Krimel, All, Sounds to me like a bunch of science types looking for government handouts. Where are the seminars about the morality of these supposed "transformations?" The relevance of the MOQ is clear. Science has a defect. "The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals." (Lila, 22)
Platt On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > It has been and extra-ordinarily interesting past few days and I lost track > of whatever was going on here. I think I was last supposed to referee > something for Bo but this was way more interesting and Bo is kind of > endless > loop anyway so whatever it was will no doubt come back around soon enough. > > For the past month I have been living in Boston changing diapers and > watching videos. On Hulu, BTW, for our resident TV luddite. The ending of > Glee rocked. I mean sure Sue Lester won but she hasn't shown that much > humanity since she let the kid with Downs Syndrome join the Cheerios. And > OMG the Lost ending will have graduate thesis written about it. Abrams is a > genius. Any way Friday I was watching a lecture by Ray Kruzweil from his > 2009 Singularity summit. ( http://vimeo.com/7322310 ) My daughter is doing > post-doctorate work in immunology at MIT and was actually attending a > conference on immunology put on by the MIT Cancer Center. > > We got to talking about stuff other than kids when she came home and she > started telling me the most amazing things about 3D printers that can > actually print out DNA sequences. Not the sequences on paper but the actual > molecular structure. Apparently Craig Ventner last month published in > Science that his lab has created the world's first totally engineered > organism. My daughter gets all the gory details but the short version is: > this was a very primitive bacteria build entirely from continuant molecules > and it was able to reproduce. It has been maybe 4 billion years since a > creature on this planet was born without parents. I guess this will add > strength to the intelligent design wackos. > > Then she starts telling my about these materials engineers at MIT who are > working with nanotech. These guys have a federal grant to find ways to use > nanotech to cure cancer but she says they are engineering geeks just > looking > for a way to fund their research. They can build a nut and bolt about the > size of a protein molecule. They have already built something that can act > like a red blood cell. And they can stencil verses from Genesis on the > surface of it. > > Other folks have found a way to engineer a cell that can respond to light > in > such a way that it remembers whether that light was on or off. That is it > can act as a switch. In case you didn't know, all you need to build a > computer is a bunch of little tiny programmable switches. She said this > really would not be practical for computing because a cell couldn't turn on > and off fast enough to keep up with silicon. But still... > > Ok, that was pretty jumbled up but you get the idea. Her husband also has a > doctorate in immunology and is currently finishing up med school so I get > confused at dinner time a lot. Like last week she was telling me about an > experiment she is doing that involves attaching little tiny magnets to B > cells in a mouse then running the mouse blood through a magnetic field and > vacuuming up the B cells. That's what she does when she isn't cloning > knock-out mice with a microscope that has joy sticks controlling > microscopic > needles. She can suck out the nucleus of a cell and then insert a different > nucleus from a different mouse. > > So Friday she tells me there is this conference going on a Harvard that I > might be interested in: http://www.hplussummit.com/. It looked interesting > but at $400 I was like, probably not. But in the fine print I noticed that > it was half off with student ID. I just happen to have a valid student ID > so > I figured, "why not." I mean I had just watch Kurzweil's video from 2009 > and > here he was right in town the very next day. That may not be a singularity > but it sure was loaded with synchronicity. In case you haven't noticed my > mind was blasted into utter incoherence. After a month of diapers and > rocking the baby to sleep during "House" reruns, now nanotech, engineered > life forms and singularity. > > You can see the list of presenters and I missed a couple of the early > morning ones but zowie. This was like a TED conference at a discount. I > think TED costs $4K so this was a bargain and some of the folks at it have > presented at TED. The H+ folks are already looking forward to a post human > future. The talks ranged from the weird: two guys looking at how you can > have your brain soaked in plastic and persevered so it can get a jump start > in the future. Like Cryogenics only cheaper and more durable. Another guy > looks forward to the time when technology will end all suffering. Even your > pet cat will eat invitro cloned muscle tissue instead of mice and you will > eat it instead of cows, pigs or other critters. > > Another dude talked about the metaphysical reasons that you will not be > able > to upload your consciousness into a computer. I found this depressing but > think I know how to get around the problem. Several computer geeks were > talking about how to create what they call AGI or Artificial General > Intelligence. Despite what you may have heard from dmb narrow AI is already > passé. There are a couple of different approaches being taken in AGI but > they would ultimately lead to an AI capable of passing the Turing test. > > Steven Wolfram was there talking about his approach to creating computer > algorhythms by setting up programs that compute in all possible computing > space then he just looks at the results until he finds something > interesting. He developed a cryptographic system for generating random > numbers. He has a program on his web site that does this with music and you > can compose randomly esthetic ringtone for your phone. He was fascinating > but talked over my head a bit. I recorded it and will have to get back to > you on it. > > One guy that talked about AGI both as applied to virtual avatars and robots > was Ben Goetzel. He sent an emissary to the MoQ a couple of years ago. But > the emissary got run off by the AWGI luddites as I recall. > > I woman from one version of the University of California designed a $12 > million three story metal sphere. She is an artist and works with quantum > physicists and neurobiologists to project into this huge dome, visual and > sound representations of multi-dimensional spaces, like the neuron odf the > brain and the spin of particles in hydrogen atoms. > > The cherry on the cake was, of course, Kurzweil. He has been mentioned here > a few times but it seems anything that actually might actually matter gets > ignored here. His main idea is that technology progresses at a geometric > rate. Everyone should have heard of Moore's law where the number of > transistors you can jam into an integrated circuit doubles every two years. > Kurzweil says this happens in lots of other areas as well. Examples include > the resolution of fMRI scans, the size of materials we can work with, > internet bandwidth, computer users, computer hosts, interesting changes in > life forms over the past 4 billion years, cost to sequence genomes. His > real > point is that medical and computer technology are converging. He claims > that > by 2030 sunlight will provide all of the power we need for the planet. By > 2039 a computer will pass the Turning test and sometime before the end of > the century we will conquer death. > > Most of the speakers at the H+ were definitely on board with this. Sometime > last week I was trying to explain to John how the MoQ actually could matter > and be applied. It could fit into to all of this stuff to but not while > carrying to AWGI brick around its neck. For instance I was talking to one > of > the AGI programmers about his notion of hierarchy. The term hierarchy > usually applies to the establishment of artificial levels. I asked him if > he > thought of hierarchies as fixed rather mechanical building block structure > or as fractal dynamic systems like trees or lightening bolts. He seemed > puzzled and talked about network hierarchies and top down versus bottom up > exchanges of info. But it seem to me he was talking about artificially > conceived discrete levels without seeing that where you choose to draw the > line between the levels is an arbitrary decision to make a continuous > process discrete. > > OK that's all. I know this was totally incoherent. I really only wrote this > so I could kind of sketch out an overview of all of this weirdness for > later > review. And my only point for the MoQ is: for Christ sake we are arguing > about bullshit that has not amounted to diddly squat for 2500 years. In the > mean time the world is transforming itself into something astounding. > Butterfly stem cells my ass. The MoQ if it is relevant at all ought to have > something to say or some way to deal with cyborgs and chimera, nanotech and > 3D printing. In case you missed the point a 3D printer is like the > replicators on Star Trek. The world is becoming science fiction and we > still > don't know what the intellectual level is. You can call me a gearhead, > motorhead, geeky nerd all you want but this stuff matters. > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. > You can understand it or be baffled by it. > It's going to happen for you or it's going to happen to you! > > Krimel > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
