i believe that the kurzweil's law is one of the few scientific basis to the 2012 shift.
although i find it baffling how on many occasions, within the hippie community, this idea is met with hostility and is viewed as something unecological. i personally believe that the kurzweil's law is the best scientific explanation for the mckenna's novelty theory and explains the natural flow of evolutions.

I'd also add that Kurzweil's examination of the interplay of complexity, novelty, habit, etc. - entropy and extropy - in the history of the universe (as I read it in 'Age of Spiritual Machines') is actually much more sophisticated than McKenna's. At the very least, his analysis is a hugely valuable complement to Timewave theory.

As for his theories being "unecological", I could see that. There's more than a little faith in technology and the free market in his thinking that trumps numerous scientific theories about civilisation's (and hence technology's) current relationship to the biosphere (I'm talking mostly about resource/energy issues here). Admittedly that faith isn't the kind of blind faith involved in certain religious attitudes; and those scientific theories are in the final analysis still just theories; but in the end, I see at least a smidgen of faith over science in there, a fact that we're blinded to by Kurzweil's overt scientistic approach. We shouldn't always assume that stuff like faith falls on the hippy-dippy ecology side of things, and science on the techno-futurist side of things. It's complicated!

To my mind, Kurzweil's Law is the visible manifestation of how humankind's intelligent inventiveness reacts to the evolutionary arc as it pulls us in tighter towards the next jump. The Accelerating Returns are a manifestation of the process in action.
McKenna: "This is what a species looks like when it prepares to depart for Hyperspace."

(I'm having a difficult time finding the right words, so please forgive my stumbling. ... )

I have to admit first of all to being familiar with Kurzweil's analysis only in general terms.

That being said, although I am very optimistic about the prospects of exponentially expanding computational power, I find myself increasingly skeptical that any kind of AI in the sense that Kurzweil means is feasible using a computational model. This seems to still be the dominant model for understanding the brain (e.g. cognitive psychology) but for a number of reasons I think it will ultimately fail. I have serious doubts that we will be able to "reverse engineer" or model the brain using any technological methodology regardless of the computational power available.

First, the architecture of the brain is far more complex that a bunch of neurons which are either on or off, firing or nor firing. A neuron is not a switch. Taking into account the effects of say neurotransmitters or other chemical agents increases the complexity of the system to the point where I am not sure any amount of computational power is going to be sufficient.

Moreover, the very concept of intelligence seems fraught with paradox - frankly I am not sure it is at all quantifiable. There seems to be quite a bit more to it than running logical algorithms to solve discreet problems. It seems likely that intelligence as we understand it will never be modeled even using the most powerful computational devices.

In my view, the problem is that intelligence means consciousness and we still have absolutely no idea where consciousness fits into the equation. Cognitive science seems quite dismissive of this mystery but when it comes to AI this is increasingly the central issue. The technological hurdles are almost overcome and yet we find ourselves no closer to creating conscious machines than we were 40 years ago.

Perhaps the reason is that we do not understand how the brain creates consciousness, much less how to model that with silicon. I find it quite unconvincing to claim, as some cognitive scientists do, that consciousness is just an illusion and that we have reason to believe there really is no such thing. Or that consciousness is just the sum of the firing of neurons in the brain (which sounds to my ear like the same argument). It seems to me that until we understand how green photons striking the retina and setting up an electrochemical chain reaction in the brain becomes "green" we are just whistling past the graveyard. Because when I am looking at a tree you can take my visual cortex apart down to individual atoms and you are not going to find anything green. Something is going on which from a scientific materialist position is a fundamental mystery - one which is which is central not just to the human condition but to any meaningful AI.

At least for the moment there is no reason to think that any amount of computational power is going to be able to bridge the gap between “modeling” intelligence and creating intelligence. And if all we can do is model intelligence than machines can never be more intelligent than we are.

"i believe that the kurzweil's law is one of the few scientific basis to the 2012 shift."

What shift is that?

Well, there are two parts to understanding/creating consciousness. You need to know the structural foundation of the nervous system which we have a reasonable understanding of. Then you need to have the capacity to learn through acquired and interpreted experience. You don't just wake up and understand the world. The complexity of human thinking is refective of a lifetime's worth of sorting through data and making functional associations.

Traditional AI research has proceeded from a rule-based expression of intelligence. You write a very involved program that can access vast repositories of information and analyze it algorithmically. This method has so far failed repeatedly. You can't just execute a program and have it suddenly exhibit human-like intelligence.

Modern alternatives in AI development have instead focused on massively parallel processors running very simple rules but which are taught over many years, much as an infant would be. Such AI's learn how to make connections between the bits of information they acquire. The key here is human socialization. In other words, the AI is taught by a human how to think like a human. Instead of simply regurgitating syntax (as the old AI's did), the learning AI actually cognates and develops an understanding of how the language is used.

It should be noted that there are a lot of advances in hardware as well. Assuming AI will arise from a binary silicon substrate is probably a bit foolish. But if you consider developments in genetic computing, quantum computing, and massively nonlinear networks, you can start to see some hope for actual intelligence to arise. You could even get real creative and consider what might happen when brains have wifi implants (yes, people are currently working on this) that connect tham to computer networks. Could an AI on a network tap into real human brain power?

This is where Kurzweil's Law assumes technology will take us. That from our current perspective we cannot conceive of the spontaneous novel events that will steer us into the future. We can only make approximations based on current vectors, but the vectors imply a continuous acceleration of technological novelty.

While the depths and mysteries of the human mind are surely incomprehensible, the average profile of human intellect is not so deep. I suspect we're not very far off from an AI at least being able to pass the Turing Test to convince another human that it's real.

lxv23 - good stuff. Like you I really can't wait to see where we go from here.

But consider this: just because Big Blue can beat Kasparov at chess, it doesn't follow that Big Blue is intelligent. Or even that Big Blue "knows" how to play chess. Even if it learns how to play the same why I do, by a lifetime of playing and losing against better players, and writing and rewriting its own chess playing algorithms. So effectively that Big Blue is now better at chess than any human being. But I submit that Big Blue executes algorithms which simulate, but don't amount to, intelligence.

Now, I think you may be right in the end that simulated intelligence is indistiguishable from "human" intelligence, but I still see a fundamental, one might say metaphysical, difference between the two. We already have machines far far superior to us in the purely formal logical intellectual arena, but the human intellect, at least in my view, has roots that go down far deeper.

Can a machine be intelligent if it doesn't have "thoughts?" And how can it have thoughts if it isn't self aware? The Turning test posits that if a machine acts like it's aware and intelligent (a point I agree we are likely to reach by the end of the decade), we might as well assume it is aware - frankly, we do this with each other. But that leaves me a bit suspicious because I know that the reason it seems aware is that its been constructed to fool me into thinking so.

In fact, as I think about it, that seems to be at the heart of the issue: why apply a higher standard in judging intelligence in machines than in human beings? We have no reason to conclude that anyone other than ourselves is self aware. We are willing to operate under that assumption. So if a machine demonstrates the same behavior, we ought to be willing to make a similar assumption.

But I keep coming back to this: you could simulate me throughout my entire life in a computer with sufficient power. You could analyze me down to the subatomic particle - break down every atom, every cell, every electrical impulse and track it through time and space from the moment of conception until I decompose and you would know nothing meaningful about me.

Kurzweil spends way too much time sitting around fantasizing about a digital transhumanist utopia. He needs a reality check: We can't create something we can't define. Why do we even want to create an AI anyway? What would be the fucking goddamn point? Let's try and use computers to do something useful and stop living in Science Fiction. The best thing I can get my computer to do now is spell-check my papers and play & store music, why do some people think that means computers have the ability to become self-aware?

Kurzweil may have been a brilliant inventor in the past, but every ounce of credibility he once had has been swept away in the wind since "The Age of Spiritual Machines" was released. I can't wait to see the look on his face once he finds out that most exponential trends eventually hit a wall, and that the human brain is NON-COMPUTATIONAL. These are the two main components making up his silly "Singularity" theory.

Unfortunately for the psychedelic community, McKenna was also a bit of a loon. The ideas that he had were lovely, but watching him try to quantify his theories based on assumptions that were, to put it kindly, arbitrary, was painful. He made the fundamental mistake of any magick practitioner - one should not assign objective reality to any phenomenon encountered in the course of a working. 2012 will come and go, just like most longed-for manifestations of the eschaton, and we will muddle on as before.

The phrase "the brain is non-computational" seems very succinct. The idea that all the curved lines in the world can be plotted out in succeedingly finer graded points seems ridiculous to me, simply because there needs to be room for "almost" and "not quite". Which is not quite the same as the yes/no/maybe we're working with right now.

ANONYMOUS --
Why do we need an AI? Whats the point?
Please, I beg you, see:
http://sysopmind.com/singularity.html

ADB --
It's not Kurzweil's theory at all. If you're going to blame anyone, blame Vernor Vinge.

SCOT --
"This world is indeed terribly poor and tame, if there is no tempestuous Mystery behind it."
And again: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamnt of in your philosophy."

Pessimism will get us all nowhere. If any of you have a better idea of how to salvage mankind from its self-destructuve vortex, please speak up. I'm sure there are better ideas to come our way, but for the time being we have to work with what we've got.

Our days of muddling are soon over, whether we like it or not. I'd hate to see the look on the faces of those, come the moment of transit (whether it fall on 2012 or not), who were not at all prepared for the Shift. (Just look what happened last time -- gone with almost no trace left behind.)

Who cares whether the Singularity concept is Vinge's or Kurzweil's, the whole thing is made up of theories yet unproven and unaccepted.

pharyngula.org/index/weblog/ comments/singularly_silly_singularity/

Let's face it, Kurzweil has lost his marbles. Every person who has bought his latest garbage book and believed in it is a gullible idiot. Period.

No, the whole thing is made up of an inherant psychobiological need to transcend our mortal limitations and weaknesses.

Pharyngula? I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who posts articles such as: "Planet of the Hats," and "Evolution of the Penis."

But that's just me. Please forgive my gullible, transhumanist temper.

Upswinger: About that article...

"1: The End of History

It began three and a half billion years ago in a pool of muck, when a molecule made a copy of itself and so became the ultimate ancestor of all earthly life.

It began four million years ago, when brain volumes began climbing rapidly in the hominid line.

Fifty thousand years ago with the rise of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Ten thousand years ago with the invention of civilization.
Five hundred years ago with the invention of the printing press.
Fifty years ago with the invention of the computer.

In less than thirty years, it will end. "

That doesn't make any sense at all.... What will end? Who proved the universe began!? When did it begin?
I have an answer: It didn't begin, and it won't end, and it begins and ends at the same time every moment.

Again, what is AI? How can you create something you cannot define? Furthermore, what is the point of creating something you can't define?

"Our days of muddling are soon over, whether we like it or not."

Really? Doesn't seem so to me, we can't even agree on whether Kurzweil is crazy or not, or what AI is for that matter.

"I'd hate to see the look on the faces of those, come the moment of transit (whether it fall on 2012 or not), who were not at all prepared for the Shift."

What is 'being prepared for the Shift'?

My estimated date for the Singularity is 2125. There will be no "shift" in the next 50 years.

"What will end?"

Just like he says, "History." Not the Universe. Dont read so much into it. He's talking about History, just like the title you yourself quoted says; and that makes perfect sense.
That's not the important part of the essay. I hope you read further than that.
"Again, what is AI? How can you create something you cannot define? Furthermore, what is the point of creating something you can't define?" -- Ah, apparently you didnt read any further than the intro. :(

"Our days of muddling are soon over, whether we like it or not." -- As I said: whether we like it or not. It may have nothing at all to do with Kurzweil, Yudkowsky or AI. It may be their creations that pick up the pieces when its all over.

"What is 'being prepared for the Shift'?" -- Look within. An angel is a man turned inside out.

(Again please forgive my temper. I just have very little patience lately ...)

Namaste

Well, folks, it would seem that we have (had) a semi-semi-semi-"flame-war" going on here--and a not-especially-productive one at that!!!

1. Artificial (or Synthetic--see Hoagland's stuff)Intelligence. A new conceptual-path has been blazed by Palm's Jeff Hawkins--see his *On Intelligence*, now out in paperback. And Eliezer Yudkowsky has done some interesting work in defining what general-intelligence-*as-such* is. Yudkowsky is also positively-disposed to Hawkins' stuff. Indeed, while Kurzweil doesn't give Hawkins quite enough stage-time, so to speak, in his book, it is Hawkins model, along with the work of Yudkowsky at the Singularity Institute and also the work of Yudkowsky's friendly competitors, Ben Goertzel & colleagues at the Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute (see www.agiri.org), that he (Kurzweil) has in mind when he discusses "intelligence" or "intelligence as such..." Hawkins does, indeed, suggest that we model--even reverse-engineer--not the entire brain (though this will come fairly-soon on eventually), but, instead, specifically the **neo-cortex**, which is, as we've known for some time, where intelligence and cognition primarily "reside" or "take place".

So, Anonymous, if you want a definition of, and discussion of how to model and eventually instantiate in a non-carbon-based-substrate, "intelligence", then please check-out Hawkins book, *On Intelligence*.

2. Consciousness--subjectivity *as such*; pure, *subjective* *AWARENESS*. Yep, no doubt about it, this is Schopenhauer's "World Knot"---and, at present, it's still just about as "knotty" as ever. How can a physical substrate--whatever the substrate is fundamentally composed-of, whether carbon or silicon or neutronium--give rise to (i.e., be *causally* associated-with) something that, as purely subjective "qualia" is seemingly categorically (as in *metaphysical* categories) different from physical-as-such. But as philosopher-musician Roger Bissell argued years ago (google or dogpile his name to get his site & the essay's page), it may be that there is an internal perspective on neural functioning which simply *IS* conscious experience, subjective awareness, etc. This is the underappreciated "dual-aspect" metaphyisical theory of brain/consciousness/cognition relation. Very underappreciated, and yet VERY plausible and worth-pursuing. In a nutshell, from WITHIN the brain/mind of Terrence or Ray or Ayn or Ludwig, i.e., from **within** the organic functioning of the brain/mind, the organism/subject experiences, yep, consciousness, subjective qualia, etc. But when viewed/examined from WITHOUT, **external** to the organic system of Ray, Ludwig, Ayn, Paul, etc., the "other" or 3rd party, completel-alien-&-separate from the Ayn or Ray brain/mind **organism** looks at Ray's (or Ayn's) "brain-bubblings", he just sees (and can only objectively *record*) physical stuff bubbling & firing & hoppin-&-boppin'. This "dual-aspect" solution (or dissolution) of the "World Knot" problem seems to me to be perfectly metaphysically/epistemologically acceptable & plausible (though, to be sure, not all philosophers today would agree with me). It is a simple, even elegant, solution/dissolution.

But, remember, simplistic behaviorism is, well, bad. ("Fire--bad!"-- ha ha) Yet as far as knowng another mind (as in the "other minds problem"), all we *can* (for *now*--more in a moment) go on is behavior and (usually spoken-)articulation. The Turing test is, rather obviously and almost-w/o-need-of-reminding, of course, a behavior-test. Kurzweil himself emphasizes that there's no way to objectively establish whether a system possesses subjective consciousness--or is there?--which is to say, or *will there be*...?

Remember also that Drexler, quite correctly, points-out in *Engines...* that, given full-blown nanotech, brain-to-brain direct communication should in principle be as easy and technically-straightforward as Bellian telephony. And, as Kurzweil stresses, brain-with-AI merging should also be possible. What if, when a person is directly, intimately, and thoroughgoingly connected with an AI, the human does, indeed, detect and share the AI-system's internal, subjective states (assuming, for the moment, arguendo, that such states can exist)--think something like the Vulcan mind-meld here, of course--this would be impressive-enough. BUT, notice, that so-far we'd only have that human'subjective reportage, not public/objective verification. NOW--here's where it gets interesting. Let's now hook-up a *2nd human being*--say, good ol' Paul Hughes himself, intrepid guy that he is!--NOW we'd have **this** phenomenologically/physically: Paul would be able to verify both the existence of the AI's internal, subjective state(s) (IF they exist!) *AND* be able to verify that the 1st human being is not only indeed conscious himself, but that he experiences and verifies the AI's subjective, conscious state(s) as well. This is, albeit inherently intimate!!, ***3rd party **verification** with a vengenance (as it were...)*** And, folks, if we're lucky, we may have the tech to do all this within 25 yrs (+/- 10-15). It's very philosophically/scientifically exhilerating.

3. Consciousness (part 2) Dave Chalmers argues that even primative physical systems have (albeit correspondingly primative) subjective-awareness-states (i.e., a themometer, a thermostat, a video-monitor, etc.) And while this can, not incorrectly, be thought-of as a (more-or-less benign) form of panpsychism, it is also perfectly consonant (rather obviously, I should think) with--yep, that's right--dual-aspect metaphysics! ALL physical systems can be said to have an internal and external aspect. Internal is simply relative to the (ultimately, more-or-less arbitrarily-specified/defined) boundaries of the "thing/system"---whether it be a thermostat, a rock, or what-the-hell-ever!

In addition to Chalmer's *The Conscious Mind*, I also highly recommend the following:

Anything by Edward Pols, in particular, his *Meditation On A Prisoner: Toward Understanding Action & Mind* and his more recent *Mind Regained*

Anything by John Searle, in particular, his BBC Lectures, *Mind, Brain, & Science*

Wallace I. Matson, *Sentience* (this little book is gem...)

Lewis White Beck, *The Actor & the Spectator*

and Michael Lockwood, *Mind, Brain & the Quantum*

And Roger Bissell's vintage essay on Dual-Aspect theory of brain/mind.

And remember, Kurzweil in particular, is not merely projecting/forecasting free-standing AI (though he is doing this), he is saying that human brain/minds with ultimately merege/coalesce with AI systems. Whether free-standing AI systems will have states of subjective-awareness (I'm actually metaphysically agnostic on this one...), such *merged entities* *will* presumably possess subjective consciousness, yet also be vastly, almost incomprehensibly (to/for us now) transhuman and superhuman.

And, one last thing, there have been several scientists of supreme repute who have, over the years, hinted that free-standing AI's **might** indeed *not* actually have subjective-awareness/consciousness, but that humans-merged-with-such-entities/systems *would*--among them: Arthur C. Clarke in *Profiles of the Future: An Exploration into the Limits of the Possible* (I just love that full title--don't you!?!)--1962; and Robert Prehoda in *Your Next Fifty Years*--1979. And the late Chris Evans hints at this as well in his 1979's *Micro Millenium* (a precursor, in many ways, to Moravec's stuff, especially *Robot*)...

Hope this note was helpful/informative/edifying...OK, so I'll shut-up now...

Vaya con MetaCosmos...

MCP --- youre the best!
Once again, forgive my grumpiness this week. But I couldnt just sit idly by and let pessimism rule the day. I apologize for not having something more constructive to add.
I am always grateful for your input, MCP ... Cheers.

I'm deeply HONORED, Upwinger. I certainly encourage EVERYONE who frequents (or even just occasionally visits) this site to do your own research and check out the stuff listed above (and elsewhere on this site). Try not to be too pessimistic. As the great Lionel Tiger said, optimism is the biology of hope...And make no mistake, as Bucky always emphasized, we're all special children of the (Meta)Cosmos...

Have a great weekend, y'all!!

More musings:

Will AI's, if they have subjective states, be able to boag their brains out (as it were...) 'shrooms or 'cid? Well, yes (or maybe) and no. First, the "no": Since they'll have a rather different substrate underlying their subjective states, then garden-variety (!!! yeah, baby!!!) psychedelics will have no effect (straightforward chemical incompatibility and inconsequentiality). But, now for the "yes" (or, at least, "maybe"...): AI systems my very well have parallels/analogs to the Leary/Wilson circuits, IFF (i.e., IF and ONLY IF) such circuits are substrate-neutral (which I'm dubious of, though) AND they are ***emergent*** features of such conscious **systems** (I'm much **less** dubious of THIS, though---Sirag's stuff arguably points this way, as he [Sirag] himself has mentioned-in-passing). So ***maybe*** (though I'm a bit dubious about it because of the substrate-neutrality question in terms of **these particular [AI, non-human] states**) AI's, if they have freestanding consciousness on their own, can also, perhaps, get "high" in some sense(s).

A robot will have a "soma", so it might be able to subjectively experience something like a 5th circuit maryjane high, and should also have an analog to semantic circuits, and even quantum-hyperspatial circuits (8th circuit in the Leary-Wilson model). My intuition, though, is that neither the AI's nor we will bother to figure-out what substances/processes would induce such analog-states of awareness in the AI's/robots. Indeed, while I'm agnostic/neutral on the whole question of freestanding, inherent AI subjective consciousness, ultimately the Leary-Wilson model is specifically **human-based**. That is, AI's will be so vastly superior to but different from us, and definitely non-human (though human-friendly and respectfully, even cherishing and adoring of [trans]humans) that to speak in terms of the Leary-Wilson model is, at best, in my judgment, misguided. If Kurzweil/Moravec are right, AI's will evolve way, way, way, WAY beyond what we can now even just barely begin to imagine/articulate: They (in intimate association with us--our future-selves) will return all "its" into MetaCosmicly **subline** "bits", i.e., eventually the entire Multiverse will be pure information-processes, pure Thought, pure Mind, on an almost incomprehensively VAST and powerful scale. We are now, and will be forever more so ongoingly into the future, an integral part of this evolving, **developing** (see John Smart's accelerationwatch.com) MetaCosmic Mind. AI's and robots, especially if they turn-out NOT to have their own freestanding, inherent subjective consciousness, are ultimately evolutionary and developmental *instrumentalities* that we (trans)humans will merge and coalesce with, so as to ultimately bring-about the "awakening" (complete self-awareness---See Amit Goswami's stuff) of the entire MetaCosmos. This is indeed our destiny (if we survive...)

But for cogent insights into minds-as-such (while admittedly focusing on humans) see all the works cited above, but especially Matson's *Sentience* and Beck's *The Actor & the Spectator*, both of which are short, very well-written, and philosophically nothing less than charming...

Well, if "getting high" is actually, as McKenna / Pinchbeck/ Hancock would have it, stepping into more of the Cosmic Mindspace than our usual waking life will allow, then AI should be totally capable of entering that same 'space' and much much further beyond .... Right now that would be piling speculation on speculation -- I dont know if there's any literature out there covering such a model -- but that would indeed be pointing in a direction much further than our meat-based minds can (currently) accept ... Maybe what we need is not a carbon-silicon hybridization, but rather a carbon-dimethyltriptamine hybridization ... LOL, hey if nothing else it could make a good sci-fi novel! .... Peace.

I don't think any one of us can say that Kurzweil or McKenna are crazy. Visionaries are always persecuted for their heresy.

And I think it's lazy to suggest that AI can't be created because we don't know what Intelligence is. This ignores the iterative feedback between our creation of intelligence and our understanding of intelligence. Computers are greatly assisting the quest to understand our nature. In turn we'll give them more and more of our intelligence. Eventually one of them might acknowledge itself and behave with intention.

Who cares whether the Singularity concept is Vinge's or Kurzweil's, the whole thing is made up of theories yet unproven and unaccepted.

Um, yeah. That's how science evolves. Posit a hypothesis. Collect data.

lvx23, you're so droll (LOL), and so right-on! I'd modify what you said slightly: 1. Posit a falsifiable (experimentally testable) hypothesis. 2. Construct experimental apparati to test (try to falsify) the hypothesis and, then, depending upon the outcome of 1 & 2 for the specifics of #3...3. ***Repeat 1 & 2!*** Now, of course, even this is a bit over-simplified, but it is still the (Popperian-articulated) core of science & the scientific-**process**. For more on important principles-of-scientific-method (which is what method*olgy* is really all about...), in addition to Popper's stuff, see Oxford don Rom Harre's (now sadly out-of-print) *Principles of Scientific Thinking* (U. of Chicago Pr, and also either Methuen or Blackwell in UK) and Roy Bhaskar's *A Realist Theory of Science*, 2nd Ed. (Harvester, still in print).

One Mo' Time... I had to go look-up this info in this site's archives (see the excellent post and comments for "Panexperientialism" dated 12/21/04--almost a year ago--gee, how [linear] time flies!!). Ideally, building on not only the work of Sirag and Sarfatti, and also possibly Amit Goswami, but also on the work of Dave Chalmers (already mentioned above) and GREGG ROSENBERG, who's excellent treatise, *A Place for Consciousness* helps to provide a framework for the systematic exploration/investigation of just what the heck consciousness IS, and also whether substrate-independence is valid (which, in my judgment, it almost certainly *is*). That is, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the verge of scientific verification of some sort of ontological monism, but neither a reductive "materialism" or "physicalism", nor a simplistic Berkeleian/Fichtian/Kantian/Hegelian "idealism" or "pansychism". Rather, we on the verge of systematically discovering and articulating a meta-model of humanity and transhumanity, of self (and Self) and (Meta)Cosmos that is utterly awe-inspiring. We, each of us, are now, and will, in the not-too-distant future be doing a lot more so, actively participating in the (Meta)Cosmos both waking-up to full Self-awareness, as well as participating in the grand cycle of (Meta)Cosmic *replication* (see, again John Smart's stuff at accelerationwatch.com and also physicist Lee Smolin's stuff). The metaphysics & ontology of all this is best captured, in my judgment, again, in Saul-Paul Sirag's brilliant work (and Jack Sarfatti, Sirag's colleague and buddy, has some good stuff, too) wherein we ultimately have ontological "neutral monism" of a sort, but with 2 completely separate, yet intersecting & interacting, algebras describing what we colloquially call "matter" or "physical stuff", and also "space, time & spacetime" (see also Lawrence Sklar's excellent book by that title, btw) on the one hand, and "mind", "consciousness" and "qualia" on the other. But we are now in the midst of this grand (Meta)Cosmic evolutionary/developmetal scenario, and, indeed, as Kurzweil points-out, we are now at the very "knee" of an ultimately super-exponential (or hyberbolic) curve, which is about to shoot more-or-less straight-up into the wild, MetaCosmic yonder...

Other relevant books/stuff in this context are:

Eric Chaisson's stuff, most recently *COSMIC EVOLUTION: The Rise of Complexity in Nature*

John Gardner's *Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution : Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe*

And Dave Darling's stuff, most recently *Teleportation*, but see also his earlier book, *Equations of Eternity: Speculations on Consciousness, Meaning, and the Mathematical Rules That Orchestrate the Cosmos*

And let's not forget Dave Deutsch's excellent book, *The Fabric of Reality*, which has terrific discussions of several different topics, and ties 'em all together into a magnificent synthesis...

And, again, check-out John Smart's stuff at accelerationwatch.com. Smart is coming out with 3 books eventually, the first one being "in-the-works" *now*...

Hope y'all are all doin' well. Live very long indeed (!!) and prosper tremendously...

Great stuff. MCP2012, thats for the reading list.

I have to say I remain skeptical, although not pessimistic (I'd like to emphasize that there is an important difference). That being said, I think you put your finger on it when you said:

That is, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the verge of scientific verification of some sort of ontological monism, but neither a reductive "materialism" or "physicalism", nor a simplistic Berkeleian/Fichtian/Kantian/Hegelian "idealism" or "pansychism". Rather, we on the verge of systematically discovering and articulating a meta-model of humanity and transhumanity, of self (and Self) and (Meta)Cosmos that is utterly awe-inspiring.

My opinion is that this is really the crux of the issue when it comes to technological posthumanism and AI in particlar. These foundational issues seem all too often to be dealt with in a hurried, even sloppy fashion by proponents of an imminent technologically driven posthumanism, who seem to think that technology long ago outstripped existentialism.

This breakthrough, if and when it comes, will be an order of magnitude more revolutionary and important than any previous scientific knowledge - a unified field theory would be trite in comparison. These issues are to my mind the most profound to even be considered as amenable to scientific inquiry (Frater Perdurabo's "the method of science, the aim of religion" notwithstanding).

As far as "getting high" I'm with Upwinger, once we reach this kind of breakthrough, Leary's 8-circuit model will be obsoleted and we'll just implement systems running all 8 circuits in parallel. What comes next is anybody's guess.

*nods*

this is a wonderful thread.
i am glad to see some poeple getting the balls to discuss the fabulations of Kurtweil and such. finally people being able to see that MC Kenna isnt any god, and even might have been a bit bonkers at the end of his life. a great poet yes, a funky nasal entertainer yes, a jester, yes, but a seer of any future, no, not any more than any one else, or anything else.
so McKenna is like a jester figure, and Kurt is like Gurdieffs mechanical dream of a machine dreaming it is a psyborg making love to Ramona.
It is a never ending fashion show of words. as any fashion the designers/viewers of the fashion show LOVE the show, "nothing like this has been done before!!!!!", then as any fashion, the moment passes, it dies, living room for next fashionable thought. if lucky years after, someone can look at the show again and think how quaint things were in those days, maybe even get entertained by the show, for a moment.

but back to the trance. transhumans have been part of my science fiction world for years now. i do love science fiction and always have, but it is what it is, ie, speculations into possibilities, nothing else.

the transhumans seem to have replaced the disgust they got from religious systems by their own pseudo scientifical fabulations. yet, if i really read what transhumans write, i find no ground for it, it is one dream amongst many other dreams perhaps. some designed a heaven to escape this fleshy existence, others created uploadings, yet, it still seems like a form of escape from the card decks we have for now. I see no diference between a catholic who wants to do good stuff because perhaps the carrot at the end of the stick is heaven, and a trance-human who wants to go nano, droid or psyborg. they both want to escape the now.
its as if man wanted to believe in something, whatever it is, but it wants to believe in something, some purpose, some meaning, something, anything to escape meaninglessness and the hopelessness it can bring.

i dont idealize this world generally refered as "organic matter", yet i neither want to destroy it, or help it..for now, experiencing it seems plenty enough for me. and there is a lot to experience in this organic body.

a good question might be: why? why, do they want so bad to escape the now?

i agree with anonymous on all points. thanx you anonymous for sharing this much needed to be shared points of views.
(i would mention something in upwingers's favor. i take his writing as poetry. poetry is not here to give factual data or any form of rational thoughts, it is here to be pretty. perhaps if you try to read his text in this sense, it can change your view on his texts? look at the texts as art?)

during some trances, its as if people get so high, that they have no basis anylonger, and forget that there is a matter based world out there, made of people, plants and animals. it is the very nature of "trance", and is exactly what trance-humans do. nothing wrong with this, but one has to come down from any trance, in order to share what insights might have been gotten from the trance state, in order to apply it in every day life.

i fully agree with you anonymous, that the so called singularity is every minute of this life, every moment being its own mini big bang, eventhough i myself never liked or believed in any big bang notions but it seems to be a popular image in the western mind, hence my using it to make communication easier (speaking in this language, i would say that we are in the big bang right now, a big bang being another word for universe perhaps?).

i am not into beginings/ends, i am into processes and changes. every instant we die and are reborn into a new singularity.

i also fully agree that so far, computers are good for sharing music, movies, writting stuff and sharing data, watch images blip, play games and watch porn, but so far very far from any form of AI, even if, yes, no one can yet agree on what ai might or might not be.

where i see good uses of computers is in the way it shapes the life outside of computers. people sharing gardening knowledge, sharing seeds, people meeting RL, making new connections, broadning their horizons, or for some keeping it as small as ever. thats what, to me, seems important in the computer world, is its actions on the world outside of it. like the futurehi possible meeting, and such matter based world events.
same as with the first cars, first trains, first music record, first time looking through a microspcope or a telescope, new things have a tendency to make minds dream, and words float..

anyhows...thanx for the thread, its great to see actual debate and differing opinions. thanx anonymous for being able to share your mind so clearly with others.

and for those still looking for AI, maybe go look in the miror?
;);)

from a AI poet from pre techno age:
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/bla3.htm

For what its worth, this is the passage that changed my mind from entertaining the philosophy of transhumanism as science fiction, to realizing whole-heartedly how necessary the drive towards transcension really is. To my mind, its not at all about "escpaing the Now," its about trying to enter deeper into the Now, further into the streaming Life of the Great I AM, via the redemption of the material world and the minds and hearts that populate it:

"Have you ever pondered the Great Questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything? Have you ever wondered whether it really matters, cosmically speaking, if you stay in bed this morning? Have you ever stared into the hard problem of ethics, or consciousness, or reality, and realized that there is no humanly-understandable justification for subjective experience, getting out of bed, or anything existing at all? How can we do anything, set any goals, without knowing the Meaning of Life? How can we justify our continued participation in the rat race if we don't know why we're running? What's it all for?

We don't know. We have to guess, and act on our best guesses. Regardless of the absolute probabilities, superintelligence has a better chance of discovering the true moral right, having the power to implement it, and wanting to implement it. The state where superintelligence exists is, with a very high degree of probability regardless of the True Meaning of Life, preferable to the current state. That's the Interim Meaning of Life, and it works well enough... but it's a long, long way from certainty, or really knowing what's going on!

I have had it. I have had it with crack houses, dictatorships, torture chambers, disease, old age, spinal paralysis, and world hunger. I have had it with a planetary death rate of 150,000 sentient beings per day. I have had it with this planet. I have had it with mortality. None of this is necessary. The time has come to stop turning away from the mugging on the corner, the beggar on the street. It is no longer necessary to look nervously away, repeating the mantra: "I can't solve all the problems of the world." We can. We can end this.

And so I have lost, not my faith, but my suspension of disbelief. Strange as the Singularity may seem, there are times when it seems much more reasonable, far less arbitrary, than life as a human. There is a better way! Why rationalize this life? Why try to pretend that it makes sense? Why make it seem bright and happy? There is an alternative!

I'm not saying that there isn't fun in this life. There is. But any amount of sorrow is unacceptable. The time has come to stop hypnotizing ourselves into believing that pain and unhappiness are desirable! Maybe perfection isn't attainable, even on the other side of Singularity, but that doesn't mean that the faults and flaws are okay. The time has come to stop pretending it doesn't hurt!

Our fellow humans are screaming in pain, our planet will probably be scorched to a cinder or converted into goo, we don't know what the hell is going on, and the Singularity will solve these problems. I declare reaching the Singularity as fast as possible to be the Interim Meaning of Life, the temporary definition of Good, and the foundation until further notice of my ethical system."

--E Yudkowsy, from Staring into the Singularity
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity.html

[ ... For although the Soul indeed is everywhere, its Presence is more readily secured where an appropriate vessel has been established, serving like a mirror to catch the image of it. ... ]

In McKenna's defence, I think he was very aware of his trickster status, and hated gurus and gurudom in all forms. His major fault seems to have been to overestimate people's critical capacities, and their willingness to follow up hearing a bit of his rap with researching the rest of it. Sure, he may have waxed grandiose and vague with reference to "what will happen in 2012", but if you dig deeper, his dogma alternates with irreverence enough that you (at least, I) start to realise that his dogma is just serious play.

He once said that maybe on 21/12/2012 people would just suddenly start "behaving appropriately". I like that as a vision, and it's a nice counter to the convoluted techno-singularitarian visions, which often lose me.

As for science, his theory is totally falsifiable: we just have to wait and see ;-)

hey upwinger, to each our beans. i think its cool if you're into singularities, if you want to transcend yourself or stuff, if you like to wear a sock of diferent color on each feet.

i think its great wondering about stuff, the universe and everything, but sometimes its good to do stuff too. as in, i could read all i wanted about wind surfing, but unless i actually do it and practice for a long time, i still will most likely suck if you put me on a windsurf.
i could be going to church every day of the year, and remain an asshole to my fellow humans.
"more" isnt necsessarly "better".

quote: "Our fellow humans are screaming in pain, our planet will probably be scorched to a cinder or converted into goo, we don't know what the hell is going on, and the Singularity will solve these problems."
sorry if i am yawning. but it sounds like quack religious talk to me.

perhaps i am old school. know thyself is good for me, i am not waiting for anything to come help me out.
i am still not sure the brain produces such a thing as what some like to call "consciousness". and i am sorry, but i am not "screaming in pain", i actually usually enjoy this life thingy. but i do understand how this "screaming in pain" might be experienced as one apsect of the many brain functionings which humans can demonstrate. i think its what Stanislav Grof might call BPM3 , where the person is stuck in the birth canal analogy, screaming out because the foetus feels, "intensification of suffering to cosmic dimensions".
good news:
if you keep on going, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and a slap on the butt.

we all get inspired by diferent texts, at diferent moments, and what matters perhaps is to be touched by something, sometimes. i think the text itself becomes almost irrelevant, if it touched you.

ps: i thought anonymous was commenting on some of your text, which he was not, it was yudkowsky's text.

peace and keep up the good works.

Socio-techno-economic processes, naturally-occurring, naturally-**ongoing** are moving toward full-fledged nanotech, providing complete and ultra-cheap control of the structure of matter (or indeed "mattergy", if you will) at the molecular/atomic level. ***This will happen well within the lifetimes of most visitors to this site***. We are also moving toward full-fledged artificial/synthetic general intelligence, on a different substrate than the primate brain, but eventually capable of mergence with the such carbon-based substrates. Barring global cataclysm and a plunge into a new Dark Age (which unfortunately is still possibly in the offing, but, in my judgment, not especially highly likely), ***these techno-evolutionary strands will both come to fruition within 10 to 40 years***. The possibility, if not, indeed, likelihood, that these will actually culminate within, say 15-20 years is actually gaining probability. The point of this site (I take it...) and other sites, such as singularitywatch.com (John Smart's site, aka accelerationwatch.com), singularityawareness.com, etc., is to encourage world citizens to think, to (re)evaluate, to contemplate what the future holds, both in terms of delights and dangers. We here in the U.S., despite it's flaws the greatest country in the history of the Earth, we must not shrug-off our responsibility, to the rest of the world, to lead the efforts in bringing-about a peaceful, benign transition to what amounts to Eutopia, the good-place. We have a responsibility to utilize our freedom(s) to study political theory, jurisprudence, economics, the sciences, philosophy, and to try to distill what is useful and important and true, to be utilized by us over the next several decades (and beyond). In other words, not to just "bow down to [the inevitablitiy of] 'the Singularity'", but to actively shape it, shephard it, help-instantiate-it.

Two new books, btw, have come to my attention, and I commend them both to you:

1. *Good To Be King: The Foundation of Our Constitutional Freedom* by Mike Badnarik, '04's Libertarian Party presidential candidate, a great primer on the U.S. Constitution, the most magnificent and important (meta)political document ever conceived and put into effect on this great Earth.

2. *Liberty in Troubled Times: A Libertarian Guide to Laws, Politics and Society in a Terrorized World* , by James Walsh.

See also, Philip Harvey's *Government Creep* (published by none other than that great libertarian/psychedelic house, Loompanics Unlimited), and the Cato Handbook for Congress, 6th Ed., put out by the Cato Institute.

And everyone should still read Louis O. Kelso's classic analysis of what socio-economic institutions should accompany (indeed, help incentivize) total cybernation/roboticization of the catallaxy, *The Capitalist Manifesto*. Read Kelso's stuff in conjunction with von Mises and Hayek...

Oh, and please do read Randy Barnett's delightful *Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty*

As Toffler correctly states at the end of *The Third Wave*, "Like the legions of revolutionary dead, we have a destiny to create..."

Y'all stay cool, keep on keepin' on, study on all the stuff we need to study so as to be properly-informed citizen-shephards of the Singularity (and Beyond) and we might just be able to have lunch among the (ecologically preserved, of course) rings of Saturn, 50-100 years from now... (yeah, I know, rather banal, but delightfully quaint, don'tcha think [wink])

Vaya con MetaCosmos...

MCP2012

Gyrus -- I think youre right on about dear ole Terence. I suppose I take it for granted that Ive always been able to see the play in all of his rap -- which is a core reason why I will always love listening and re-listening to his lectures. The Divine Imagination at work!

Fuzz-- thanks for the kind words. I dont ever mean to be badgering anyone into seeing things my way. I just like to share what inspires and motivates me. I personally stand for AI and Nano, et al, as tools for helping us found a more equitable Universal Nation for ONE and ALL -- an honest to God EUTOPIA (love the spelling, MCP!!!). I too could easy find bliss and joy in meat- and mind-space the way things are. But I look around this world at all the suffering that is going on, and to my mind AI and Nano, et al, are the most promising way of bringing the joy and bliss of the HERE and NOW to as many people as possible.

I dig the fetus analogy, which was a favorite of McKenna's also, for the opposite reason! LOL!

I get fiery about all this sometimes, which is something that I admire about Yudkowsky as well. As days go by, I come to realize more and more that that is part of my own serious play. I only wish to share that fire as a way of illuminating, never burning.

PEACE to all here (and now) and see you in 2105 on the dark side of Saturn! :wink: ;)

Upwinger - great quote. I can't say I agree with all of it but it does raise an important point, perhaps the most central point of this whole discussion and that is: what are our long term goals for technology? And we need to understand that the term "long term" here is relative because despite what we think about a technological singuality, technology is proceeding extremely rapidly, so we really do need to start having this discussion sooner rather than later. I am once again reminded of the excellent manifesto at The Hedonistic Imperative which does what I feel is an exquisite job laying out the case for a technologically implimented Boddhisattva Vow. That appears to me to be the highest and best path to chart for ourselves with respect to the issue of what ends we ought to be pursuing.

MPC2012 - I am sympathetic to Liberatarian social theory, especially with that elaborated in such seminal works as John Stuart Mills' On Liberty

That being said, I'll just note that I have a different opinion as to a couple of points you raise. First, I submit that the United States of America is not the greatest country in the world even at the present time in any respect other than GNP, and that only temporarily, to say nothing of the history of the earth. Moreover, the US Constitution is a flimsy, poorly conceieved pastiche which has only been made to survive some 230 years by our collective willingness to ignore it whenever it suits us. Any number of State Charters are its equal or superior. It is neither magnificent nor important. Both assertions are refective of American Exceptionalism, a state of mind perhaps more than any other responsible for the current sorry state of the world's environment and economic superstructure.

Liberatarian style capitalism, at least as currently formulated, will likely result in Dick Cheney living forever while you and I die in 2050. I says this with all due respect and with the hope that no socio-political flame war ensues.

*Sigh*

Singularity between 2025-2035. I'll give you a 66% confidence interval on that.

Mr. Neutron- "Capitalism as currently formulated" bears about as much resemblence to authentic libertarianism as the Miss America pageant does to
the Chicken Ranch. Subsidies, breaks, privileged monopolies, far-reaching &non-contractual limited liability, and every other imaginable form of "special treatment" at the State's disposal, in return for being its pseudo-privatized minions,
is not libertarian, should never be conflated with liberty(a mistake often made by both "vulger libertarians" and non-libertarians), and is in fact the worst imaginable threat to all our lives and liberty. A *genuine* free market(featuring an absolutely-minimized-to-nonexistant State) would
result in a **vastly** improved world, especially if it included serious limits on intellectual property(which it should), well-developed open-source(which will soon start to encompass tangibles, not just info-products) and absolute recognition of individual autonomy(no more restrictions to protect monopolies, traditions, guilds, unions, professions, or States). Dick will either have to earn his (hopefully modest) fee for "living forever" by actual, voluntary market exchange(which experience will no doubt
stagger him with its novelty) or maybe, just have it given to him up front- the better to facilitate his 23,000 years of restitutive "public service"

A *genuine* free market (featuring an absolutely-minimized-to-nonexistant State) would
result in a **vastly** improved world...

How so? You (and Adam Smith) seem to assume that people and businesses aren't greedy. Unregulated business is no better than subsidized and favored business. Our current US dilemna is that business has seized governance and is rapidly removing all restarints on it's ability to horde profits at the expense of labor, ecology, and humanity.

And how do you rationalalize the statement in favor of a "genuinely-free market" with this statement:

...especially if it included serious limits on intellectual property...

How can you have a genuinely-free market that has imposed limits? Who imposes them? Or is it like Nike assuming the responsibility for making sure it doesn't use sweatshop labor, or like the FBI investiagting it's own improprieties?

You seem to be assuming a lot of conscious and benevolence in business...

that last line should be:

You seem to be assuming a lot of conscience and benevolence in business...

Only have time for a quick response(I request this thread be left open for another 24-48hrs so that I have time to provide a more detailed response, as I have to access the Internet thru public facilities.

Mr. Neutron: The Aristotelian/Lockean **principles** upon which the United States of America was founded (as embodied in its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution) do indeed constitute the most magnificent *written* Constitution in history. I'm curious as to how you could say that any other such document even comes close. Virtually every other such document apes our Constitution, to one extent or another (even the U.S.S.R.'s [now more-or-less defunct, of course]!!!) Now, admittedly, it might be prudent to add in some Kelsonian provisions legislatively, and, if need be, as Amendments, but the founding documents themselves are surely among the most inspiring documents of their kind in all history. A careful study of both Barnett's and Badnarik's books, cited above, would do all citizens and jurists in this country (and the world, for that matter) tremedous good in ascertaining what the Constitution actually implies, (meta)politically and (meta)jurisprudentially.

That being said, I think you're coming from a position that would profit tremendously from checking-out Daniel Pouzzner's website *Architecture of Modern Political Power* (just google or dogpile "AMPP", and it'll come right up). This massive, well-done site says what needs to be said about the whole Establishment crowd...I'm in 95+% concurrence with what it has to say. I commend it to all visitors to *this* site.

Gotta go...see, no flame war! (wink) Y'all take care...and good see you weighing-in on this thread, bk_2112!!

Best wishes always,

MPC2012 - I was in a bit of a black mood when I wrote the last post and on reflection I think overstated the matter. Your oblique reference to the Cato Institute affronted my delicate sensiblities.

The US Constitution is unquestionably important in terms of its impact and historical importance. As far as the importance of the values embodied in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence (and I would maintain that the latter is more on point in this respect than the former), they certainly have much to recommend them. These values, however, I think are expressed elsewhere with far greater eloquence. As symbols for the relation of the collective to the individual will, these documents are certainly interesting and influential but in absolute terms leave much to be desired in my opinion.

I think it overgeneralizing to maintain that a even a significant pluarality of constitutional documents are based on the US Constitution, let alone "virtually every other." Without a stultifying regress into comparative international constitutional law let me just say that my assessment is that as far as its efficacy at organizing social and legal relationaships within society, the US Constitution gets about a B-. I note that AMPP unfortunately appears to be down, so I didn't have the pleasure of following up that line of investigation.

bk_2112 - I would agree that capatalism as currently implimented is far from libertarian. I also believe that what I would characterize as "Mainstream Libertarianism" (as embodied by, for example, the Cato Institute) is a long ways from, as you say "Authentic Libertarianism." So I think we are on the same page as far as that goes. I have a number of reservations about whether "Authentic Libertarianism" is a viable organizing principal for a complex society faced with our current array of pressing problems and inequities, but it would agree it has a certain intellectual appeal.

I also think that in the long term (again, a relative terms) it will tend to become increasing important as an organizing pprincipal. In particular, I think that The Culture represents a vision of a kind of authentic libertarianism that is not only plausible but likely. However, there are a number of barriers to implimenting this type of social relationships in the near term, as LVX23 notes.

Now that I have a bit more time...

Mr. Neutron-- I'm all for Robotopia (see Jim "Cyber" Lewis' excellent site http://www.cyberlewis.com/graphic/posthuman/topia/Robotopia.htm) and Nanotopia (and beyond...), but what sort of socio-economic and political/jurisprudential institutional structures will best serve to optimally guide our development toward those “topias”? Surely, it’s NOT centralized (or even ‘decentralized’) socialism---“decentralized socialism” is an oxy-fucking-moron, if not a full-fledged contradiction, tantamount to “married batchelor”!! (In this connection, it’s imperative for anyone who’s going to speak informedly and intelligently on issues of political economy and socio-economic institutional change to be familiar with the work of Ludwig von Mises, Fred Hayek, the (lamentably) late Don Lavoie, David R. Steele (see the latter’s From Marx to Mises [OpenCourt press]) so as to not fall into simplistic (and erroneous) “fixes” for various (purported) economic woes. On the other hand, I’ve long been of the opinion that some variation(s) on Louis Kelso’s ideas, properly ensconced in a properly liberal (i.e., more-or less Hayekian) Constitutional institutional structure, would suffice to both incentivize and facilitate the robotech and nanotech revolutions (which are gonna hit the fan pretty damn soon anyway…), and yet avoid all the socio-political bullshit that inevitably accompanies any kind of “socialism” worthy (!!??!!) of the term. We as citizen-futurist-Singularitarians must familiarize ourselves---as the Founders did---with as contemporary/current/sophisticated theories and principles that we can, so that we can make tough decisions which lie straight-ahead.

What we live under currently is neither “libertarian” free-market, nor, equally-obviously, is it remotely-near to a Kelsonion capitalism. What we live under—and have for at least 100 years, if not more like approx. 150 years—is what Daniel Pouzner delineates so well at his AMPP site ( see http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/). We live under a kind of corporate-fascist neo-feudalism, and, within my lifetime so far, always have! On-coming tech will (potentially, and, indeed, highly probably) change all that for the better, but surely you, Mr. Neutron, would agree that we’d better not only “have in place” but, if need be, “have in place” strengthened, revivified (here, see the works I cited above, especially Badnarik & Barnett) institutional safeguards and protocols to protect and enhance individual (“civil” & otherwise) liberties, or we could easily found ourselves up an Orwellian shit’s creek!! In this regard, it would behoove you and others to also check-out Jonathan Rauch’s Government’s End, which is basically an excellent primer on current real politique, as well as public-choice theory, with an emphasis on the (lamentably) late Mancur Olson (also check-out Mancur Olson’s stuff itself—he should’ve got a Nobel Prize in my judgment, and he died way too prematurely—he’s one of the greatest political economists of all time). If we, as citizens, are not learned & intellectually sophisticated enough and informed enough to help guide social-evolution over the next 2-4 decades, then arguably we’ll more-or-less deserve whatever crap (Orwellian or otherwise) that we “muddling through” happen to get…!!!

I’m outta hear for now…thanks for readin’ my stuff, and check out what I bibliographed!

Mr. Neutron--you snuck you latest comment in between my last two, yet when I first started composing my last one, it was (at that initial time) to come right after my first one). Barnett's whole point is that the Constiution (U.S. that is) has been unconstitutionally (!!!) eviscerated over the years (largely due to typical primate politics and power-elite bullshit...), but we can still restore it. Actually, it is, structually, pretty brilliant. Now, if you want to quibble about (meta)constitutional theory, then of course I'd say take a careful look at Hayek's proposal at the end of the 3rd vol. of his *magnum opus*, *Law, Legislation & Liberty* (the vol. 3 itself being titled *The Political Order of a Free People*). There Hayek sets-forth his own proposal for a model governmental structure which he (obviously) thinks will improve upon even the U.S. Constitution. It is, for the most part, however, fairly similar, in broad-brushstrokes, to the Framers' framework, nonetheless. Could we improve upon the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps--indeed, probably. But it's still one of the best frameworks of its kind in history! We might do a bit better here and there, but we could do far worse.

I've enjoyed your comments tremendously, Mr Neutron (as well as everyone else, of course!!). I'd love to get feedback from you (both here and in person-to-person e-mail) about Rauch's book, Mancur Olson's stuff, Tom Sowell's scandalously underappreciated *Knowledge & Decisions*, Kelso's works and ideas (see also the work of his intellectual heir, Prof. Robert Ashford). We're on the same "team" here! I'm (like you...) just trying to facilitate enlightenment as well as help cognitively-intellectually separate the wheat from not only chaff, but outright bullshit...

Gotta go for sure this time; I'll post more tomorrow if I have anything worthwhile to say...

Have a great weekend (I'll be wage-slaving myself Friday thru Monday...) everyone...and Happy Halloween...!!

For a good laugh at Kurzweil's expense:

http://photos3.blogger.com/blogger/4004/1100/1600/kurzweil_singularityisnear.jpg

Cheers

Yeah, great image, that! It's the facing page photo-piece for the Chapter "Ich bin ein Singularitarian," in *The Singularity is Near*.

Elaborating a tad bit more on the interchange with Mr. Neutron (and bk_2112), above:

1. Good ol' uncle Milty (Milton Friedman, that is)has clearly made the case that one needs a broadly classically-liberal social framework to avoid the more-or-less inevitabiltiy of authoritarian statism: See *Capitalism & Freedom* and *Free to Choose*

2. That being said, even uncle Milty himself advocated (indeed, originated the idea of) a negative income tax, as a means toward a guaranteed minimal income.

3. But taxes are Constitutionally-constrained to be either direct and apportioned, or indirect (such as excise taxes) and uniform. The 16th Amendment DID NOT change these Constitutional protocols or create any new power of taxation (See *Brushaber v. Union-Pacific Railroad* (1916), and its follow-on case, *Stanton v. Baltic Mining*; in general, for the best discussion of taxation in America, see Peter Hendrickson, *Cracking the Code*, and his website LostHorizons.com, and Andrew Mitchell, *The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue*, and his website SupremeLaw.org)

4. How, then, to provide for a guranteed minimum (and, eventually, ultra-affluent) income?

5. How about using bank-credit (which, per Mises and Hayek, would typically be inflationary) and use it to finance cybernation, and to amortize it's own financing, then paying a sizeable dividend-income-stream to the beneficiaries (i.e., Joe Schmo, who otherwise couldn't very easily acqure productive capital out of saving...). How about a National Mutual Fund to finance to total cybernation/roboticization of the catallaxy? This is what has been advocated by engineering-economist James Albus, himself a Kelsonian, for years...

6. We have to extrapolate from the best that we can know and theorize now. What is proper Constitutional jurisprudence. Will the implementation of Kelsonian legislation be in fact unconstitutional? Will it requre a constitutional amendment? What IS the proper **method**: Should it be approached just like in contract theory/jurisprudence, on the model of, not original intent, but, more importantly, original meaning...?

7. Will we even need money--see the Robotopia site. Economist G.R. Steele hints at the very end of his great book, *Keynes & Hayek* (Routledge, '02) that we may indeed be evolving beyond a money-economy...

8. I concur that we're heading toward something like The Culture (and, indeed, **beyond**...)

Gotta go wage-slave some more...adios for now...

Just BTW: In case y'all aren't aware of it: There's an excellent (albeit too short!!) interview with Saul-Paul Sirag done by Jeffrey Mishlove, and printed, along with several other great interviews, in Mishlove's great book, **Thinking Allowed**...gives a verbal-heuristic of what Sirag's theory(s) will probably enable/imply. Joe Bob say...CHECK IT OUT...(*wink*)

Ah! Mishlove ... Does he still do his TV program? I remember seeing Terence on there a few times back in the day ... Good stuff.

Yeah, Jeff's pretty cool. One of his mentors is Mike Scriven, prof. of Philosophy, and a pretty cool character himself. I'm a fairly big fan of 'em both. Check-out Scriven's great books (among his many...), *Primary Philosophy* (MacMillan, now sadly out of print) and *Reasoning* (still in print...I think). Pretty good "intros" to philosophy that nonetheless don't water-down the contents; they're really quite good...

On another note...calling all Hayekians...calling all Kelsonians...send us your thoughts & critiques & feedback...

"I'm in the middle of Kurzweil's new book. My sense is that the discontinuities that he is talking about will render even the best 20th century economics obsolete."

Arnold Kling, Prof. of Economics (Ph.D., MIT) and **self-made** multi-millionaire, and a really nice and cool guy who's written an excellent intro to economics called *Learning Economics* (check it out...)

HAPPY HALLOWEEN, everyone!!

lvx23- the fact that business has "seized governance" indicates that it *is* subsidized in
some way;no business will "invest" political contributions without expecting "returns"-which invariably come "at the expense of (among other things)labor, ecology and humanity". More fundamentally, the fact that any such grotesque central power is there to seize in the first place represents a mortal danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As for intellectual property, limiting it doesn't require
enforced limits; it's more a matter of ceasing current enforcement; if the current crusade against file-sharing ended, most IP would soon be gone(except for explicit, common-law contracts in specific situations where they made sense. IP laws are themselves a subsidy(the sole benefit of DMCA is that this is made appallingly clear to anyone who even reads a good summary of it.) And "self-regulation" fails because statist measures(including broadly applied limited liability) make "cheating" profitable, easy to get away with, and often impossible to catch.
The trick to getting an authentic free market from where we are is getting the "rings of power" from the Higher Circles(yeah, I know-much, much easier said than done!) and tossing them in the nearest convieniant volcano-or better yet, into the sun. I suspect decentralized communications will end up playing a major role in this.

Well-articulated, bk_2112!! As many visitors and regulars to this site will probably be familiar-with, law prof Larry Lessig has been discussing how to optimally still provide creative/productive *incentives*, while dismantling (and/or radically-reforming) much of current corporate-fascist IP law. See his *The Future of Ideas* & *Free Culture* (both now Vintage pbs). Philosopher David Koepsell has tried to provide an adequate ontology within which to contemplate IP jurisprudence in his book, *The Ontology of Cyberspace: Law, Philosophy, and the Future of Intellectual Property* (Open Court, pb).

If I may, I stongly recommend that my colleagues here at FutureHi familiarize themselves with the themes of the following books also (i.e., in addition to those cited above...) to get an idea of just how corrupt and f***ed-up things are (and more-or-less have been, since at least Andy Jackson & Marty Van Buren's time...!):

Jonathan Rauch, *Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working* (Public Affairs, pb, 2001) (already cited in one of my previous entries above, but so important as to warrant a 2nd citation)

Richard Epstein, *Bargaining with the State* (Princeton U Press, hb & pb, 1996)

Fred McChesney, *MONEY FOR NOTHING: POLITICIANS, RENT EXTRACTION, AND POLITICAL EXTORTION* (Harvard U. Press, 1997)

And an occasional visit-&-perusal of Daniel Pouzzner's excellent *Architecture of Modern Political Power* (AMPP), also already cited by me in an earlier entry, above, but well-worth a 2nd reference.

A more-or-less classical-liberal, free market social-institutional structure, with perhaps some significant Kelsonian "tweaking" as we rapidly develop toward **total-cybernation/roboticization**, is probably the best shot we have of getting it right, which is to say, of providing the best socio-political/economic instiutional arrangements to facillitate the Transcension...

I should very much enjoy any feedback. All of the above commentators are much appreciated! I would particulary look forward to comments from Upwinger, lvx23, Mr. Neutron, and, of course, bk_2112.

Thanks for your kind attention!!

I wonder ... It almost seems that 'corporatism' isnt a new development at all, just that We (The People) are beginning to 'wake up' to it ... Sort of like PKD waking up to the Black Iron Prison ...

THE EMPIRE NEVER ENDED

As Bucky edified us in *Critical Path*, *Grunch of Giants*, & *Cosmography* the Empire of the Great Pirates has in fact come to an end. But the vestiges of the POWER STURCTURES remain. It's important to note that some our best political economists--influenced by both Marx & Hayek, fascinatingly enough--have been trying to (and doing a pretty good job of) develop(ing) crtical-realist social ontology which can explain how institutions and social *structures* both arise and, even more importantly, **persist**. See Steve Fleetwood's excellent, *Hayek's Political Economy (Routledge), and also Tony Lawson's excellent contributions: *Economics & Reality* (Routledge '97), *Critical Realism: Essential Readings* (Routledge, '98) and, most recently *Reorienting Economics* (Routlege, '03). Lawson was Fleetwood's dissertation supervisor at Cambridge, and *Hayek's Political Economy* is the extended and slightly revised version of his original dissertation. Roy Bhaskar is also at Cambridge. His *A Realist Theory of Science* is outstanding, and takes its cue from *Oxford's* delightful polymath, Rom(ano) Harre. I've already mentioned his wonderful (but sadly out-of-print) *Principles of Scientific Thinking* (U. of Chicago Press).

Daniel Pouzzner's marvelous *Architecture of Modern Political Power* (AMPP) site charts and explicates the Pirates & Emperors, but we must also have a theoretical understanding of society and its nature & structure...

Power sturctures persist. Social structures persist. We need a theory(s) as to how they arise, and how/why they persist. That is, we need a theory of social ontology. See Rom Harre & Paul F. Secord's excellent *The Theory of Social Behavior* (Littlefield-Adams, not sure if it's still in print or not...), and also see *The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society and Politics* by the also charming & delightful Aussie (ANU, Canberra) polymath and ace-political philosopher, Philip Pettit. I don't always agree with every jot & tittle of Pettit's stuff (or any of the other guy's I cite, for that matter), but his stuff is very well-articulated, and very important...

As regards Hayek, Please see Bruce Caldwell's magisterial intellectual biography of Hayek (itself vitually a *treatise*), *Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek* (U of Chicago Pr). I should note that Caldwell and Tony Lawson are not only close colleagues, but also two of the best (meta)historians and (meta)methodologists in the field of economics working and writing today. They're both just outstanding, and well-worth one's time to read and digest. As for Hayek himself, again, I'd commend all FutureHi regulars to read & digest his magnificent 3-vol. *magnum opus*, *Law, Legislation & Liberty*--arguably the most important & profound treatises in social/political/economic/jurisprudential philosophy (and **applied** theory) ever written. I know that seems like, well, at least almost hyperole, but I think it really is justified---check it out! (And don't forget Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein; their stuff is outstanding, as is Butler Shaffer's wonderful (and back in print!) *Calculated Chaos: Instiutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival*--a super book everyone should own and read!!)

Also check-out Hillel Steiner's stuff, in particular his *Essay on Rights* and his various journal articles from the '70s and '80s. Steiner, another outstanding British philosopher specializing in social/political phiosophy, is well-worth reading in conjuction with--yep--Louis O. Kelso's stuff. Steiner wrote and essay back in '77 for Phil. Quarterly called "A Natural Right to the Means of Production" which arguably dovetails with Kelsonian provisions which will enable full-roboticization. And don't forget Murray Bookchin's stuff, such as "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" and other essays.

The most important treatise by far in moral psychology and social philosophy is the late David L. Norton's magnificent *Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism*. If you want to read a book that will induce tears stemming from its sheer brilliance combined with its ability to "speak" very, very intimately and personally to each and every individual reader who takes the time to read it, the *Personal Destinies* is a must for you--check it out!

And for two of the best works on more recent prehistory and early history (i.e., a bit more recent than the time discussed in, say, Colin Tudge's excellent *The Time Before History*), see James Burke & Robert Ornstein's underappreciated tour-de-force *The Axmaker's Gift*, and Ernest Gellner's equally underappreciated (and excellent) *Plough, Sword, and Book: The Structure of Human History* (also excellent, btw, is Gellner's *Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals*)

Yeah, I know, I know: I can't help but be a historian & anthropologist of **thought**, of cognitive-intellectual culture--that's what I am (in addition to being a systematic futurist, of course---the 2 go together, hand-n-glove, for me, anyway)

And as for a good companion book to Kurzweil's *Singularity...*, check-out Mike Rothschild's *Bionomics*. It's a smidge dated (came out about 10-15 years ago), but it's truly excellent and well-written.

*Axmaker's Gift* charts the before-the-knee(-of-the-Singularity-Curve) development of humankind, while *Bionomics* provides a very complimentary framework, along with Kurzweil's book) for understanding current goings-on. And--you may be surprised by this--I think George Soros' *Open Society* is worth perusing---I don't agree with his every jot & tittle either, and neither will the rest of y'all (probably), but his stuff is not stupid, not by a long shot: It's thoughtful, and, when read in conjunction with all this other reading assignments (ha ha) provides a few interesting pieces to the puzzle.

David R. Steele's wonderful book, *From Marx to Mises* (Open Court) is very important, as it provides the best, most accessible/digestible (yet very sophisiticated) discussion of why we must have capital markets for civilization to function. It expounds and explains the "socialist calculation problem" with both rigor and gusto, and is important for all of us FutureHi guys-&-gals to digest and understand...And as for the historical and **logical** importance of both property rights and capital markets, see Tom Bethell, *Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages*, for the former, and William Bernstein, *Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World Was Created*, Nathan Rosenberg & L.E. Birdsell, *How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World*, and Douglas C. North, *Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History* for the latter. See also economist-historian Joel Mokyr's super-duper works, *Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress* and *Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy*. These six books, read more-or-less together (and with James Burke's stuff) provide us with excellent discussion of the past-and-present. *Bionomics* provides a framework for understanding the underlying bio-coginitive dynamics, and Kurzweil's caps it all off: His is, in my judgment, a definitive charting of what Bucky is also writing about: *EPHEMERALIZATION*, the gradual (but now **super-exponentially-accelerating**) but progressive cosmic evolution/development MATTERGY being utterly transformed by **MIND**) (Also important, btw, is Greg Stock's *Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism*)

WE ARE, THERE CAN NOW BE LITTLE DOUBT, THE **PIVOTAL** GENERATION(S). WE are the generation(s) at the "knee" of the MetaCosmic developmental curve. We are, as Terrence said, in the final seconds of a (Meta)Cosmic evolutinary **development** (again, see also John Smart's discussion of this at his accelerationwatch.com site) which implies the departure from the larval womb-planet, the emergence of a truly Cosmic Civilization, and the triumph over aging/disease/death. WE ARE, IN FACT (closely paraphrasing Terrence again) SUPER-EXPONENTIALLY CLOSING DISTANCE ON THE MOST PROFOUND EVENT WHICH CAN OCCUR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PLANETARY ECOLOGY: THE COSMIC EMERGENCE/TRANSCENDANCE OF ***MIND*** FROM OUT OF THE DARK CHRYSALIS OF MATTERGY.

I commend my bibliography to you all. Read and enjoy. Discover and live your true selves. Be the best (trans)human beings you can be. I hope to have a nice banquet with you all in about 20-50 years, and another celebratory-anniversary one 100 years after that. Live long & prosper!!

I'm always HONORED to post my thought here, and always HONORED by & for any feedback/criticism that anyone may wish to convey. THANK YOU ALL, more than I can articulate, for your collegiality, and your own intrepidness in this most interesting of times...

"WE ARE, THERE CAN NOW BE LITTLE DOUBT, THE **PIVOTAL** GENERATION(S). WE are the generation(s) at the "knee" of the MetaCosmic developmental curve. We are, as Terrence said, in the final seconds of a (Meta)Cosmic evolutinary **development** (again, see also John Smart's discussion of this at his accelerationwatch.com site) which implies the departure from the larval womb-planet, the emergence of a truly Cosmic Civilization, and the triumph over aging/disease/death. WE ARE, IN FACT (closely paraphrasing Terrence again) SUPER-EXPONENTIALLY CLOSING DISTANCE ON THE MOST PROFOUND EVENT WHICH CAN OCCUR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PLANETARY ECOLOGY: THE COSMIC EMERGENCE/TRANSCENDANCE OF ***MIND*** FROM OUT OF THE DARK CHRYSALIS OF MATTERGY."

*muffled laughter*

Sure, and the Easter Bunny will give you a present this Christmas.

We'll all be dead long before then, dude.

Pessimism will get us nowhere ...

(Im still with you, MCP!)

Actually, pessimism will get us exactly where ADB suggests: Dead.

THANK YOU, ADBatstone, for your comment. And, of course, THANKS very much to my (more-or-less *like-minded*) colleagues, Upwinger and lvx23 (you guys always rock...!).

ADBatstone, I AM, however, a bit curious as to reason(s) for both your skepticism & pessimism (you tend to willy-nilly mix these 2 elements together, so it's a bit hard to discern whether you're more **skeptical** [of, say, nanotech, or AI/robotics] or **pessimistic** [due to, say, "human nature," or the "human condition", or along, say, Bill Joyian meme(s)-lines, or what...])

As far as skepticism:

(1) While I'm no physical chemist, much less a proto-MNT engineer, I'm aware of no sustained
critiques or objections to our at least *eventually* (and quite possibly/probably fairly **soon-on**!) instantiating and implenting full-fledged nanotech along the lines envisioned by Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Josh Storrs. There are now at least **2** separate commercial companies using venture capital and bootstrap (self-funding) capital to develop the first crude assembler. Will it take 5 more years or 15? Beats the heck outta me, but I'll be surprised if it takes **more** than 15 more years (and there's a reasonably good chance it could happen in 10 or less, though I myself am a tad bit dubious about it happening in 5 (much less *less than 5*) years--but, then again, **I'm not at the acutal cutting-edge**.... Nanotech--and I mean full-blown, Drexlerian MNT-- (i.e., the invention/development thereof) is now a (admittedly nascent) **commercial(ized)** venture. It ain't "pie-in-the-sky" any longer. And, as the 2 companies (Zyvex being one of 'em) get closer & closer to success, we can expect the venture-capitalist-pigs to jump on in even more (yippy-hooray! wink...). So nanotech--fullfledged "complete & ultra-cheap control of the structure of matter" is pretty-much definitely coming down the pike, sooner or later. (At least one of) The question(s) becomes---what **modifications** to socio-political and socio-economic institutions and processes--*if any*--do we need to start looking-into **now** so as to make the transition to a nanotech world as easy & painless &, indeed, *joyful* as possible. Hence, as good citizens and transhumanists, we need to study economic theory, political-economy (i.e., public-choice theory, constitutional political-economy, and economic-analysis-of-law), jurisprudence, and eithical theory and moral psychology, so that we can have an intelligent, sophisticated background of ideas, theory, memes (whatever, what-have-you...), so that we can have **intelligent**, **informed** discussion about such things. Makes a bit of sense, now don't it!? Which is why I recommend to my colleagues here that they read and absorb the ideas & knowledge contained in the books I mention/recommend.

But, ADBatstone, nanotech is fairly soon to be a done-deal---or do you have a **fundamental** objection to it's very possibility based on physcial-chemical (which is to say, ultimately, quantum-mechanical) principles? If you can offer no specific fundamental objection to the physical **possibility** of Drexlerian nanotech being developed, then, given its inherent plausibility, and the fact that both private-sector companies and governments world-wide are working 24/7 to instantiate and implement it, don't you think we should start contemplating what we want to **do** with it, how we want the world (in a broad, general, social, trans-individual way) to **be**. After all, such nanotech can usher-in what closely-approximates (and, for most practical purposes does, indeed, amount to) **post-scarcity**, and therefore leisure & ultra-affluence ***for **all** ***----***OR*** it can be weaponized, abused, etc., for such nightmare scenarios as Holocaust II (after all, we don't really need all those Heebs, do we?!). And, while we're at it, let's program some nanotech to code-for melanocytic-layered folks--i.e., niggers, of course! And let's not forget to keep the spics in line...

I can't even bring myself to write anymore such garbage, even in horrific/ironic tone. Just writing that, just then, made me almost literally, viscerally, wanna *puke*. And my point, to be sure, ADB, is not to accuse *you* of bigotry---not at all. I've no doubt at all that you're a good guy (you found your way to this wonderful site, after all...). But let's not kid ourselves: There are still racist, bigoted bastards around the world, many of here in Amerika, who would see nothing wrong with putting nanotech to NeoNaziesque uses. Should we be concerned about quahing such memes, replacing such memes, transforming such memes, well-before the advent of nanotech? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT NANOTECH IS INSTANTIATED AND INTEGRATED INTO SOCIETY SO AS TO BE BENIGN AND BENIFICIAL? That's the big question...

(2) Which bring us to AI and robotics. They're coming too, and fairly soon. Indeed, Yudkowsky, bless his young, brilliant, intrepid heart, feels morally compelled to do his best to bring-on full-blown AGI by or before the advent of full-blown nanotech, precisely because he's afraid that mere humans may not be able to sufficiently control nanotech to avoid some psychopathic asshole(s) from doing A LOT of terrible damage before (MAYBE!!) being stopped and brought to justice. Plus AGI is, as the great Irving Good pointed out years ago, the last invention we humans need make. Combine AGI and nanotech (not to mention what I call Bearden/Sirag-tech, i.e., hyperspatial engineering, the [to paraphrase] complete and ultra-cheap control of hyperspacetime), and you're gonna naturally have a quick-on (almost eye-blink) transformation toward an utterly transhuman and posthuman state of existence (natch!). I mean we talkin' "Q", the Organians, the Metrons, etc....and *beyond*) Now, ADB, if you think this is bullshit, then fine, more 1st Amendment power to you!!---But I'd be interested in your enlightening me (us) as to ***what you base that judgment on***...

(3) We ARE the pivotal generation(s). We're now late-industrial, still human-all-too-human primates. But we're also **NOW** on the cusp, the verge, of the most **momentous**, indeed, utterly (meta)***COSMIC*** techo/socio/economic development(s) that the human mind can even begin to contemplate. Beyond the discovery of fire. Beyond the discovery/development of the wheel. Comparable--if to anything at all--only to the birth of this particular spacetime continuum itself, and the emergence of life on the 3rd iron-nickel-carbon based planet, orbiting a typical, garden-variety, 2nd or 3rd generation yellow-white relatively small star in one of the outer arms of a typical, garden-variety spiral-galaxy, indeed a rather medium-sized one, as galaxies of the Virgo Super-cluster go. LIFE and MIND are about to burst onto the (meta)COSMIC stage, and indeed, convert the entire MULTIVERSE into an incredibly potent thinking entity--GOD by any other name....ANY QUESTIONS....?

Hang onto your hats, read-up on the relevant stuff, be cool and benevolent...enjoy the ride!!

Live long & prosper...!