"If the singularitarian seems unreasonable, it's because the singularitarian is really a mystic who only looks like a rationalist because he started out with a rationalist philosophical structure, ran with that structure into the future and saw the ineffable."

-Psychodelirium (Dog-faced Demon)

From a discussion on the C-Realm forum at the Grow Report.

KMO and Michael Anissimov of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence conclude their conversation on the promise and the dangers of the emergence of AI with an eye to the implications of the military aspects of its development and implementation, and then author Derrick Jensen offers a reality check and a counter-balance to Michael's optimism and exuberance. KMO closes the program with an excerpt from Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein on the diminishing utility of the technological program.

Music by Oaltitudo

Someone over on the Peak Oil News & Message Boards transcribed large segments of my interview with NASA scientist, Dennis M. Bushnell. You can find it here:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=42186

"C" stands for consciousness

108: Methane Burps & Tele Everything



KMO welcomes Dennis M. Bushnell, chief scientist of the NASA Langley Research Center, to discuss climate change and ways of combating it that don't produce Big Brother on steroids. Mr. Bushnell also discusses the existential risks that could arise from the "simultaneous IT, bio, nano, quantum, energetics, double exponential tech revolution."

Dennis M. Bushnell's Lifeboat Foundation bio: http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.dennis.m.bushnell

In our conversation, Dennis Bushnell makes several references to and speaks very highly of a book by Peter D. Ward called Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future.

Wow! Someone over on the Peak Oil News & Message Boards transcribed the whole interview. You can find it here:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=42186

"C" stands for consciousness

106: A Sense of Proportion



Science writer John Horgan, author of Rational Mysticism, joins KMO in the C-Realm and takes a turn in the Total Perspective Vortex. Topics include the ego-inflation that overtakes some psychonauts, the nihilistic abuses of cult leaders, the unfulfilled promises of artificial intelligence, and the glorious visions of Singularitarians.

You can find John Horgan's Bloggingheads.tv interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11693

You can find Eliezer's reflections on the encounter here:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/bloggingheads-y.html

Michael Anissimov described the Horgan/Yudkowsky piece as a "trainwreck." Checkitout:

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/06/bloggingheadstv-interview-horgan-and-yudkowsky/

Here's an interesting discussion on PeakOil.com started by a C-Realm listener:

http://www.peakoil.com/post632634.html

AGI springs into existence but keeps a low profile. The lag time involved in trying to effect change in the real world (or some other inscrutable motivation) prompts the AGI society of mind to focus its efforts on building some really kick-ass meta-worlds which bear truly excellent fruit. The meta-worlds prove so productive and fulfilling to their residents that the increasingly god-like AGIs never feel any need to interact with the glacial minds of meat monkey's stuck on stupid.

C-Realm Podcast

"C" stands for consciousness

Episode 58: Turning Catastrophe Upside-Down




It's the First Anniversary non-special. In this episode, KMO welcomes Wendy Luckey and Philip Horvath back to the program to talk about 2012, giving up our meat bodies, the technological singularity, and the nature of catastrophe. KMO reads lots of emails from C-Realm listeners who chipped in to save Ungo, KMO's dog.

C-Realm Podcast

Episode 17: Ned Ludd's Legacy






Enjoy! -- KMO

( Lots of good info behind the cut tag: CLICK HERE )

C-Realm Podcast

Give it a listen!

Episode 14: Enter the Ninja!




Enjoy! -- KMO

( More stuff behind the cut tag: Click Here )

Vector: prester_scott

Link: http://angry-man.livejournal.com/307032.html

angry_man writes:

I think anyone who knows me already knows my thoughts on modifying my children, but for those of you not sure, I would be against modifying children. However, I have been forced to think deeply about my position due to the tantalizing promises of stopping terrible diseases in their tracks. How wonderful it would be to remove the negative aspects of our genes, and to give our children the leg up that we want them to have. In fact, as this technology is developed and as it begins to be used, it will be bioconservatives like myself who will be accused of cruelty and immorality; at least, that is what I predict (I'm dangerously close to creating a straw man argument here, but I think I might be safe since I'm just forming what I believe is to be a prediction of the future). The argument will run like this: We have this technology to stop these genetic diseases, to prevent children from suffering, but you will not use it, even if it means making your own child a martyr to your beliefs. You would rather let you child be ill, and possibly die, then admit that you are wrong.

The most confrontational of the New Athiests, in this case Richard Dawkins, already demand:

"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

angry_man, as does just about anyone with a mind for these matters, delves into Ted Kaczinski's manifesto and comes up with this quote:

...if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem."

In response to some feedback I received on the last C-Realm podcast:

prester_scott: Well, okay, after reading and listening to all that (and also poking around in Wikipedia), I have a better idea of what the Singularity is.

I'm far from convinced that it will happen.

Robert Anton Wilson's illustration, its apparently intentional weirdness aside, is useful in explaining one big reason why I am not convinced. He looks at the history of technology and sees evidence of exponential growth. However, the very same evidence could also be pointing to hyperbolic and therefore asymptotic growth.

kmo: I wonder if hyperbolic growth (or parabolic growth) has some indicator that we might observe here in the present that would distinguish it from exponential growth.

In other words, we may be reaching a point where we don't have enough energy or intelligence to sustain the momentum that's propelling us up that curve, and "progress" will slow to allow everyone to catch up.

I actually hope that something along those lines comes to pass, but I don’t believe that it will come to pass simply because I wish it so.

The case hasn't been sufficiently made, at least not to me.

Skeptics and nay Sayers welcome.

A good science-fiction example of the hyperbolic outcome is the Star Wars universe.

Ah, careful. You tread near a nest of vipers who will take you to task for crediting Star Wars as science fiction. See the SF/skiffy rift for details. I won’t regurgitate the whole she-bang except to say that the technology of the Star Wars universe reflects the fact that George Lucas had Joseph Campbell and Akira Kurasowa on the brain rather than speculations about the transformative effects of rapidly evolving technology and recursive feedback loops.

…indeed, the abandonment of biology is the aspect of the Singularity I find least believable and palatable.

Same here.

I'll believe that a human soul can exist in a silicon body when I see it…

How will you know when you've seen it? I don’t know what a silicon body animated by a human soul would look like. How would it differ from a very clever adaptive system that has learned to mimick the mannerisms of humans well enough to get people to see it as a living thing when it in fact posses no self-awareness and nothing approaching what philosophers of mind call intentionality?

…and even then I won't be convinced that it is moral.

Does it, as an abstract notion, seem prima facie immoral to you?

Now, as a Christian, I can certainly relate to eschatology and apocalypse, and it is my opinion that what you call the Singularity and transhumanism do have analogues in our faith.

Together with…

In showing that these two visions are mutually exclusive, competing mythologies, I call your attention to the fact that the Singularity is itself a mythology. It is not a material fact, but a theory embraced by faith.

Hence the 05 December 2000 C-Realm comic:( Read more... )

Singularity Podcast: Extended Show Notes

Talkin'bout the Singularity

Church of Virus

: a neo-cybernetic philosophy for the 21st century



( Click Here for more Singularity comic strips )

C-Realm Podcast

Give it a listen!

Move Well, Eat Well, Think Well.




Enjoy! ---KMO

Poll #691408 Singularity: Hard or Smooth Take-off?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 56

Do you think we're in for a hard or a smooth take-off?

What do you hope will happen?

Should John Q. Public, age 30, fund his IRA?

I got to thinking this morning about the idea of prison blogs. It seems unlikely that prisoners would be allowed to access the internet, given that the internet would allow them to coordinate criminal activity with accomplices on the outside, and because of that we as a society lack that particular window/mirror on our own society.

Personally, I think the criminal/justice system and the prison system in the United States represent systematic injustice on a grand scale. The bulk of people in prison in the US today have committed the crime of engaging in commercial activity; i.e. of buying or selling a desired good or service with the full consent and cooperation of the other party to the transaction. They have not assaulted, much less murdered anyone, and yet the righteously indignant rage that motivates so many opinions on the topic of how we treat prisoners assumes that everyone in prison has committed heineinous crimes against bona fide victims.

I Googled "prison blogs" and found a page that included the following chain of thoughts on the topic of how we regard and consequently treat the millions of people in our society whom we incarcerate and more specifically on whether they should be allowed to blog:

[Michelle Malkin] No, it wouldn’t [be a great experiment to let prisoners blog]. I don’t think it would be “great” for Satanic serial killer Richard Ramirez or convicted murderer Scott Peterson to be allowed to blog about their breakfasts and their workouts and their appeals and their sick fantasies and their online girlfriends.

I don’t think it would be “great” to see convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal blogging about his favorite razors and digital cameras and what’s playing on his iPod.

I don’t think it would be “great” for prison officials to allow these Death Row convicts to flaunt their lives on the Internet while the relatives of those they brutally murdered suffer.( Read more... )