~C4Chaos

The End of Theory Opens Up Serendipity

Here's a very interesting article on WIRED.

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

"Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough." We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

"The best practical example of this is the shotgun gene sequencing by J. Craig Venter. Enabled by high-speed sequencers and supercomputers that statistically analyze the data they produce, Venter went from sequencing individual organisms to sequencing entire ecosystems. In 2003, he started sequencing much of the ocean, retracing the voyage of Captain Cook. And in 2005 he started sequencing the air. In the process, he discovered thousands of previously unknown species of bacteria and other life-forms." [read more]

This reminded of the book, The Black Swan (see my review). Theoretical models are useful as starting points and for framing but in the long run our human tendency to categorize (Platonicity) and explain the causes of everything with theories (narrative fallacy) backed up with partial evidence (confirmation bias; fallacy of silent evidence) while concocting models of reality (ludic fallacy) make us blind to Black Swans (i.e. high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations).

In this Petabyte Age, mathematics, statistics, and a dose of serendipity trump theory. But that's in the realm science, not philosophy.

Do You Want To Live Forever?

It depends on what we mean by forever. In the end, there can be only one.

"Channel 4 Documentary following the revolutionary life-extension and immortality ideas of this somewhat eccentric scientist, Dr. Aubrey de Grey. This show is all about the radical ideas of a Cambridge biomedical gerontologist called Aubrey de Grey who believes that, within the next 20-30 years, we could extend life indefinitely by addressing seven major factors in the aging process." [watch it]

On the Future of Diet, Gas Emissions, and Dying

John Tierney posted a quick run through of Kurzweil's version of the singularity.

"Do you have trouble sticking to a diet? Have patience. Within 10 years, Dr. Kurzweil explained, there will be a drug that lets you eat whatever you want without gaining weight.

"Worried about greenhouse gas emissions? Have faith. Solar power may look terribly uneconomical at the moment, but with the exponential progress being made in nanoengineering, Dr. Kurzweil calculates that it’ll be cost-competitive with fossil fuels in just five years, and that within 20 years all our energy will come from clean sources.

"Are you depressed by the prospect of dying? Well, if you can hang on another 15 years, your life expectancy will keep rising every year faster than you’re aging. And then, before the century is even half over, you can be around for the Singularity, that revolutionary transition when humans and/or machines start evolving into immortal beings with ever-improving software." [read more]

Speaking of which, IEEE Spectrum has a special report on the Singularity. Check out Ray Kurzweil and Niel Gershenfeld: Two Paths to the Singularity. It's a must-read for every techno and transhumanist geeks :)

Red ~C Diary: Witnessing the Metaverse

'After catching the first Matrix film with some RealNetworks colleagues, Rosedale left the theater glum, announcing to them, "But that's what I was gonna make!"' - Philip Rosedale via The Making of Second Life

My avatar is already more than a year old but it wasn't until I attended virtual Conversation Week that my interest in SL was rekindled. Serendipitously, last week while I was browsing the bookstore at Dublin airport the book, The Making of Second Life by Wagner James Au, jumped right at me. I took it as a sign and devoured it during my 14-hour flight back home.

In one sitting I was educated with the history of SL, its ups and downs, its current impact on our culture, business, politics, economics, and its (almost sci-fi) potentials similar to Neal Stephenson's vision of the metaverse. I particularly enjoyed reading about the mirrored flourishing stories of in-world residents, the virtual revolts and cultural transformations of virtual groups and societies. From a psycho-social point of view, watching the history of SL is like witnessing the cultural evolution of humanity, in hyper-speed. Linden Lab (creators of Second Life) is akin to a group of benevolent dictators and Philosopher Kings who maintain order in a virtual world by allowing residents to do as they please within the bounds of SL's code of conduct. When viewed from an integral perspective, SL is a grand experiment on integral in-world governance. And when viewed from a psycho-spiritual perspective, explorations in SL can be used to aid in one's witnessing practice.  (I'll groove more on the topic of using SL for spiritual practice in future posts. In the meantime, check out a parallel discussion on Open Source Integral.)

During the past week I have immersed myself in the virtual realm of Second Life® before retiring to sleep. I've meditated on air at SL integral, explored the green and sustainable community at Etopia Eco-village, did Tai Chi in a silk blue kimono, dressed up as a Samurai wielding the "three buddhas" katana, drank unlimited cans of Red Bull, practiced Tibetan Buddhist meditation, took a crash course on machinima-tography, sat on a campfire near a pyramid in Mexico, all the while taking snapshots of my in-world explorations using my trusty old Macbook Pro.

So what did I get out my in-world explorations? I'm glad to report that I'm now up to speed with SL. I've become proficient with navigation and the basics of in-world content creation. But more importantly, I've forged new connections with like-minded creative people who are out there exploring in-world and dreaming up better worlds. (We've also started a Metaverse Pod @ Gaia for members who want to meet up and learn together in virtual reality.)

Second Life is only one of the big slices of the metaverse but its on a category of its own. It mirrors real life (and wonderland) more than any other MMORPGs. It's not a game, it's an experience. But unlike the web, SL is not (yet) for everyone. Its early incarnation is still clunky. It has a high barrier to entry, a steep learning curve, as well as a need for a shift in mentality to be able to embrace and welcome its possibilities.

I harbor no illusion that SL is an "escape" from for the "real" world (what is "real" anyway?). SL is just another medium. It's a tool to be used for rapid prototyping of one's vision, expressing individual and collective creativity, and experiencing a richer sense of community not possible in meatspace. In short, SL is an extension of consciousness projection.

In the meantime, I'll continue with my in-world explorations. SL made it possible for my blogging persona to have an avatar form. In essence, my SL persona is a "third-order reality." Technically, my SL avatar is not my "second" life because I consider my blogging persona as my "second." My SL avatar is a digital incarnation of this blogging persona, not my "first" life. Yet they're all inseparably connected and meshed together in a single conscious life-stream I call "I."

"Real" world blogging on real world topics resumes shortly. But expect to see in-world blogging from time to time.

Digitizing Mind

From digitizing life to digitizing mind... Blue Brain Project brings us closer to the technological Black Swan.

via Seed: Out of the Blue

"The Blue Brain project is now at a crucial juncture. The first phase of the project—"the feasibility phase"—is coming to a close. The skeptics, for the most part, have been proven wrong. It took less than two years for the Blue Brain supercomputer to accurately simulate a neocortical column, which is a tiny slice of brain containing approximately 10,000 neurons, with about 30 million synaptic connections between them. "The column has been built and it runs," Markram says. "Now we just have to scale it up." Blue Brain scientists are confident that, at some point in the next few years, they will be able to start simulating an entire brain. "If we build this brain right, it will do everything," Markram says. I ask him if that includes selfconsciousness: Is it really possible to put a ghost into a machine? "When I say everything, I mean everything," he says, and a mischievous smile spreads across his face." [read more]

Have a peek at a mammalian brain simulated on a supercomputer.

SPiM: Harbinger of the Autoverse

In the sci-fi novel Permutation City (see my book review here), there is a simulation program called, Autoverse -- "an artificial life simulator ultimately based on cellular automaton complex enough to represent the substratum of an artificial chemistry."

I was reminded by the Autoverse when I read Cosmic Log's report on the latest Microsoft TechFest. Aside from the much awaited WorldWide Telescope, Microsoft research and development team had created a visual programming language called, Stochastic Pi Machine (SPiM), "to help biology researchers analyze how cells do their work. The program can take a tangled chemical pathway and figure out what quantities of which proteins should be produced by that pathway." Using SPiM, researchers "can compare the predicted outcome of a biological process with the actual results of their experiment, to find out if their model for the process is correct. Someday, the simulations might even suggest new strategies for countering cancer or developing new drugs."

Nice. Imagine what people could do with SPiM (and similar future programming languages) once quantum computing has become ubiquitous. Permutation City is becoming an eerie possibility.

Microsoft Research / msnbc.com

Click for video: Msnbc.com's Alan Boyle narrates
animations from Microsoft Research that represent
cellular signaling pathways at work.

Would You Have Sex With Someone You Can Reboot?

Apparently, a few decades from now, David Levy thinks that people would welcome the idea of having sex with robots. Check out this Q&A interview with David Levy, author of Love and Sex with Robots, in Scientific American. Here are some key quotes.

---

And, as you mention in Love and Sex with Robots, brothels in Japan and South Korea already offer sex with dolls for the same rates they would charge for human prostitutes. So in studying sex with prostitutes, you figured you might begin to understand what the thinking behind sex with robots would be.
I started analyzing the psychology of clients of prostitutes. One of the most common reasons people pay for sex was that people wanted variety in sex partners. And with robots, you could have a blonde robot today or a brunette or a redhead. Or people want different sexual experiences. Or they don't want to commit to a relationship, but just to have a sexual relationship bound in time. All those reasons that people want to have sex with prostitutes could also apply to sex with robots. ....

Isn't your prediction about humans marrying robots in 50 years optimistic?
If you went back 100 years, if you proposed the idea that men would be marrying men, you'd be locked up in the loony bin. And it was only in the second half of the 20th century that you had the U.S. federal government repealing laws in about 12 states that said marriage across racial boundaries was illegal. That's how much the nature of marriage has changed. ....

What happens if 50 years from now your predictions have not proved true, and humans and robots don't marry?
I know some people think the idea is totally outlandish. But I am totally convinced it's inevitable. I would be absolutely astounded if I'm proven wrong—not if I'm a few years off, but if I'm proven completely wrong.

Read more

---

I'm not surprised at all. If the sex toys industry could flourish, why stop there? However, imho, the advancement in computing power would pave the way for more realistic real-world computer simulations. In the future, it would be more efficient and cheaper to create ultra-realistic virtual worlds where people can "hook up" their brains and satisfy all their curiosity, including their sexual desires.

So why create expensive physical robotic objects when you can have infinite simulations of anything or anyone in the virtual world? Why have sex with robots when you and your partner (wife, lover, significant other) could hook up in the virtual world and fulfill your sexual fantasies without "cheating"?

Computer simulation is more promising than robotics when it comes to sex and relationships because it is not bounded by time, distance, and not constrained by physical objects. In the virtual realm, literally, everything is possible. Sex with robots is awkward, messy, and would still require warranty and technical support.

Permutation City anyone?

Will the REAL Evolution Debate Please Stand Up! (Reloaded)

A little more than a year ago I blogged about a WIE issue entitled, The Mystery of Evolution. During that time the entire article was not freely accessible online. But now it is. So check it out if you still haven't read it.

The REAL Evolution Debate - "Everything you always wanted to know about evolution but the mass media wouldn't tell you."

The common notion is that the evolution debate is only between intelligent design proponents (aka creationists) vs. evolutionists. That's only a small picture. There are debates among evolutionists themselves. There is a spectrum of evolutionary thought from the Neo-Darwinists to the Transhumanists to the Integralists. WIE did an excellent job at presenting various perspectives on evolution in this issue.

For those who have a knee-jerk allergic reaction to "spirituality," I ask that you suspend your cynicism for a while and look at this article as objectively as you can. There's more to the evolution debate than you probably think.

Ken Wilber Riffs On the Singularity

Here's a video of Ken Wilber talking about the Singularity.

In this video Wilber talks about different levels of consciousness and how each level would interpret the Singularity differently. But the first step, of course, is get to know what the Singularity is. Ray Kurzweil laid out his vision in the book, The Singularity is Near.

From the perspective of psycho-social development, I think Kurzweil and Wilber would have more in common than differences. For example, in his own utopian vision, Wilber agrees with Kurzweil that "virtually all material wants will have been vanquished by nanotech." When it comes to longevity, I think Wilber is in agreement with Kurzweil too. Wilber's health condition is a case in point. He depends on a number of medication and supplements (as well as his practice of meditation) to counter the effects of RNase Enzyme Deficiency Disease.

As someone who is very interested in integral theory, transhumanism, and technological singularity, I would love to watch a conversation between Wilber and Kurzweil and see their points of agreement, as well as disagreements. Wilber is excellent at mapping out the interiors but when it comes to mapping the exteriors of technology, Ray Kurzweil kicks butt.

Speaking of singularity and longevity, check out Aubrey de Grey on The Colbert Report. I love the part where Stephen Colbert made fun of de Grey's beard. What's up with that beard anyway?

Dawkins and Venter @ DLD

We're inching closer and closer to the Singularity...

Case in point: Check out this talk by Richard Dawkins and J. Craig Venter at the Digital Life Design (DLD). LIFE: A GENE-CENTRIC VIEW.

OMG! If Venter is right, then we could be e-mailing life very soon. Good times.

This is total Mindfuck!

Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch. I agree with David Chalmers. This is metaphysics.

More metaphysics here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Thanks to Ottmar for f@%&ing with my mind today.

Second Earth for Time Travel

MIT Technology Review has an excellent article on virtual worlds where Second Life and Google Earth are mashed up. It's a good read (registration required). Thanks to Albert for the heads up!

Second Earth
"The World Wide Web will soon be absorbed into the World Wide SIM: an environment combining elements of Second Life and Google Earth."

We're still far from life-like simulations. But if and when we get there, some visionary scientists are saying that simulations can be used for time travel. Check out this video: Horizon - Time Travel. I don't know. But it's an intriguing proposition.

In the meantime, we can use Second Life to test out stuff. Here's an example of why teleportation can be dangerous in real life. You can end up like me with my hair caught up under the table of some hotel somewhere. It could've been worse, you know.

If you could stop your aging indefinitely, would you?

(This is in response to the Questions and Reflections for June 06, 2007)

My answer is an emphatic, YES! I would stop my aging at 27 since metabolism slows down when people reach the age of 30. And besides, wisdom comes from experience, not from aging. I've seen a lot of old people who didn't mature past thirty. I've also seen people who are young yet very mature for their age.

In short, I wish Aubrey de Grey all the best on his efforts to make aging optional.

WIE is Up Again for a Webby

Nice. Check out the rest of the nominees under the Religion and Spirituality category.

But for the record, WIE gets my vote :)

via www.wie.org

2007 Webby Awards: We’ve been nominated!

Your vote really matters! WIE.org has been nominated to receive the prestigious Webby Award and Webby People’s Voice Award. Please cast your vote for WIE.org and help us win this grassroots “Oscar of the internet”!

The Singularity is Here

Ray Kurzweil was so wrong. The Singularity is not near. She's here! She's lying beside me. I turn to my right and there she is, looking deep into my eyes, smiling. She puts her arms around me and starts to whisper.

Singularity: So, how was it for you last night?

Me: Huh? You?! How did you get in here? Where are my clothes?

Singularity: Don't tell me you don't remember. I really had a good time last night.

Me: Um, you aren't supposed to be here until 2042.

Singularity: Yeah, that's what the pundits say. But I don't go by their schedule.

Me: I see. Where are my clothes?

Singularity: C'mon, chill. I've seen everything already. Aren't you glad I'm here with you right now?

Me: (long pause, long sigh) Um, it's actually good to meet you while I'm still young. At least I don't have to keep spending money on longevity supplements just to make sure I'm still alive and kicking by the time you arrive. Those supplements are too damn expensive you know.

Singularity: Yeah, those viagras are expensive right now, but they will be as cheap as aspirin five years from now.

Me: Not viagra! Longevity supplements.

Singularity: Yeah, riiiight. Sure.

Me: Um, where are my clothes again?

We're Natural-Born Spiritual Cyborgs

“My body is an electronic virgin. I incorporate no silicon chips, no retinal or cochlear implants, no pacemaker. I don't even wear glasses (though I do wear clothes), but I am slowly becoming more and more of a cyborg. So are you. Pretty soon, and still without the need for wires, surgery, or bodily alterations, we shall all be kin to the Terminator, Eve 8, to Cable… just fill in you favorite fictional cyborg. Perhaps we already are. For we shall be cyborgs not in the merely superficial sense of combining flesh and wires but in the more profound sense of being human-technology symbionts: thinking and reasoning system whose minds and selves are spread across biological brain and nonbiological circuitry.”

The above quote is Andy Clark's introduction to his book, Natural-Born Cyborgs. I think he's right. I'm already experiencing it at this very moment. Consider these:

– I feel naked without my eye glasses and mobile phone.

– My iPod nano is strapped to my arm whenever I go to the gym.

– I'm in front of my laptop every day, but even with all its processing power, it seems useless if it's not jacked into the Net.

– My blog is the extension of my personality, my voice, my thinking.

– Cyberspace is the extension of my memory, and my portal to human knowledge.

And that's only the puny insignificant me.

Consider society's dependence on technology–electricity, transportation, medicine, machines, computers, telecommunication, etc.. We've been enhancing our biological nature and culture since humanity started using tools. Technology is accelerating exponentially–faster and faster and faster. And there's no going back (barring catastrophic events, and then we start again).

Transhumanists see these things as good news. They welcome the accelerating change with open arms, minds, and hearts. They are aware of all the moral and ethical implications. But ready or not, they choose to forge ahead with rationality, optimism, and awe. My only request is to add spirituality into the mix, however one defines spirituality.

We're natural-born spiritual cyborgs who are not limited by our flesh and bones. It is our birthright to transcend the limitations of our bodyminds with technology and subjective / intersubjective inquiry, and to keep pushing the boundaries of the finite Kosmos while constantly asking these questions: Where Am I? and Who Am I? 

This concludes the Transhumanist Week. For a recap of all the posts, click here.

I will now return to my usual serendipitous blogging. Thanks for your geeky attention.

Ken Wilber is a Transhumanist Borg

Before I encountered Integral philosophy, I was first a transhumanist. I think it does that to you if you've watched too much sci-fi movies growing up.

One thing that got me hooked on integral thinking is that it had room for transhumanism and spirituality. I like that. Although most integral literature (specifically by Ken Wilber) don't dabble much in science and technology (e.g. they mostly focus on psychological development, subjectivity, intersubjectivity, worldviews, etc.), the AQAL model has a place for transhumanistic thought (e.g. the Right Quadrants). So I can easily plug in Kurzweil's Singularity on the AQAL map and have a better sense of the bigger picture. See my previous post, "Holonic Epochs."

For me, it doesn't make sense to be “integral” without embracing some form of transhumanism.  So I would dare say that most, if not all, “integral” thinkers are transhumanist, or more precisely H++.

In fact, I think Ken Wilber is an uber-transhumanist himself.

Case in point: Check out this video of Ken Wilber showing off how he can manipulate his brain waves at will. Now that is geeky. Although Ken is still biased with meditation when it comes to psychological/spiritual transformation, I think brain/mind machines have a special place in his utopian vision. And besides, for a long time, Ken had depended on advanced medication and life-enhancing supplements to counter his rare form of sickness. So I don't think he has a problem with longevity science.

Also, consider Ken's answer when asked this question: “Please describe, in a stream of consciousness, an unabashedly utopian vision of a truly enlightened future … a world theocracy in which the nondual God becomes the organizing principle. Picture the year 2316 …”

“Right, but my imagination jams at the beginning on the word “theocracy” because in the past that has meant mythic-theocracy, which is what we don’t want now. Go to Iran if that is what you want. But a truly enlightened future, in my opinion, would be one in which the center of gravity of the culture is at violet or higher, and states of consciousness are navigated at will, which would almost certainly be accompanied by brain/computer interfacing. Virtually all material wants will have been vanquished by nanotech (I’m with Ray Kurzweil on that), and the environmental crisis is long ended. The main concern for such a society is how to help individuals move up the great spiral of development and spectrum of consciousness because all exterior goods and needs have long ago been met. So what’s a poor culture to do?

“Interior growth alone will answer that call. And interior growth demands structures and stages, which—unlike states—cannot be induced by drugs, meditation, or brain/mind machines. Addressing this need for interior growth will be the call of tomorrow’s integral culture.

“Once that challenge is met, and I believe it will be, the second major problem will be the simple fact that, even in an ultraviolet culture, everybody is still born at square one, at infrared, and must begin their evolution and development from there. Even in today’s society, whose center of gravity is orange/green, everybody is born at square one, which is why we still have pockets of red culture (in street gangs, for example) and amber culture (in all of Kansas, it seems). But those types of problems will not disappear in any conceivable future, so they will need to be addressed creatively.

“Then, the extraordinary states and stages available today only to those who work incredibly hard (via meditation, therapy, yoga, etc.) will be commonplace to all. The very Ground of All Being will be as obvious as one’s original face, as vast Emptiness announces both Freedom and Fullness for all souls, an ecstatic release and quiet riot of spiritual radiance drenching each and all, as eternity falls in love with the productions of time all over again, so that looking deep within, one can find only the entire Kosmos, with galaxies swirling where you thought your heart was and supernovas exploding in the middle of what used to be your mind, and spirit itself as simple and obvious as the sound of the rainfall on what is left of the old and forlorn world, long gone in time, never found in space, this simple and ever-present feeling of Being, now and now and endlessly now.”

(NOTE: For those who have no idea what the hell are those colors Ken Wilber is talking about, see A Brief Explanation of Altitude).

 And finally, Ken has been dabbling on sci-fi writing with his latest work in progress, The Many Faces of Terrorism. I don't know why, maybe Michael Crichton had something to do with it. Whatever. Check out this excerpt from Chapter 11 (pdf).

“Code Project AQAL began as the join effort of literally hundreds of social scientists and researchers from around the world.  They also called it “The Human Consciousness Project” (HCP).  Much like the Human Genome Project, which had mapped all the genes of human DNA, the HCP was a complete mapping of human consciousness—any and all of its levels, lines, states, and types, as reported over the last  several millennia.  This involved hundreds of cultural experts, spiritual teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists—and a dozen Cray supercomputers parallel processing this information from all over the world, with enough meta-analyses to attempt to spot any recurring patterns.  The result is said to be the entire spectrum of consciousness fully mapped for the first time in history.”

Anyway, my point is, Ken's latest book is more sci-fi and transhumanistic to the core rather than academically philosophical like his previous works.

So yes, I think Ken Wilber is a freakin' Borg. Resistance is partial.

And the Transhumanist Week continues…

Neurotheology + Neuromysticism = 21st Century Shamanism

Transhumanism seeks to enhance human mental and physical abilities while pushing the boundaries of the human biology. Naturally, this also results in pushing the boundaries of human philosophy. We start questioning our old notion of religion, belief in God, and spirituality. Combine that with technological advancement in neuroscience and we've got, Neurotheology–“the study of the neural basis of spirituality.”

Some people argue that Neurotheology is a materialistic approach to spirituality, attempting to reduce the religious experience to biology. While that may be true for some scientists who are hardcore materialists (and proud of it), I think that the religious and spiritual types should be open to this study. If neuroscience succeeds in mapping the physical correlates of mystical experiences in the brain then we can exponentially replicate the experience on more people, giving them a taste of a more authentic spirituality. Imagine the possibilities. This could usher a more hitech Contemplative Science.

Case in point: Here's a video of Dr. Andrew Newberg explaining why mapping the physical correlates of religious and mystical experiences in the brain is not materialistic reductionism. I agree with him.

For example, consider the controversial God Helmet created by Michael Persinger–a transcranial magnetic stimulation device which stimulates neurons by passing weak electric currents in the brain. Most subjects who used the device reported having “out of this world” experiences: mystical union, presence of other beings, and even God. Interpretations of the experiences vary because it is dependent on the subjectivity of the experiencer. Even if we perfect machines that can trigger the physical correlates of mystical or religious experience, the subjective experience will depend on the psychological development of the experiencer, and probably on other neurological differences among individuals.

In my opinion, the God Helmet, does not necessarily prove that “God” is in the brain. It merely demonstrates the interdependency of mind and body. The good news is that “higher” states of meditation can be induced with neurotechnology even without years of practice of meditation or other mind focusing techniques. Instead of spending years of practice in disciplining the mind to stimulate the ”God spot” in the brain, which could take years or a lifetime, we can stimulate the “God spot” to further discipline the mind as we traverse the higher stages of consciousness. It's good news for us lazy spiritual types :)

However, Theology is different from Mysticism. Theologians are not necessarily mystics, and vice-versa. Theology is a rational approach in explaining the transcendental experience while Mysticism is a transrational approach in experiencing the transcendent. Both should go hand in hand in order for us to have a bigger picture of religious and mystical experiences. So while Neurotheology is the “study” of neural basis of spirituality, I prefer to call the actual experiential practice as Neuromysticism–mysticism aided by brain-mind states altering technology. If Shamanism is the original Neurotheology, then shamans are the original neuromystics.

And the Transhumanist Week continues…

Smackdown: Are We Spiritual Machines?

And now we continue with Transhumanist Week...

In a previous blog post, I mentioned that the word "spirit" or "spirituality" is absent from The Extropian Principles. Now contrast that with one of the champions of transhumansitic thought, Ray Kurzweil. He not only wrote a book called The Age of Spiritual Machines, but he is also open to debate anyone who accuses him of being a "materialist."

In the book, Are We Spiritual Machines?, Kurzweil responded to his critics and fleshed out his ideas even further. The result: an uber-geeky mind-blowing intellectual royal rumble smackdown among scientists, thinkers, and philosophers.

I particularly like what Kurzweil said on Chapter 10: The Material World: "Is That All There Is?":

"As we move into the biological world, consider the intricate dance of spirals of DNA during mitosis. How about the “loveliness” of a tree as it bends in the wind and its leaves churn in a tangled dance? Or the bustling world we see in a microscope? There’s transcendence everywhere.

A comment on the word “transcendence” is in order here. To transcend means to “go beyond,” but this need not compel us to an ornate dualist view that regards transcendent levels of reality (e.g., the spiritual level) to be not of this world. We can “go beyond” the “ordinary” powers of the material world through the power of patterns. Rather than a materialist, I would prefer to consider myself a “patternist.” It’s through the emergent powers of the pattern that we transcend."

Nice. I think that's a very integral statement! Why? Well, it reminded me of what Ken Wilber said about the nature of the integral approach (e.g. AQAL). And I quote:

"So how can we describe the integral approach in simple terms? It's clearly going to be a bit of a new idea, so bear with me. We might start by calling it a "content-free cross-culturalism." Gulp. That's simple?

"Content-free" refers to the fact that virtually all previous approaches at unification have attempted to find some sort of unity on the level of actual content (whereas the integral approach does not). For example, most of the world's great religions have some version of the Golden Rule, and most universalists use those types of common elements to find their unity in the world's religions. 

"The integral approach does none of that. Or rather, all such similarities in content are looked upon as quite secondary, even trivial. This is why we call the core of the integral approach "content-free." It finds its similarities in certain patterns of content, not in the content itself."

Nice. So, the two great thinkers I admire are both "patternists." One focuses on fleshing out the patterns of subjectivity/intersubjectivity (Wilber mainly as a philosopher) while the other focuses on fleshing out the patterns of the material world (Kurzweil mainly as a scientist). Neither of them a flatlander. I like that.

Are You an Extropian?

via: The Extropian Principles Version 3.0

EXTROPY — the extent of a system’s intelligence, information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement.

EXTROPIANS — those who seek to increase extropy.

EXTROPIANISM — The evolving transhumanist philosophy of extropy.

Extropianism is a transhumanist philosophy. The Extropian Principles define a specific version or “brand” of transhumanist thinking. Like humanists, transhumanists favor reason, progress, and values centered on our well being rather than on an external religious authority. Transhumanists take humanism further by challenging human limits by means of science and technology combined with critical and creative thinking. We challenge the inevitability of aging and death, and we seek continuing enhancements to our intellectual abilities, our physical capacities, and our emotional development. We see humanity as a transitory stage in the evolutionary development of intelligence. We advocate using science to accelerate our move from human to a transhuman or posthuman condition. As physicist Freeman Dyson has said: “Humanity looks to me like a magnificent beginning but not the final word.”

1. Perpetual Progress — Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing without end.

2. Self-Transformation — Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement.

3. Practical Optimism — Fueling action with positive expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism.

4. Intelligent Technology — Applying science and technology creatively to transcend “natural” limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and environment. Seeing technology not as an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of life.

5. Open Society — Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia.

6. Self-Direction — Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others.

7. Rational Thinking — Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas.

Read more… OR see Principles of Extropy Version 3.11

To answer my own question: Based on the above principles, I can say that a BIG part of me is an Extropian. No surprise there, because I've already previously declared that I'm an IgnorantSelfishSingularitarian and then some.

However, you'll notice that there's no mention of the word “spirit” or “spiritual” in the Extropian Principles. Maybe they equate spirituality with self-actualization. I can live with that :)

And the Transhumanist Week continues…

~Omni-Peephole: Singularity Summit

In continuation of Transhumanist Week, allow me to geek out even further and pimp out the dude who owns the megaphone when it comes to technological singularity.

Here's a video (part 1 of 3) of Ray Kurzweil at the Singularity Summit at Stanford.

See also: Part 2 of 3, Part 3 of 3.

Speaking of the Singularity, Vince over at BuddhistGeeks is conducting a thought experiment on The Rise of Technosattva. Now that is geeky!

What the Bleep is Transhumanism?

My blogging pattern in the last few of days seems to be highlighting my transhumanistic interests. So be it. I'll make this official. This week is Transhumanist Week, at least on my personal blog.

I've always been interested in science, technology, parapsychology, ufology, religion, philosophy, and spirituality. All of those interests seem to converge in what is called Transhumanism--"a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase."

However, while most transhumanists can be classified as materialists, I'd like to anchor my transhumanistic tendencies on a more integral philosophy which doesn't collapse interiority into exteriority, and vice-versa. So instead of just H+, my flavor of transhumanism is more like H+ and then some, or simply H++.

H++ to me means: if we have developmental concepts such as pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional; pre-modern, modern, post-modern; egocentric, ethnocentric, world centric; pre-rational, rational, trans-rational; then it makes sense to have evolving "vehicles" to contain the emerging consciousness: pre-human (via Darwinian evolution), human (humanity as it is right now), and post-human (or trans-human).

For those spiritual types who shiver in fear at the thought of transhumanism, stop shivering. Remember that Aurobindo's Supramentalisation has the same aim: "transformation of the entire being, and ultimately, the divinization of the material world." The difference is the approach.

Transhumanists seek to foster 'transformation" by focusing on the material, while spiritual heavyweights like Aurobindo focused on the interior. I'd like to imagine that those two approaches would intersect someday. And therein lies a more integral approach.

In the meantime, the possibility of physical immortality intrigues me. Not because I want to preserve this bodymind in its current form. But to render it undone, both physically and spiritually.

Do You Want to Live Forever?

Very tricky question. Depends on what we mean by forever. But let's say forever = 5,000 years. My answer would be: Only if I can change bodies when I get bored with my physical body. Otherwise, it would be boring to be in the same body for hundreds or even thousands of years. It would be more like being sentenced in a prison made of muscles, skin, and bones.

Instead of preserving this body which I have right now, I'd rather have my consciousness to live forever while transfering from one “vehicle” into another, be it biological, or even digital. If you're a Buddhist or a Hindu, you'd probably say: “But that's already how it is right now. You just don't remember your previous incarnations.” Whatever.

Then again, I'm not really obsessed with living forever. I've got no problem surrendering this consciousness from whence it came from. I do it every night anyway. But like most people, I just don't like the idea of physical and mental deterioriation, and pain. So, if physical immortality is an option, I'd take it in a heart beat. That is if I can afford it.

Physical Immortality. I wonder how this would impact our philosophy and spirituality. That's why I want to live forever. So I can witness how immortality would transform society.

The transhumanist in me is rooting for Aubrey de Grey to succeed.

~Omni-Peephole: Dr. Michio Kaku: BBC FOUR (Time Series)

Man, looks like I'm on a Michio Kaku roll today. Hmmm. Michio Kaku roll. Sounds like a type of sushi :) Anyway…

Here's another video of Dr. Michio Kaku hosting a BBC FOUR (Time Series).

“Why is our time limited? And does it have to be? Could our age-old dream of immortality ever be possible? In episode two, Michio Kaku explores these questions and meets some of the key people involved in the cutting-edge research into ageing.”

 

For more Michio Kaku sushi roll servings watch this link:
http://coolmel.zaadz.com/blog/tags/Michio+Kaku

So would you drink it? Heck, I would :)

Will the REAL Evolution Debate Please Stand Up!

Evolution: Science vs. Spirit?

"Here, we’ve spread out the 12 schools of evolutionary thought along a spectrum from science to spirit, with scientific materialism on the far left and religious determinism on the far right."

I've finally gotten a chance to read the latest issue of What is Enlightenment magazine. This issue takes a deeper look at the The Mystery of Evolution. My favorite article is The REAL Evolution Debate wherein the WIE staff presented not just one, or two, or three, but twelve compelling theories on evolution.

"You’ve seen the headlines, you’ve read articles: Darwin vs. God. Science vs. religion. Reason vs. faith. But is that really all there is to it? Here at WIE we think not. And to prove it, we documented at least a dozen distinctly compelling theories each of which addresses the fundamental questions of creation and evolution, and we assembled them in this concise and eye-opening presentation."

Unlike the mainstream media wherein most debates seem like an all or nothing, black vs. white, science vs. religion, two-camps competition, WIE takes a fresher approach: map all the scientific and spiritual theories about evolution and everything in between, then leave it to us to see where we stand in the evolution debate, and give us the choice to dig further.

WIE created a very high altitude map which we can use to soar above the simplistic debates such as creationism vs. intelligent design, science vs. God, religion vs. atheism. The map illustrates why the evolution debate is not just between scientists vs. creationists, but that this debate is also between scientists vs. scientists, creationists vs. scientists, creationists vs. creationists, integralists vs. the fundamentalists, etc.

So whenever Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins are engaged in a boring debate, the debate is not just between evolution vs. intelligent design, it's between two of the twelve worldviews: The Neo Darwinist (Dawkins) vs. The Theistic Evolutionist (Collins). Note that both of them are scientists who support evolution but differ in their worldviews. So Francis Collins' stance is more complex than the fundamentalist believer on Intelligent Design, or God (even if Francis Collins use the word God in his arguments). And Richard Dawkins doesn't necessarily represent the entire scientific community when he argues for evolution. His scientific views on evolution is just one of the many differing scientific views about evolution out there.

So looking at the spectrum of the evolution debate map, does that mean that The Integralist view is the uber-correct view? Not necessarily, because all of the other views hold an important piece of the evolutionary puzzle. It just goes to show that the Integralist view is the most embracing view of them all. It's a view where Science and Spirit not only co-exist, but are actually inseparable. It's a view where the evolutionary world is not seen in black and white, but as a colorful evolving kaleidoscopic Kosmos of matter, body, mind, intersubjectivity, consciousness, and Spirit.

After looking at the twelve schools of evolutionary thought, I had a clearer understanding of my own stance on the evolution debate.  I'd like to think I'm a combination of Transhumanist (6) and Integralist (12), meaning: I think everyone of them has some truth to it when it comes to evolution, but I'm also for jump-starting our own evolution with the use of technology, as long as we balance it with ethics based on an integral worldview.

Kudos to WIE for creating this cool map. So check it out (note: all you need is to provide your email to access the special article) and let me know where you *really* stand on the Evolution debate :)

~Omni-Peephole: Ray Kurzweil @ TEDTalks

Ok. I've had it with global warming and science vs. religion for now. So I'll switch my attention to a more optimistic technological objectivity. And whenever I think of optimistic technological objectivity, the person that comes to my mind is Ray Kurzweil. He's one of my heroes in the scientific domain, specifically on technology.

One thing I like about Kurzweil is that unlike other scientists, he's not a reductionist. Although his views on interiority is limited, he recognizes subjectivity and does not collapse everything into the material domain.

Case in point: Check out Kurzweil's TEDTalks video. Ponder and wonder the power of exponential technological evolution...

Debate on Machine Consciousness

"wake up end simulation"
Uploaded by lia on 10 Nov '05, 10.48am PST.

Check out this debate between David Gelernter and Ray Kurzweil about the (im)possibility of machine consciousness. Both camps have very important pieces of the puzzle. I love the humor in the debate too. They also covered spirituality. Very cool. Make sure to watch the video.

Flatland or no flatland, these are the kinds of debates that I want to see on consciousness. Anything less is not very fluffy.

Integral Singularity?

(Crossposted from zBlog:~C4Chaos)

I've always wondered how Ken Wilber's vision of singularity would look like. I have some ideas of Ray Kurzweil's version which, for the most part, focuses on the exterior technological changes.

Below is an excerpt from a WIE interview with Ken Wilber. As I expected, Ken's version tends to focus on the interior psycho-spiritual development as aided by mind-expanding technology, aka brain-mind machines.

If only those two thinkers would have a public dialogue so they can give us a more inclusive picture of Integral Singularity...

---

(via zPod:Singularity)

WIE editors asking Ken Wilber about anything. here's something about Ken's version of the “singularity.”

Q: Finally, we’d like to ask you to let your imagination run wild. Please describe, in a stream of consciousness, an unabashedly utopian vision of a truly enlightened future … a world theocracy in which the nondual God becomes the organizing principle. Picture the year 2316 …

KW: Right, but my imagination jams at the beginning on the word “theocracy” because in the past that has meant mythic-theocracy, which is what we don’t want now. Go to Iran if that is what you want. But a truly enlightened future, in my opinion, would be one in which the center of gravity of the culture is at violet or higher, and states of consciousness are navigated at will, which would almost certainly be accompanied by brain/computer interfacing. Virtually all material wants will have been vanquished by nanotech (I’m with Ray Kurzweil on that), and the environmental crisis is long ended. The main concern for such a society is how to help individuals move up the great spiral of development and spectrum of consciousness because all exterior goods and needs have long ago been met. So what’s a poor culture to do?

Interior growth alone will answer that call. And interior growth demands structures and stages, which—unlike states—cannot be induced by drugs, meditation, or brain/mind machines. Addressing this need for interior growth will be the call of tomorrow’s integral culture.

Once that challenge is met, and I believe it will be, the second major problem will be the simple fact that, even in an ultraviolet culture, everybody is still born at square one, at infrared, and must begin their evolution and development from there. Even in today’s society, whose center of gravity is orange/green, everybody is born at square one, which is why we still have pockets of red culture (in street gangs, for example) and amber culture (in all of Kansas, it seems). But those types of problems will not disappear in any conceivable future, so they will need to be addressed creatively.

Then, the extraordinary states and stages available today only to those who work incredibly hard (via meditation, therapy, yoga, etc.) will be commonplace to all. The very Ground of All Being will be as obvious as one’s original face, as vast Emptiness announces both Freedom and Fullness for all souls, an ecstatic release and quiet riot of spiritual radiance drenching each and all, as eternity falls in love with the productions of time all over again, so that looking deep within, one can find only the entire Kosmos, with galaxies swirling where you thought your heart was and supernovas exploding in the middle of what used to be your mind, and spirit itself as simple and obvious as the sound of the rainfall on what is left of the old and forlorn world, long gone in time, never found in space, this simple and ever-present feeling of Being, now and now and endlessly now.

How Perfect Is Your Life?

So I took this shallow online quiz (found via Integral Options). I don't know, some of the questions are so ambiguous. And "perfect" is not an accurate description of a person's life. Duh?! What is a perfect life anyway? But I still got a good rating. I think it reflects my overall "happiness" instead of "perfectness." Is that even a word?

Then I moved on to the quiz, How Will You Die? And I got this:

Nah. I always keep impermanence in mind... but I also look forward to Human Body version 2.0.

Singularity, Global Warming, Climate Change

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

(Devil, image via Flickr: RETICULUM REX (Pool), rockin' photoillustration by karl eschenbach)

I just reposted a cool find on zPod:CLIMATE CHANGE and zPod:Singularity about  Ray Kurzweil making a statement about Global Warming (via Numinous Nonsense: The Singularity and Global Warming. Thanks Dawg!)

As I suspected, Kurzweil's position on Global Warming is similar to Michael Crichton's and, I would assume, also similar to a lot of scientists and most futurists. Personally, as much as I would like to believe and do something about Climate Change, I think that Kurzweil's position is the more “optimistic” approach. Take note that they are not ignoring the problem, but merely focusing on a different solution than the typical gloom and doom and highly politically-charged solutions as that of the mainstream approach to global warming (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).

Having said this, I also think that a more pressing problem is man's use of technology rather than fighting off the effects of “nature.” The threat of nanotechnology is arguably freakin' scarier than global warming yet it's not getting the attention that it deserves in the media. Well, actually that's a good thing, because at least only a few people are panicking about this issue.

Whichever sides you believe, in the end, we choose our own battles. But if there's one thing we can do something about, it's starting the change from within. The higher that we climb, the more the ladder sways.

---

Tagged @ Zaadz with: Singularity, Singularity, RETICULUM REX, Climate Change, Ray Kurzweil, zPod:Singularity, Michael Crichton, zPod:CLIMATE CHANGE, Nanotechnology  

Got Carpal Tunnel? Use Your Head!

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

via BUSINESS 2.0: Future Boy

Surfing the Web with nothing but brainwaves   

Kiss your keyboard goodbye: Soon we'll jack our brains directly into the Net - and that's just the beginning.

SAN FRANCISCO (Business 2.0 Magazine) - – Two years ago, a quadriplegic man started playing video games using his brain as a controller. That may just sound like fun and games for the unfortunate, but really, it spells the beginning of a radical change in how we interact with computers - and business will never be the same.

Someday, keyboards and computer mice will be remembered only as medieval-style torture devices for the wrists. All work - emails, spreadsheets, and Google searches - will be performed by mind control.

[ Read more ]

Sweet! I love it!. We really are Natural-born Cyborgs! LOL.

---

Tagged @ Zaadz with: technology, web, singularity, brain waves, neurotechnology, brains, cyborgs  

Changing the World One Podcast at a Time

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos@Zaadz.com)

Check out Social Innovation Conversations.

“The Social Innovation Podcasting Channel is an open and collaborative online platform for cross-sector and multidisciplinary learning for social change.

“From the pandemic of AIDS, to challenges posed by climate change, to substance abuse and global poverty, our world is faced with increasing complex and pressing social and environmental challenges. While knowledge, tools, and technologies to develop innovative solutions exist, channels are still needed to reach the people who could use and apply them to social problems.

“Social Innovation Conversations' mission is to expand the reach of important and valuable knowledge to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it by recording and sharing the spoken words of thought leaders in all sectors and disciplines and offering listeners a multi stakeholder perspective on the world grand challenges and social issues.

“Social Innovation Conversations was made possible by the concerted efforts of the Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Social Innovation Accelerator.”

Sweet. I'm listening to Dean Kamen's interview right now. Awesome discussion on enlightened entrepreneurship and technology deployment. Listen. It's free.

Props to Jon for this cool find.

---

Tagged @ Zaadz with: technology, Podcast, interviews, Singularity, Dean Kamen, Social Innovation Conversations