UFOs,Aliens, And Racism By: Posey Gilbert

[mike]

Thats actually the problem with this discussion though isnt it pixel.
The concept of world govt is so offensive to you that any discussion with it as a component evokes a raising of barriers, and thus everything gets rejected, nothing filters through.
Your mind is closed, you cant consider any new thoughts or ideas, they are drowned out by the blaring klaxon of total denial that is your reaction.

I could posit world govt could give everyone on the planet enough food, clean drinking water and access to health care, give everyone a decent standard of living and erase poverty.....

But you wouldnt hear any of that , after the words world govt, Bang down go the blast doors and nothing else will get through

 

[mike]

Yes I did and it wasn't meant to be a serious debate and those were speculative articles and not peer reviewed scientific white papers.

The whole idea of soul or mind transfer is complete science fiction as far as I can tell. From a purely logical point of view it is a practical impossibility. There is simply nothing to transfer unless you remove the entire central nervous system and transplant it into a new, presumably cloned body.

Just what are they going to extract and transfer to somewhere else? Consciousness hasn't proven to be a thing that can be extracted.

From the longer article: "At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking."

What nonsense. Even if some miracle technology were developed human beings cannot become machines and remain human beings, they would be something else. Someone may succeed in creating a machine that duplicates the behavior or even the appearance of a real person but it would never be that person transferred into a machine or clone body (unless you transplant the brain of course.) Humanity may at some date in the distant future create purely artificial human bodies and place their brains or copies of them in the things but that would no more be human evolution than putting yourself in a new car each year.

Science fiction? No. An organization called The Digital Immortality Institute (DII) is researching the possibility of doing just that. DII has determined the three things necessary to achieve digital immortality are: guaranteed Internet access; insure the identity integrity of the avatars for each individual user; and finally, make sure the personality, memory, everything that makes up the person as a unique individual, has been uploaded into the digital facsimile before the actual person dies.

Yet virtual reality holds little interest for Pearson. He wants the real thing, and so does scientist Anders Sandberg. A member of the new transhuman movement (beyond human), Sandberg believes uploading minds and downloading them again into new bodies is a technology that's imminent

Dr Ian Pearson has been a full time futurologist since 1991, with a proven track record of around 85% accuracy at the 10 year horizon. He has delivered keynote presentations at over 1000 conferences, company away-days, PR events, dinners and workshops and appeared on TV and Radio over 450 times. He previously worked forBT, where he invented text messaging in 1991 and later established their futurology presence. Ian’s brief covers technology impacts in almost every major field over the 5-20 year timeframe. He has written several books and won numerous awards for his writing.

It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.

Anders Sandberg (born July 11, 1972) is a researcher, science debater, futurist, transhumanist, and author. He was born in Solna, Sweden. He holds a Ph.D. in computational neuroscience from Stockholm University, and is currently a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.

Sandberg's research centres on societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technology, as well as on assessing the capabilities and underlying science of future technologies. His recent contributions include work on cognitive enhancement[1] (methods, impacts, and policy analysis); a technical roadmap on whole brain emulation;[2] on neuroethics; and on global catastrophic risks, particularly on the question of how to take into account the subjective uncertainty in risk estimates of low-likelihood, high-consequence risk.[3]

He is well known as a commentator and participant in the public debate about human enhancement internationally, as well as for his academic publications in neuroscience, ethics, and future studies.

Sorry but your opinion doesnt even begin to stack up against these heavyweights

 

[mike]

As to the topic being speculative......

So was From the Earth to the Moon written in 1865.........

But this technology is far from speculative, there have been numerous PROOF of concept studies done

Unlike current brain-controlled computers, which require users to imagine making physical movements to control a cursor on a screen, the new technology will be capable of directly interpreting words as they are thought.


Intel's scientists are creating detailed maps of the activity in the brain for individual words which can then be matched against the brain activity of someone using the computer, allowing the machine to determine the word they are thinking.

Computers that read minds are being developed by Intel - Telegraph

A 'mind-reading machine' that can display mental images is a step closer after scientists decoded brain signals related to vision, it was claimed today.

Read more: Could a mind-reading machine soon be a reality? Scientists 'decode' human brainwaves | Mail Online

They claim to have developed a system which allows them to record higher level brain activity.
If a database was built up identifying various neurons with concepts, objects and people it would allow them to "read the subject's minds", according to Dr Cerf.
"For example, instead of just having to write an email you could just think it. Or another futuristic application would be to think a flow of information and have it written in front of your eyes."

Scientists plan to record people's dreams - Telegraph

A new new brain imaging system that can identify a subject's simple thoughts may lead to clearer diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia – as well as possibly paving the way for reading people's minds.

Mind-reading scan identifies simple thoughts - health - 26 May 2011 - New Scientist

I could fill whole pages with quotes, i have an extensive collection of BCI links here.

Simple stuff now, but proof of concept none the less.

Now as to the other issue.

If i amputate your left leg, are "You" still "You" ?
what if we take both legs , are you, you ?
Say we take both arms as well, and testicles......
Where do we draw the line ? when do "you" stop being "you"

Do you feel like you, right now this minute reading this screen ?

Lets say for the sake of the exercise that i told you i had just used an advanced form of this technology, to upload your entire memory, as kurzweil puts it capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history",and loaded it into a sophisticated simulation that mimics to the last detail your "reality" , that you are in fact dead, even though to your senses nothing has changed...... do you still feel like you are you ?
If i could do this seamlessly, using your own memory to create a simulation / virtual reality indistinguishable from the reality of your life two minutes ago, so seamless you didnt even know you were dead until i told you this moment.

Do you still feel like you are you ?

 

[Posey Gilbert]

Actually there are a number of examples where this topic is brought up

"They" told Streiber "we recycle souls" which imo is another term for conciousness, that unique experience set that makes each of us unique.

The collins elite think the same thing



And while i dont subscribe to the demons aspect, there may be something in the idea.



By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain... - Science - News - The Independent

That sounds exactly like what the collins elite are describing, and we are learning to do it.

How to become immortal: Upload your mind - by Terrence Aym - Helium

Perhaps the genetic material is being collected to clone this "new body" , perhaps they need to match your genetic material to your conciousness to stop what we call in organ transplants "rejection"

We are about to perfect this technology someday, perhaps "they" already have and are transbiological in nature.

Even the old religious texts echo the meme, The jesus character says when you die, you go to live for eternity in the heavens with a "new body", an optimised body free of the corruptions found in our native bioforms.

Our own technology is rushing towards this reality......................

One day we may ourselves be able to live in the heavens in optimised clone bodies, and be able to do so for a very long time perhaps even eternity, when one body wears out, nip back in time to the original native bioform and get a sample and create a new one to transfer to. Perhaps thats why these samples are typically taken when you are young, before the DNA starts to get corrupted by free radicals, pollution, radiation and bad lifestyles

Case well stated as usual Mike.
I know Whitley Streiber and have heard him make that statement before.
I disagreed with it then as I do now, "They" are telepathic at a glance "They" know everything about you.
The implants "They" put into you among other things keep records of every aspect of your life.
Just as we do on the Internet when we buy and download an MP3 of an album "They" do a download and get all the info about you "They" need, and just as the original album is left intact and at the company, we are left intact and on Earth none the wiser.
It's the physical stuff that "They" have to come and get.
It was then and is now my opinion that what told Whitley that was a Nont and not a real ET.

 

[trainedobserver]

...and finally, make sure the personality, memory, everything that makes up the person as a unique individual, has been uploaded into the digital facsimile before the actual person dies.

That is the core of the problem isn't it? What constitutes personality, memory, and everything that makes up a unique individual? What are those things anyway? How are those properties, objects, or however you come to define them "digitized?"

Also, you are faced with both the logical and practical problem of how a digital facsimile (which by definition is a copy) could possibly be considered as being the original person, human, or anything but a product of human engineering.

 

[mike]

That is the core of the problem isn't it? What constitutes personality, memory, and everything that makes up a unique individual? What are those things anyway? How are those properties, objects, or however you come to define them "digitized?"

Also, you are faced with both the logical and practical problem of how a digital facsimile (which by definition is a copy) could possibly be considered as being the original person, human, or anything but a product of human engineering.

From my pov there is nothing supernatural about what these things are, while more complex they are no more mysterious than the contents of a HDD.
Imo we are born more or less blank, and the "data" is accumulated via sensory input.
This data can be read, we are doing it already, the rest is just scaling.
Whats the difference between human engineering and evolutionary engineering

Whats the difference between an artificial gem and a "real one"

Far different from the imitation of gems is the making of them by artificial means, with the result of a real gem that is but slightly distinguished from those produced in Nature's laboratory. Although there are distinctions discernible to the expert with the aid of the magnifying glass, the gem stones thus produced-that are worthy of notice-contain the same component parts in their proportions that the natural stones do, and equal them in the principal characteristics of hardness, specific gravity, and refractiveness.

We cant know until a human conciousness set is uploaded, but i posit if done properly there wont be any discernable difference, between a conciousness that resides on an engineered support platform and one that resides on a support platform created in natures lab.

Star Treks transporter tech raises the same question, is the newly assembled copy at the transport destination the same person who left the enterprise ?
Could they be considered the original person or an engineered copy.
For me the answer is in the eye of the beholder, if that entity feels a sense of continuty, then from their perspective they are the same.
Is it any different to regaining "conciousness" after an anesthetic ?, the system reboots, the memory centres reintegrates with real time conciousness and sensory input and you're "back"

 

[trainedobserver]

From my pov there is nothing supernatural about what these things are, while more complex they are no more mysterious than the contents of a HDD.
Imo we are born more or less blank, and the "data" is accumulated via sensory input.
This data can be read, we are doing it already, the rest is just scaling.

Of course there is nothing supernatural involved. I am talking about the simple logic of A is not B.

Also there is the fact that the human personality is an emerging property that appears during the operation of a single physical configuration of the human body and the human central nervous system in particular. It isn't data in some system that can be read and downloaded into some device. A human being is hard-wired so to speak, there is no real underlying software construct running on some universal machine in our heads made of flesh as a software program runs in an Intel processor.

Whats the difference between human engineering and evolutionary engineering

A is not B. One is not the other. They are two different things. You cannot call them the same thing because they are not.

Transhumanism is a complete fantasy because it has no basis in reality or logic. A copy of object A is not object A, it is a copy.

 

[mike]

Well thats one opinion here is another

Transhumanism, as it stands today, is broad in definition because most of the ideas behind it are rather speculative, somewhat sci-fi in nature, and entail a futuristic, but rational outlook on the evolution of our species. There are many examples today which a few years ago were seen as science fiction. Some examples include artificial body parts such as legs, arms and hearts and computer-brain connections. A 2009 web article from New Scientist magazine talked about new findings by Alessandro Farné of the University of Claude Bernard in Lyon who was looking into how the brain adapts to prosthetic limbs and cyborgism. “Farné says the same kind of brain “plasticity” might be involved in regaining control of a transplanted hand or a prosthetic limb when the original has been lost. The brain might also readily incorporate cyborg additions – a cyborg arm or other body part – into its body schema, says Farné” These findings show that cyborgism/transhumanism in the physical body area of research need not manipulate the human brain for some “cyborg additions” making transhumanism look less like a science fiction fantasy and more like a rational theory.
The evidence of a posthuman/transhuman world is everywhere around us and we will see in the upcoming decades exactly that which transhumanists like Nick Bostrom have been postulating.

Transhumanism and Phenomenological Reduction
Hardly a complete fantasy, when the technologys that provide PROOF of concept are being demonstrated today
Of course A is not B, of course they are different, no two human conscienceness's now are the same, each is unique, but that doesnt invalidate either of them

 

[mike]

and i tend to agree with this physicist

"I think it very likely -in fact inevitable-that biological intelligence is only a transitory phenomenon, a fleeting phase in the evolution of intelligence in the universe."
Paul Davies -acclaimed physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist at Arizona State University."

Scientist Anders Sandberg. A member of the new transhuman movement (beyond human), Sandberg believes uploading minds and downloading them again into new bodies is a technology that's imminent. He believes it will happen because of Mankind's desire to overcome aging and death, as well as solving the problems associated with overpopulation.

Consciousness is driven by the survival instinct, Imo its inevitable that that will be expressed with technology that allows it to do so, that biological intellect is just the first phase in a logical progression.

Of course some people find this scary

Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

 

[mike]

#!

Take a look at the credentials of the advisers to the SI
Advisors | Singularity Institute
Or the team
Team | Singularity Institute

Be sure to read Kurzweils credentials

Complete fantasy ?

I suggest its your denial, thats creating the fantasy land here

 

[stonehart]

Hmm world government?

Normally my thinking tends to lead along the same lines as you Mike but the only problem I see with world government is that it is less likely to succeed in creating a good standard of living for all than our present Geo-political climate.
The level of bureaucracy alone would in all likely hood cripple it from the outset let alone the endless possibility for corruption on scales we have never seen before.

But maybe I am being to negative of the idea over all and just maybe it is possible to bring all the disparate cultures, ideology's, creeds, and religions together and say hey lets all become one world under one central leadership? Personally I think it would be easier to prove the existence of UFOs beyond doubt than get people to agree on the idea of a one world government even in a simple form.

But what is the real question here?

Would a world government in theory be a good idea?

In my opinion it in fact would not be that bad of an idea if taken from a pure natural resource, and wealth distribution point of view, but how do we share this wealth and just who gets to decide who gets what slice of the pie? Do we go for the Zeitgeist proposal of a resource based economy? Our would that just self destruct due to innate human greed or simply get derailed by the first group of people who would sooner exploit the system than nurture it?

Do we create a UN on steroids with the old nations becoming simply states with governors, a world senate if you will? would this not just fall apart under its own weight of bureaucracy, corruption, and old animosity's as I proposed earlier?

How do we stop said world government from breaking down into a version of 1984 big brother control on steroids?

I am not opposed to the idea of a world government I just simply do not see how it would ever work when you take into account the present state of international affairs, religion, special interest groups, and pure cultural diversity.

I am not saying we could not make it work I just do not see how in the short or even middle term we can make it work but instead of dismissing the idea outright should we not look at what it would need to work?

I think I read this here:

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptilians from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

The truth is that we as a species need to get our collective sh*t together and start working through our problems and stop looking for quick fixes or simply putting off solving things for the next generation if we simply don't just ignore it outright.

In short its time for us to grow up a little more and take responsibility for what we do here on earth but not to the point of self deprecation and self loathing.

some truth from a great band

 

[mike]

To be honest, i cant see this happening in my lifetime, the implementation hurdles are significant.
None the less regional govt is outdated and flawed, we have a world where one half starves in starw huts while the other half watch biggest loser on plasma TV's.
Regional interests take precedent over global necessity, as the south american rain forst example illustrates.

I have problems with the Venus project/Zeitgeist model, but thats a whole new kettle of fish,again due to inherant problems with implementation.

We always come back to unchecked population growth though, and growth in general, China is a glimpse of a very real future for us all, and only a dictatorship could implement the sort of birth policy we saw china impose in response to its problems. That cant happen in a democracy since the populace will always vote for unchecked growth.
And again regional interests will outweigh global considerations .
But at the end of the day i firmly believe the planet must be managed at a global level, or competing local interests will continue to look after themselves first and to hell with everyone else.
This model is not working

 

[trainedobserver]

Well, I'm still not convinced. For me, I see some pretty basic problems with the notion. One being the idea that consciousness is the end all be all of human existence or evolution. It certainly is not. If we ever make machines that think they are human beings it would really be the ultimate human folly. Maybe that is what we've done in some future era. Created artificial living beings who think they are evolved human beings and they have come back through time to seek out the biological roots of their existence. ...Nahh.

I would agree that society does need to adapt and change. I just think there are more effective ways to deal with our problems than despotism and anti-humanism.

 

[pixelsmith]

"unchecked population growth" "one world government" "planet must be managed".. you sir are a brain washed self righteous zombie.

 

[tyder001]

I'm on the Kurstwell mailing list and it is interesting. He seems to be of the opinion that we are indeed spiritual/biological creatures. I'm not saying I agree with him or think he is absolutely correct. But, that's the thing. If his or the transhuman movement numbers and theories add up and work then there ya go. If they don't then I'm sure in due time the folly will be found. But, right now I'm still reading his links from time to time with an open mind.

 

[trainedobserver]

"unchecked population growth" "one world government" "planet must be managed".. you sir are a brain washed self righteous zombie.

The big question since people started congregating together has been "who gets to make the decisions?" Who would get to run the world? Would it be the ones who think they are the most "evolved among us?" Machines? Machines that think they are evolved humans? Sweet Jebus! Can you imagine, if it were possible, which I don't think it will ever be, the digitized consciousness of some future despot downloaded in some immortal practically indestructible robot body? What a lovely thought. Maybe all future digitized humans will have filters installed that prevent bad behavior and such. I'm sure that sounds like a good idea to some folks.

 

[mike]

"unchecked population growth" "one world government" "planet must be managed".. you sir are a brain washed self righteous zombie.

Right.... you are now on our NWO list, we have a nice if small room booked for you at the Camp FEMA Hotel

 

[mike]

The big question since people started congregating together has been "who gets to make the decisions?" Who would get to run the world? Would it be the ones who think they are the most "evolved among us?" Machines? Machines that think they are evolved humans? Sweet Jebus! Can you imagine, if it were possible, which I don't think it will ever be, the digitized consciousness of some future despot downloaded in some immortal practically indestructible robot body? What a lovely thought. Maybe all future digitized humans will have filters installed that prevent bad behavior and such. I'm sure that sounds like a good idea to some folks.

Frequently Asked Questions From Over 25 Years

53.What is the role of Cybernation as Decision Makers? When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach. This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly. Most of the technology needed for such infrastructure management is currently available. The major difference between today's computer technology and the system we recommend is that our system extends its autonomic nervous system (environmental sensors) into all areas relevant to the social complex. It coordinates a balance between production and distribution, and operates to maintain a balanced-load economy. This technology of industrial electronic feedback can be applied to the entire global economy. For example, with electrical sensors extended into the agricultural region, computerized systems would manage and control agriculture by monitoring the water table, insects, pests, plant diseases, soil nutrients, and so forth. The information processed will enable us to arrive at more appropriate decision-making based on feedback from the environment. Computers and artificial intelligence will serve as catalysts for change. They will establish scientific scales of performance. It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making. Eventually, the installation of AI and machine decision-making will manage all resources serving the common good. This will result in a more humane and meaningful approach for shaping tomorrow's civilization that is not based on the opinions or desires of a particular sect or individual. All decisions would be made on the basis of a comprehensive survey of resources, energy, and existing technology without allowing any advantage to a particular nation or select group of people. This may be accomplished with large-scale, computer-based processors that can assist us in defining the most humane and appropriate ways to manage environmental and human affairs. This is essentially the function of government. With computers processing trillions of bits of information per second, existing technologies far exceed the human capacity for processing information and they can arrive at equitable and sustainable decisions about the development and distribution of physical resources. With this potential, we would evolve beyond political decisions made on the basis of power and advantage.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

 

[mike]

And so it begins..........................

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

this small group pushes ahead with their suggestions that the only way to combat such a global catastrophe is of course to solve it through global government. And not just any global government, but one that Scientific American suggests should be "heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers."

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'm with you. The whole humans are a plague on the Earth attitude is absurdest and defeatist. You cannot fit into the system if you view yourself as either above it, as having dominion over nature, or outside of it, as in a disease or virus. Romanticising other animal life to the point where you devalue your own species is extremely unhealthy as well as absurd.

I'm wondering if Pixel and T.O misunderstood Mike. I don't think he meant that humans she be removed from anywhere en-masse but just to leave the gorillas with their habitat alone. They don't need much space in the great scheme of things and we as humans have plenty. There is such a small number of some gorillas left and we humans have reached 7 billion - in the interests of continuing biodiversity and downright fairness (I know, life aint fair!), we can sort out gorillas having a small place to stay.

Every big problem humans have comes mainly from over-population. The population of my country is actually getting smaller. Africa has lots of space. It's south east asia that needs to get it's house in order. Sorry India but if you have the money for a space program and you can have elections with thousands of candidates and constituencies then you can bloody well sort out your spiralling population. China at least took drastic measures that many disagreed with but in the long term it will mean survival.

It may sound really heartless but I think Nature, if not a sentient thing, still 'knows' things if you like and it is more than capable of culling any population - humans included. At what point will living conditions and over-crowding force countries like India to really act about population.
No-one is talking about making anyone alive today suffer needlessly but there is no reason why having children cannot be limited. Problems with over-crowding, energy, transport and food will sort themselves out if the demand on resources is reduced drastically. I think the United Nations should be setting targets of population numbers levelling out. We should not tolerate any ideas of growth, there are too many people already.