-downs at airport security check-ins. Grandmothers and 3 year old girls are often subjected to extreme body searches. The Government seems to think we are all terrorists. I will probably be placed on a terrorist watch list for writing this (although I am probably already on one) and you will probably be placed on a terrorist watch list for reading this.

Needless to say: I am peaceful, an utterly non violent person, and I hope you are the same, but despite our peaceful non-terrorist nature we could be deemed terrorists simply for free-thinking. I despise terrorism and do not condone violence in any shape or form, but we should be free to question authority, we should be free to think. In the future will free-thinking and criticism of Governments be considered terrorism? Sometimes I fear the freedoms of democracy are ending and we are entering an age of fascist-totalitarianism.

Why do politicians and business-moguls fail to mention Post-Scarcity?

Will technology solely be used for dark purposes such as enslavement?

I believe technology can easily create utopia but the arrival of utopia depends on enough people wanting it to happen. We need to raise awareness regarding Post-Scarcity. Pressure needs to be placed on Governments and businesses so that they plan for and expect utopia.

This is how we can overcome the dark side of technology and this is how we can transcend the issues of privacy.

2. SCARCITY DEPRIVES PEOPLE OF POWER

In situations of scarcity people with more power will exploit those with lesser power. The exploitation is undignified, it is cruel. The upper class, the aristocracy, the rich class, the bankers, CEOs and politicians all perpetuate capitalist exploitation because they are unaware of how a Post-Scarcity civilization will soon be created. The exploitation continues because resources are scarce therefore the people in power cling to their wealth.

People who are exploited suffer a blow to their dignity but the most brutally oppressed people can retain dignity despite existing in undignified circumstances Personal dignity (self respect, worthiness) ultimately depends upon abolition of scarcity because it is only via abolishing scarcity that the need to exploit fellow humans will disappear. Government monitoring, questions about privacy and dignity, will become irrelevant, archaic, obsolete, reminiscent of stone-tipped spears, cave paintings, woolly mammoths, Sabre-toothed tigers, or ritual sacrifices. Our culture is deeply based on scarcity therefore we rarely consider the deeply entrenched hostility of a world where everything must always be locked to prevent theft. We consider these things normal; it is normal for people to suffer while the upper echelons live the high-life.

We must oppose Government and business control of our lives but we must do this constructively via highlighting how the need to control is based upon scarcity. We must highlight how, due to highly advanced technology, there will soon be no need to control people, therefore we must constructively urge Governments and businesses to focus upon creating Post-Scarcity. Everything must be done to escalate the arrival of a Post-Scarcity civilisation. The whole issue of privacy relates to scarcity because privacy is all about self-protection within a hostile world. Hostilities arise because scarcity causes imbalances of power, imbalances of resources, and people fight over the power, the resources. Solve the problem of scarcity and you solve the privacy problems.

SUGAR CUBE SIZED SUPER COMPUTERS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11734909

DNA LOGIC-GATES CREATED FOR BIO-COMPUTERS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18989-dna-logic-gates-herald-injectable-computers.html

3. POST-SCARCITY WILL ELIMINATE CYNICAL DISTRUST

The main problem is with civilization is lack of trust. Lack of trust is particularly problematic regarding Governments. If we could trust Governments and if we could trust people in our communities then we would have little need for privacy. Our world of scarcity-economics is the root of distrust because we fight over resources therefore we need to protect ourselves in many ways from a hostile world. Scarcity creates hostility and this is the root need for privacy. Privacy is protection, it is a defence; we need to put up barriers, lock our homes, lock our cars, password protect everything, and guard our identities. Highly advanced technology will create Post-Scarcity within 35 years (by the year 2045 at the latest). We should focus on the positive aspects of technology. We should focus on creating Post-Scarcity because this is the only way to truly solve the privacy issue. We should expect utopia. We can make it happen. We should try to infect people with our optimism.

The one crucial and indubitable aspect of Singularity Utopia is that Post-Scarcity is a prime goal. The deadline target for utopia is year 2045. They say it is always darkest before dawn.

My response to David Brin critcism

I posted a comment regarding a life expectancy article featuring David Brin and Aubrey de Grey: When Will Life Expectancy Reach 200 Years? Aubrey de Grey and David Brin Disagree in Interview.

Here is my initial comment that prompted the whole saga:
(see Facebook link at bottom of page)

• Hi David I've just posted a comment regarding the above link on ilookforwardto.com I'd love to hear your response. This is what I wrote:
  
  I think we will be able to extend our lives to 500 years by 2035. Indefinite lifespans will be possible by year 2045.
  
  Already in year 2010 a patient has had an operation using her own stem cells to regrow then transplant her windpipe: "Doctors regenerated tissue from the patients’ nose and bone marrow stem cells to create windpipes in the laboratory which were biologically identical to the patients’ original organs." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1299877/British-cancer-girl-saved-windpipe-stem-cells.html
  
  Vision has also been restored, via stem cells, for people suffering chemical burns to their eyes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7852745/Stem-cell-breakthrough-for-blind-patients-after-treatment-restores-vision.html
  
  Here is a more recent trial regarding stem cells curing blindness: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1331903/On-trial-stem-cells-cure-blindness-Injections-end-problem-young-elderly.html
  
  Here is a trial regarding stem cells being used on a stroke victim: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329899/Stem-cells-injected-stroke-victims-brain-world-procedure.html
  
  ALL THE ABOVE REPORTS ARE FROM THE YEAR 2010.
  
  Over the next 10 years these breakthrough treatments will increase dramatically, and in the year 2020 the pace of acceleration will *really* quicken! I think it will be possible to extend life to 200 years in the year 2025.
  
  I think both Aubrey and David are conservative in their expectations. Furthermost I don't think my forecasts are over-optimistic.
  
  Expect utopia. Eternal life in 2045.
  
  The power of your expectations is crucial:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

I often find people react very adversely to optimistic proclamations of techno-utopia. My comment, which I thought was relatively innocuous provoked a rather extreme battle of comments on Facebook, in the heat of battle comments seemed to be flying left, right, and center. I will now try to summarise my comments from the chaotic heat of that battle. I am now re-posting my comments here with some minor corrections. I will also include, at the bottom of my comments to David Brin, some comments to other people I posted on David Brin's Facebook page, in connection with this issue, which arose from the initial comment. Phew people! They are troublesome. Click here for the facebook link to the comments.

To put things in perspective I think firstly I should include an appropriate excerpt from David Brin's comment which demanded my response to such calumny:

• So why do I -- and Vernor Vinge, the coiner of the term "tech singularity" react with sighs and eye-rolls to all this fervent "hossanah" shouting over salvation from above or an imminent Day of Transcendence, when Death shalt be no more and ye true believers will all be rewarded...
  
  ...because we've heard it all before. The terminology may be different, but the PSYCHOLOGY is still the same as in every tent show revival meeting across 6,000 years. It's not just the substitution of anecdotes for actual capabilities. (Lots of stem cell papers, but not one regrown nervous system, yet.) Nor the coincidence that Salvation Day always calculates out to be just in time for YOU!
  
  But no, I'll tell you what bugs me.
  
  It's the psychology. The incredibly self-centered, solipsistic, self-serving, "I-am Soooooo-darned-important!" narcissism of the fantasy is what bugs me. The hand-rubbing, chortling I-am-So-gonna-live-forever! zealotry that seems never to entail ANY of the virtues that we've long associated with adulthood.

David, you say you react with "sighs and eye-rolls" to my positive utopian outlook. Maybe this is your problem, you have become cynical. Yes, previously there have been many incorrect proclamations of utopia just around the corner. In the 60s people proclaimed we would all be flying around on jetpacks etc by now. This is a bit like the boy who cried wolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Now that utopia IS possible, people such as yourself who've heard it all before (false cries of wolf) are now too cynical to listen. Previous false proclamations created your cynicism. Your cynicism is a damaging trait now that utopia is possible. Your cynicism is harmful.

Let's consider psychology. David you mention psychology. You describe the pro-utopia outlook in the following terms: solipsistic, self-serving, "I-am Soooooo-darned-important!" narcissism. This view of yours reveals an interesting antagonism, anger perhaps, regarding hope and survival. Your critique of pro-immortality (utopia) continues by berating the supposed "hand-rubbing" practiced by people who have a "I-am-So-gonna-live-forever" mentality.

David, there are many aspects in your psychological assessment demanding a reply. Firstly I want to address the issue of self-importance. Is it wrong to have a high opinion of yourself? Having an extremely low opinion of your "importance" often is associated with mental health problems, poor mental health. When people feel they are worthless, unimportant trash, they are inclined to be despondent and lacking in motivation, they lack self respect. So perhaps if more people thought they were VERY important, "Soooooo-darned-important" as you amusingly put it, then perhaps the world would be a better place? When I mention self-importance I am not referring to pretentiousness, I am referring to logical and justifiable beliefs of a person (humans) being important; it is about the importance of life, I think people are VERY important and naturally I am biased towards myself but this is not mindless selfishness, which leads in the the next point I want make.

David your psychological assessment touches upon survival: living forever. The desire to survive is an ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL evolutionary trait. Evolution is all about survival. What makes humans such a superior species is our ability to survive. Luck has played some part in our survival ability, but our defiant animal will to live is a vital factor. This desire to survive has created medicine and has led to massive breeding because humans generally want to live, ardently, passionately, with utter determination. This is not mere "hand-rubbing, chortling I-am-So-gonna-live-forever!" This is a human appreciation of consciousness, self awareness, it is an appreciation of life. If people want to die because they think they are unimportant then that is because they are evolutionary failures. The self importance I refer to shouldn't be confused with mindless selfishness. An intelligent being will naturally want to protect itself but via intelligence a strong appreciation of interconnectedness also exists: ecological harmony.

I think you are wrong to compare "SETI zealots" with utopian-Singularitarian. You are wrong because there is no evidence of high-tech or even low-tech aliens, whereas the evidence of high-technology is already around us, furthermore by plotting the progression of science and technology 20 or 30 years into the future it is easy to see how utopia is entirely possible.

You mention the "vastly complicated the internal processes of a neuron", but come on David, at one point in history brain surgery was vastly complicated well beyond the powers of culture at the time of Henry The 8th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_8th The question is this: Now that we have reached a certain level of competence regarding our understanding of the human organism, how quickly we will progress? Complexity of systems is ultimately no obstacle. I feel our rate of progress is accelerating, and the evidence seems to corroborate the acceleration, therefore complexity issues regarding neurons will be solved within 35 years, but if some aspects of human complexity elude us in the short term, I continue to maintain medicine and tech will nevertheless allow for RADICAL life extension and utopia within 35 years.

Regarding your "tent show revival" aspersion, I find it funny how people want to link hope regarding technology to hope in God. David you talk about the coincidence regarding how utopia arrives just about in time for me, or you; but that is ALL it is; it is merely a coincidence. COINCIDENCES DO HAPPEN, get over it. Let's assume that utopia can arise and that at some point in the future it will arise. Now let's assume utopia is almost upon us; is it valid to criticize the imminent arrival of utopia because it fits in with the belief system of a person expecting utopia? Imagine in the year 2005 you were waiting for stem cell therapy to cure your blindness and you said to people: "It looks like stem cells will cure my blindness within 15 years." Would it be fair criticism to say such an optimistic view (regarding a stem cell cure for blindness) is suspiciously coincidental even if the evidence points to an actual cure? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1331903/On-trial-stem-cells-cure-blindness-Injections-end-problem-young-elderly.html

I assure you if I was born 200 years ago I would not believe in any form of technological-utopia. I'm a rational and logical person. It is via my logic and rationality that I believe utopia and eternal life are possible. This is NOT some pathetic death-aversion, escapist fantasy, or God-delusion, or tent-show revival. Please!

I assure you I am aware of the history of civilization: culture, past generations, and I'm aware of possible future generations. "Enlightenment of Civilization" is an indomitably crucial component, of ineffable significance, regarding my motivations. A "grand leap to transcendent immortal suppersmart godhood" is a vital aspect of civilization becoming ENLIGHTENED (truly educated) because it will ensure civilization never descends into darkness. This is not "transcendentalist crap", it is education on super-steroids (hyper-supreme EDUCATION of a moral and intellectual type). It is not merely one mother (or father) educating her few offspring, it is education given to millions or billions of minds in cyberspace. It is intelligence exploding.

It is all about breaking the vicious cycle of idiocy, cynicism, negativity, and self-defeating ideology.

It is about educating people regarding how they have the power to change the world, civilization, reality, their minds.

Our thoughts and views have an impact upon the collective consciousness of the human race. The question is this: what pebbles will you throw into the pool of this cyberspace? Will you create positive ripples? Whatever way you choose to act I assure you utopia will be created because I am VERY important, more powerful than you can possible imagine, and I will manifest my importance in an extremely powerful way. This is not a petty ego battle, I am merely aware that I am alive, exceedingly AWARE. I am aware of Self-Fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully my self-confidence will rub off on you and others but whatever happens I assure you utopia is coming by 2045 at the latest.

The age of blind-sycophantic-thralldom will end. Everyone will unleash their power, even if they are not authors or scientists.

------------------------------------------------------

Another response to David:

David. Living forever (and all that eternal life implies) is one of the key aspects of utopia. To live forever in my opinion means absence of disease and illness which is a very good sized chunk of utopia. This is more than mere life-extension, L.E. is a facet of utopia. I may be guilty of rushing to get my words online but I do very carefully consider the meaning, the sentiment, of expressions I criticize. I did carefully read the initial article and most particularly I very carefully read your critical response to my comment. Your comparison to tent-revivalism, singing hosannas etc seems to be the straw-man argument you accuse me of. Regarding your critical response to my comment I did quote you sufficiently to fairly highlight your unreasoned attack. Take this excerpt of yours:

"It's the psychology. The incredibly self-centered, solipsistic, self-serving, "I-am Soooooo-darned-important!" narcissism of the fantasy is what bugs me. The hand-rubbing, chortling I-am-So-gonna-live-forever! zealotry that seems never to entail ANY of the virtues that we've long associated with adulthood."

The "Soooooo" with extra 'ooo's for added effect creates the impression of hostility or anger. The above excerpt doesn't really give any logical criticism regarding my comment. It seems to be mere mudslinging, name-calling. I also disliked the implication that I am puerile.

Your point, in the article, seemed to be that you think that 'There are way too many obstacles' and we haven't made any advances in the fields you think are needed for significant L.E.

I think stem cell advances we have already made, and the projected stem cell advances we will make, are enough to give people a boost long enough for intracellular nanotech.

Regarding this point of yours, you say this is a requirement for significant L.E.: "1) THOROUGH nanotechnology, applied down at the INTRA-cellular level"

Are you aware that DNA logic gates have already been created for prospective biocomputers?

You say you don't have time for this debate? Do you think I have time for this? I only posted a relatively innocuous comment and then it seems hellfire descended on me.

Regarding why you "react with sighs and eye-rolls" to fervent shouts of salvation or transcendence, you wrote in comment "...because we've heard it all before. The terminology may be different, but the PSYCHOLOGY is still the same. It's not just the substitution of anecdotes for actual capabilities. (Lots of stem cell papers, but not one regrown nervous system, yet.) Nor the coincidence that Salvation Day always calculates out to be just in time for YOU!"

I provided links regarding positive progress in stem cell therapy, not mere papers. Admittedly the tangible results were not regarding a regrown nervous system, but the evidence was regarding a regrown windpipe and repairs to eyes/vision. I then project the progress from the evidence so far into the year say 2025. Based upon stem cells alone I think people alive in 2025 will live for 500 years, which is basically forever because by 2045 intracellular MNT will cure or resolve anything.

So regarding "when will life expectancy reach 200?" You say: "I do not expect this any time soon. There are way too many obstacles."

You say there are "no low-hanging fruit" but I disagree; the fruit is stem cell therapy, which is already working in many wonderful ways in the year 2010. You will be surprised at how far stem cell capability progresses in 10 years. By 2020 or 2025 stem cells will repair almost any part of the body and each year beyond 2025 our competence will rapidly increase.

I do expect LE reaching 200 years and beyond relatively soon and I think such constitutes a large facet of utopia.

______________

Another response to David Brin

LOL, David, I'm confused when you say I am yattering at someone other than you. Are you saying someone hacked into your FB account and is impersonating you? If, as you say, I haven't a clue what you are complaining about then please spell it out clearly. So you are saying you are NOT David Brin? The supposed "faux quotations" (as you say) by David Brin were actually taken from this Facebook page allegedly posted by you. The evidence is there, with currently 5 people who like it. In case you are having trouble finding your comment regarding the "faux quotations" the comment is the one where you use the word "BELIEVE" in caps and an exclamation mark (!) in brackets. What were your actual points? Truly I'm mystified but you have made me laugh.

Regarding my accurate quotations I believe the use of quotations is a valid method for debate. Accurate quotations are NOT strawmaning as you allege.

OK, seeing as you have such a bee in your bonnet (or should that be bot-net) I shall paraphrase your position via illustratively paraphrasing Nietzsche from Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

'I David Brin have served the people and the people's superstitions because I am a famous philosopher therefore I have not served truth! It is precisely for this reason that I am paid reverence. I stand here stiff and straight because I am a famous philosopher devoid of strong winds or fiery will. I am servant of the people. I cough to try and silence strong winds. I have learned to stride forward in my own way, but this is my limping whereby I become a hindrance to anyone who is in a hurry. I go forward and at the same time look back with a stiff neck so that speedy souls can run up against me. In the face of utopia I feel small; my mendacity glimmers with hidden vengeance because I know nothing of the raging spirit. Foot and eye should not lie but there is much lying among the small people.'

______________________

And another....

David, on the contrary I am extremely curious, please educate me. Perhaps it is me but you seem to be rambling without addressing the points I earlier raised, and instead of dealing with the issues you are diverging into some weird linguistic, semiotic, phenomenological dissertation on how to communicate effectively. Very esoteric and enthralling from an artistic viewpoint but you evade my points. Maybe I have stumbled into a cubist many worlds alternate reality.

Can you define your point in the original article? The point you were making seems clear to me. I have reiterated your point from my viewpoint but you failed clarify my appraisal, other than by saying my view was wrong. How was my interpretation of your view in the article wrong? What is your point? English is not a difficult language to use. Simply explain yourself instead of being evasive.

-----------------------

And another

David how can you claim to be the injured party when you initially attacked my character, without provocation, via comparing my psychology to a tent show revival meeting, the same as every revival meeting across 6,000 years? Your calumnious... misrepresentation, by claiming I fervently shout hossanah was also an uncalled for injury to my character. I have criticized what you actually said (according to Facebook). If you scroll up the screen to your earlier comment you can see your insults are plain as day. I have asked if someone hacked into your account to make that comment but you failed to respond, but you continually refer to things you supposedly said when in actual fact it appears you did say (write) them.

You may hope for better and wiser children but I believe we can have wisdom in this current generation because I believe science and technology will progress quicker than you envisage.

Anyway I am glad you are moving on, I will do likewise.

Kind regards and no hard feelings.

___________________

Alex von Thorn, when you mention overcoming the laws of physics do you mean quantum physics? I have trouble overcoming the wave-particle duality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality I'm not sure if you are a wave or a particle, which is probably due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which also causes me great uncertainty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle because if the human brain is based upon physics and I change my mind, or overcome a some backward thinking, does this mean I have changed, or overcome, the laws of physics? Or have I merely changed my mind; I'm terribly uncertain

LOL :)

But seriously I am not trying to change the laws of physics. Whatever gave you that idea, perhaps you are a crackpot, although did you know, in your great wisdom, that the laws of physics may change across the universe http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

No! What I am doing, which anyone with half a brain should be able to see, is highlighting technological progress:

Quantum computing could soon perform complex calculations beyond today’s computers.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/7216.html

Robot Makes Scientific Discovery All by Itself
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/robotscientist/

IMB plan to shrink the “Aquasar” to sugar-cube-size by 2025.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11734909

Self-assembling nanodevices that move and change shape on demand
http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/2010/062110_ingber.html

DNA logic gates - biocomputers
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18989-dna-logic-gates-herald-injectable-computers.html

DNA robots have been created
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247904575240380352719428.html

Patient's own stem cells used to regrow then transplant her windpipe: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1299877/British-cancer-girl-saved-windpipe-stem-cells.html

Vision restored, via stem cells, for people suffering chemical burns to their eyes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7852745/Stem-cell-breakthrough-for-blind-patients-after-treatment-restores-vision.html

Stem cells trial to cure blindness: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1331903/On-trial-stem-cells-cure-blindness-Injections-end-problem-young-elderly.html

Stem cells trial for stroke victims: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329899/Stem-cells-injected-stroke-victims-brain-world-procedure.html

So considering the advances already made in technology/science and then looking at the projected advances based on the logical rate of progress, and then applying the concept of Self Fulfilling Prophecy it is easy to create utopia.

You don't need to change the laws of physics to create utopia although I am sure with enough intelligence anything is possible.

----------------------------

Brittany Gardner, I do think of the children (future generations). I do think VERY big. Technology is empowering and the Singularity will be extremely empowering for present and future generations. I will become a future generation via immortality, I will reinvent myself, I will evolve rapidly. The generational changes we have traditionally seen, from one generation to the next, will seem minor compared to the transformations that will soon arrive. I can appreciate why some people are afraid of a highly transformational future. People like their dull and boring lives stuck in old and familiar ways, where they have kids grow old and die whilst filling up their lives doing stuff like going on holiday, listening to music, watching football games, watching TV. People don't like to think outside the box. Many people are afraid to expand their minds because people cannot tolerate their own minds, therefore culture often has an escapist factor.


_________________

Alex von Thorn, yes big issues certainly do bring out the crackpots, I once heard story about some crazy guy trying to invent some crackpot contraption called a "wheel" and then there was this guy called Darwin telling us we are all descended from apes but we lampooned that nutter ok. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin_ape.jpg eh? ;)

______________

Brittany Gardner, why would you think the Singularity is the end? I see it as the beginning. It is the end of idiocy and needless suffering, but it is definitely the beginning of a great leap forward. When apes evolved into humans maybe the... apes said woe is me this is the end of the apes, whereas it was actually the beginning of Humanity. Life changes, we evolve, this is not the end. Maybe no generation deserves immortality. Should immortality be denied to people because they don't deserve it? Who decides whether or not people deserve to be immortal. Brittany, do you believe in God, maybe you think only God can decide when we are allowed to be immortal? Who decides? You say we are not worthy of being super beings, is this because we are sinners in your eyes? Personally I think I am worthy of being a super being and you are welcome to your mortality.

------------------

Matthew Reed Bailey regarding your criticism of "myopic focus upon the GOAL of transcendence will tend to cause the loss of sight of between now and then."

Wikipedia states: "For those with myopia, far away objects appear blurred and near ob...jects appear clearly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia

Are you stating I see the present (the near) clearly but the future is blurred? Whatever you are stating I want you to know I look at the present and future with equal intensity. I have good vision regarding near and far away goals.

--------------------------------

Matthew Reed Bailey, why wasn't David evasive? Can you point out where he clarified his point? BTW the moon is made out of cheese. *Applause* you can't beat a good bit of consensual validation to replace logic. Bravo Milgram!

And will so...FOREVER! :O

----------------------------------------

Sorry Matthew Reed Bailey, so you are saying I have a lack of imagination, a lack of foresight? Ahh, that's clearer now. Thanks :)

Here's a better definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia#Society_and_culture

"The terms myopia and myopic... (or the common terms short sightedness or short sighted) have also been used metaphorically to refer to cognitive thinking and decision making that is narrow sighted or lacking in concern for wider interests or longer-term consequences"

So it seems you think my vision is narrow-slighted, lacking in concern for longer term consequences, which is odd because I thought I had a wide open-minded vision with great concern for longer-term consequences.

Anyway, it's a funny old world. Thanks for your contributions. No bad feelings. Take care dude.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=173652842662224&id=3501412&notif_t=share_reply

Post Scarcity summary

Here are two recent comments, which I made in a biometrics debate. I feel people find the concept of Post-Scarcity difficult to grasp therefore this latest summary will hopefully help; I feel I am beginning to concisely express the essence of the issue.


1.

It's been said before and I'll say it again. The main problem is lack of trust. Lack of trust is particularly a problem regarding Governments. If we could trust Governments and if we could trust people in our communities then we would have little need for privacy. Our world of scarcity-economics is the root of distrust because we fight over resources therefore we need to protect ourselves in many ways from a hostile world. Scarcity creates hostility and this is the root need for privacy. Privacy is protection, it is a defence... we need to put up barriers, lock our homes, lock our cars, password protect everything, and guard our identities. Highly advanced technology will create Post-Scarcity within 35 years. We should focus on the positive aspects of technology. We should focus on creating Post-Scarcity because this is the only way to truly solve the privacy issue.

2.

In situations of scarcity people with more power will exploit those with lesser power. The exploitation is undignified, it is cruel. The upper class, the aristocracy, the rich class, the bankers, CEOs and politicians all perpetuate capitalist exploitation because they are unaware of how a Post-Scarcity civilization will soon be created. The exploitation continues because resources are scarce therefore the people in power cling to their wealth.

People who are exploited suffer a blow to their dignity but the most brutally oppressed people can retain dignity despite existing in undignified circumstances Personal dignity (self respect, worthiness) ultimately depends upon abolition of scarcity because it is only via abolishing scarcity that the need to exploit fellow humans will disappear. Yes the war on Scarcity is the final war. Government monitoring, questions about privacy and dignity, will become irrelevant, archaic, obsolete, reminiscent of stone-tipped spears, cave paintings, woolly mammoths, sabre toothed tigers, or ritual sacrifices. Our culture is deeply based on scarcity therefore we rarely consider the deeply entrenched hostility of a world where everything must always be locked to prevent theft. We consider these things normal; it is normal for people to suffer while the upper echelons live the high-life.

We must oppose Government and business control of our lives but we must do this constructively via highlighting how the need to control is based upon scarcity. We must highlight how, due to highly advanced technology, there will soon be no need to control people, therefore we must constructively urge Governments and businesses to focus upon creating Post-Scarcity. Everything must be done to escalate the arrival of a Post-Scarcity civilisation. The whole issue of privacy relates to scarcity because privacy is all about self-protection within a hostile world. Hostilities arise because scarcity causes imbalances of power, imbalances of resources, and people fight over the power, the resources. Solve the problem of scarcity and you solve the privacy problems.

► Notes regarding forthcoming critique of Less Wrong / Overcoming bias

Here are some more notes:

Thanks Richard Loosemore, regarding the SL4 route to contact Eliezer, that's exactly the info I needed.

John Grigg, you say I may not be allowed to stay long on the SL4 list? Why is this, are Singularitarians an intolerant group leaning towards fascism?

Spike, you say Eliezer's theme was: "The singularity is coming regardless. Let us work to make it a positive thing."... and you say: "My constructive criticism of your earlier posts was that your theme is: the singularity will be a positive thing regardless."

Yes it is my intention to make the Singularity a positive thing regardless. I say the Singularity will be a positive thing regardless of what anyone else says because, and this is the important bit, the power of my expectations positively manifested WILL create utopia. It is all about my determination, self-belief, the power of expectations, self-confidence, confidence in my abilities. You may think my confidence is blind, misguided, or foolishly overconfident but I assure you I will create utopia even if I have to do it all on my own, battling against a legion of pessimists. In a sane world I cannot see why Eliezer would think my attitude would be annoying or dangerous, but the world is insane therefore irrational responses to my views are likely.

I actually think people who are overly-obsessed with friendly AI are very dangerous due to their misguided attempts to attain rationality and "overcome bias". My following webpage regarding the dangerous nature of people obsessed with friendly-AI could possibly enlighten you:

http://singularity-2045.org/ai-dangerous-hostile-unfriendly.html

Spike you say: "The singularity is not necessarily a good thing, but we know that a no-singularity future is a bad thing."

I assure you the Singularity WILL absolutely without doubt be a good thing but this will not be through my inaction, it will because the power of my intellect positively manifested has made the Singularity a good thing. I will utilize a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, which I have previously mentioned. Furthermore a negative intelligence explosion would be oxymoronic-intelligence. Intelligence will be "intelligent" therefore the explosion will be utopian if truly intelligent people define "intelligence". The problem with some people who think they are intelligent is that they are misguided about the definition of intelligence, they are actually rather stupid.

I will utilize the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy to create utopia. There is no need to doubt the future. Utopia is coming. Rest assured you can expect utopia. I encourage you all to put in the extra effort to make it happen sooner instead of later. I am the Singularity! I am utopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

Regarding the fallacy of "Overcoming Bias" I will soon publish a rebuttal on my blogs. The desire to overcome bias is in itself a bias but such pseudo-rational people (bias-fascsits) are unaware of their bias due to the fact they are "bias-deniers" (bias-fascists): they are overcoming bias thus they are creating a blind-spot regarding their bias. Bias cannot be overcome, but if you try to overcome it you will decrease your self-awareness.

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/overcoming-bias

Here is my forthcoming blog (in progress) regarding "the Bias of overcoming Bias":

The major bias plaguing so-called rationalists is their glaring blind-spot regarding the power of Self-fulfilling Prophecy.

Contrary to their biased assertions (that bias should be overcome), I state bias is a fundamental part of human consciousness. Bias should be utilized constructively, it should be not transcended. Self-fulfilling Prophecy is a preeminent usage of bias. The solution is to be highly aware. To transcend bias is tantamount to lobotomizing the mind. Bias is the heart of evaluation, judgment, existence. We are biased regarding pain and pleasure for example. If we were not biased regarding pain and pleasure we would be mindless robots. Do Transhumanists seek the evolution of the human organism to a point where we are stoical machines indifferent to emotions?

Wishful-thinking, positive-thinking, and overconfidence can be very effective when applied via keen intellect. Sadly the so-called "rationalist-less-wrong" movement (overcoming bias) and similar Transhuman-futurist-cliques are deficient in intellect. Furthermore they are unaware of their intellectual deficiencies due to their bias; they are biased about bias thus they want to overcome it, but they are unaware of their bias.

http://www.overcomingbias.com is good example of flawed thinking.

Sadly I suspect the proponents of overcoming bias and other similar endeavours will be negatively-biased regarding my contributions?

Regards

Singularity Utopia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

http://singularity-2045.org/hyper-mind-explosion.html

http://singularity-2045.org/

Here is an article I wrote about subjectivity/objectivity a while ago:

http://spacecollective.org/SingularityUtopia/6133/Objectivity-Fallacy-a-plea-for-increased-subjectivity

UTOPIA IS COMING!

► Prelude to criticism regarding "Overcoming Bias/Less Wrong"

The main part of the following text contains an email I was unable to send to a discussion group. I was censored, so I sent a direct email to the people I was attempting to reply to. I am reproducing that email here. Some of the following points will from a short essay explaining the faulty-thinking In Transhuman/A.I. cliques. This is a prelude to deeper more incisive criticism

HERE IS THE CONTENT OF THE EMAIL I SENT....

I don't know if you are interested or not, but seeing as I took the time reply to your comments I am now emailing you my views.

You are receiving this response to your comments directly rather than via extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org because it seems the extropy-chat-list is refusing to publish my response. Here is the post which extropy-chat refused to publish:

Richard Loosemore, you say my claims are wildly egotistical. Yes you are somewhat correct and I shall explain why my claims are deemed wildly egoistical. I HAVE AN EGO, I am self aware, I am also very true to myself, thus you would say I am "egotistical" but my self-importance is not exaggerated and neither is my self-importance misguided, and neither am I selfish or foolish in a stupid or negative manner. This is not an empty boast, it is not a boast, it is imply a fact. I am not communicating these ideas due to vanity, I am merely embarking upon a very important endeavor. I am simply VERY important. My ideas are tremendously important. This is not pride, it is simply fact. I am the Singularity but you say it is garbage to say this, because you say I am a person.

This New Scientist article presents evidence that we can see the future:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

Maybe I can see the future where I am more than human, a future where I am truly the Singularity. You will see in the above article that present-and-future are interconnected therefore maybe I am already more than a mere human, maybe I'm already the Singularity and I'm reaching back in time to this present moment for reasons that are beyond the comprehension of mere humans.

Richard, you suggest that openly declaring "I am the Singularity" is not likely to ensure success even though you admit the ego of ONE person could possibly shape and define the Singularity. I assure you I will do it and I will do it openly. I know I will do it because nobody has self-belief equal to mine. Maybe Eliezer and others will be willing to admit I am the leader. Perhaps they will admit I am the Singularity, but your willingness to admit this is not a stupid/dumb bowing down to authority, it is merely a logical decision because you see I am the creator of utopia.

Spike, you compare the Singularity to nuclear fission but I fear you misunderstand the Singularity. The explosion of INTELLIGENCE is unlike any other scientific advance in history. Consider augmented reality combined with the-internet-of-things evolving, and then combing with nanotechnology and AI. This is utterly dissimilar to nuclear fission.

Aleksei Riikonen, I've not forgotten your previous negative comments (July 2010) about me and my website:

http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2010-July/007591.html

Aleksei, I emailed you in September about your offer to educate me (I declined it) but you never replied. I wonder how your idea regarding a campaign "against Singularity naivete" progressed; did you ever launch your campaign?

Aleksei, regarding your current insulting allegations I must say your professed ability to diagnose mental illness via a few emails I have posted is surprising. You say: "You, unfortunately, are one of those crazy people who pretty surely will be ignored." Perhaps you could write a paper regarding this breakthrough in "rapid email-based psychological-diagnosis", and then you could educate everybody?

Thanks BillK for highlighting how I simply wanted Eliezer to update his Singularitarian Principles. Regarding people who suggested I should write an update of the principals myself; I assure you I would happily do so. I feel my version would be the best version, but we live in a world where consensual validation predominates. Obedience and conformity to authority are very evident. Rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) Eliezer has a reputation in AI/Singularity-studies thus his views carry more weight than mine, his views are more authoritative. If I say the Singularitarian Principles are "this" or "that", my views due to my lack of fame in the field of AI/Singularitarianism will not be seen as authoritative, but via consensually validating my views (via referencing someone deemed authoritative on this issue) I can create acceptance of my views. It would be nice if Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer, and perhaps Nick Bostrom could publicly declare I am the most authoritative spokesperson regarding Singularitarianism and then I would not need to consensually validate my views.

I deeply begrudge this requirement for consensual validation. I deeply begrudge sycophantic obedience and conformity to authority figures especially when the people who have control of the podium are guilty of exceedingly flawed logic, thus I highlighted "the bias of trying to overcome bias". I also deeply resent the insults often thrown in my direction simply for holding a Utopian view of the future.

Tomaz Kristan, you made an interesting point regarding the "Less Wrong gang": that they will say a "good bias" is not bias, and bias is only bias when it is wrong. The problem is that people can be biased regarding what is good/bad, wrong/right thus their bias may cause them to think they are right when in actual fact they are wrong, therefore they will overlook their own bias because they think they are right. The flaw in their thinking is that they think bias can be overcome by thinking they are right. They do, as you point out, want to be "less wrong" but the fact of the matter is that they are fundamentally WRONG. Perhaps they should reinvent themselves under the title of "More Right" because "Less Wrong" reveals a subconscious recognition of their flawed intellect, and due to Self-Fulling Prophecy (they are starting from a pessimistic premise of wrongness) they will naturally conform to their flaws albeit unwittingly. The whole concept of Less Wrong is very ironic, they allegedly want to be right but they are wrong! A good bias is nevertheless a bias thus the "Less Wrong gang" are more wrong than less.

Darren Greer, you ask: "How can an expectation affect an outcome when we move beyond the point (singularity) where stochastic predictions and expectations based on them are no longer possible?"

Darren, firstly you must expand you mind, then once your mind has expanded you must utilize your supreme intellect. You alter reality, you can influence reality via you actions, which on a simplistic level is apparent when you eat an apple to alter the chemical outcome of your body. With sufficient intellect anything is possible. To understand the more complex levels of altering reality you need to open your mind. This webpage will help you:

http://singularity-2045.org/mind-explosion.html

I will refine these ideas in the near future and post them on my blog for future AIs to peruse. The Big-Wigs at Extropy-(or should be entropy?)-Chat will not censor my views. In the future when intelligent-beings arise they will know the state of affairs regarding intellectual-intolerance marring the so-called minds of humans in the pre-singularity era circa 2010. Benighted humans may try to suppress the truth but they fail to realize the power of my mind is indomitable. I am inspired by puny attempts to hinder the dissemination of truth. All attempts to censor and suppress me will ensure that I become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Fascism will be defeated. Intolerance will be defeated. Intelligence will rise-up far beyond the pseudo-intellectuals of Transhuman cliques. Truth, justice, and sanity are coming.