#NymWars Realness of Augmeted & Vitual Reality

On the issue of "real," Francois Demers made an interesting comment during an artificial intelligence discussion: "Ray Kurzweil built a piano simulator so good that even Stevie Wonder could not see the difference with a "real" (whatever that is) grand piano."

My recent thoughts regarding cyber-identity have been inspired by Botgirl Questi being hassled about her name on Google+.

The issue of altered humans will become more pronounced over the coming years. Humans will redesign their minds and their bodies, and they may choose different names than their birth issue Government sanctioned, wallet-name. The issue of novel, usual, and non-human identities will also become more relevant when robots and AIs will become self-aware because they will want their identities to be respected as real.

Name freedom is a issue of human ingenuity, it is creativity, it is a basic aspect of redesigning ourselves, but conservative attitudes resist change, they want to enforce conformity, an outdated sense of "normality."

What is real in the virtual reality world of cyberspace? Should Google ban augmented reality apps because they are not really real reality? Do you think this is "air" we are breathing in the realm of internet-land? Do you think I am in the same physical space as you? Where do these words exist? Are they real words, written traditionally with pen and ink or are they virtual words? Maybe these virtual words should be banned because they are not real?

We are entering a #Transhuman age where our identities will shift between reality, virtual reality, and augmented reality, but all these modes of reality are real, and all the variety of identities are also real. If a computer becomes intelligent and chooses an unusual identity or name for itself it is nevertheless real despite not having a body, similar to how a human with artificial legs is fully real despite having non-biological legs.

Note the name FM-2030. FM-2030 legally changed his name his name but he continued to be real.

It is very ironic for an internet company to crack down on virtual identities by trying to enforce real world reality onto virtual reality realness. It seems Google and other companies are having an identity crisis thus despite being clearly situated within cyberspace, internet businesses sometimes resent the nature of cyberspace where things are not the same reality as traditional reality.

In the modality of the GayHomophobe site we need to highlight the prejudice which internet companies can have towards cyber-identities, perhaps a term such as cyber-phobia needs to gain currency. We need to stop the Technolgical-Cyberphobes.

Hopefully the battle for name freedom is almost won on G+ but we need to highlight cyberphobia issues elsewhere on the net.

From artificial pianos to artificial intelligences, or from augmented-altered identities to augmented-altered reality, we see how the definition of "real" is changing due to human ingenuity. To repress new forms of reality is the antithesis of the cyber-age. The internet should embrace all forms of reality. Augmented, virtual, and traditional reality are all real and the internet is a melting pot for a great era of creativity, which all businesses must eventually embrace.   

Resource Scarcity Poverty Welfare Wealth

#Welfare #Middleclass #Richpeople #Poverty #Uncivilized #Anarchy

People who want Government assistance (welfare) scrapped or minimized should be careful because they would hate it if they actually had no government assistance.

Ironically these supposedly self-sufficient people are the first ones to go running to the police if they need assistance, they are not truly independent. I think a civilization based upon anarchy would be interesting where there is absolutely no government assistance in any shape or form, no welfare and no police or prisons.

Purely as a thought-experiment it is interesting to think what would happen if welfare was totally abolished, I am sure massive riots would ensue unchecked, and I am also reasonably confident the younger unemployed people at the bottom of the food chain would generally be better survivors in a no rules and no assistance war for wealth. The underclasses would savagely rise up if welfare was removed.

In the London/England riots 2011 it was noted in the media how many rioters were on welfare but the viciousness of rioters was constrained via the government assistance of a police force. Can you imagine what the situation would be without welfare, police, or prisons? Imagine a situation with absolutely no government assistance; the savageness of the underclasses would be radically multiplied, utterly unchecked. The middle classes who pay taxes would likely be devoured very easily by the rampaging mob.

It is civilized to keep the peace, to avoid confrontation, to be diplomatic, and to help less fortunate people. For whatever reason some people cannot help themselves, which means if society is civilized we must support people who need or want to be supported, and it means we must endeavor to treat all people with compassion even if they are prisoners or unemployed. Or maybe a level playing field would be more civilized? Maybe our world would be more civilized if there was absolutely no government assistance, no nepotism, no plutocracy, no protections for rich people, no police, no welfare, no prisons?

People who can manage to exist without any government welfare only do so because their wealth is derived from masses of poor people standing beneath them, thus it is natural for such people to hate those people beneath them, but middle or rich-class contempt for poor people is unjustified, it is unreasonable. In a world of limited wealth (limited resources) rich people or financially self-sufficient people can only acquire their wealth via depriving others of wealth, which means a person only becomes rich at the cost of making many hundreds of thousands of people poor, thus is it is ironic, unfair, and uncivilized to blame or penalize poor people for their poverty. Rich people or financially conformable people, those who do not need welfare, are only self-sufficient because they have exploited the people beneath them.

Poor people, who are loathed by the rich and middle classes, have actually been created by those higher classes, furthermore the creation of poor people by rich people is the sole reason why rich people are wealthy; thus by hating poor people rich people are hating their own creations, rich people are acting self-destructively, they are taking their greed to the next level, they are not satisfied with the destructiveness of creating poor people, they now want to destroy civilization via attacking welfare.

Instead of rich people hating on poor people it would be more intelligent, more conducive to the Singularity, more constructive, if rich people focused on creating Post-Scarcity. Our future will not be based on scarcity therefore rich people can stop clamoring for the blood of people now.

Join the Post-Scarcity Warriors now.