Monthly Archives: June 2016

Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence …

Posted: June 28, 2016 at 2:49 am

Physicists are converging on a theory of everything, probing the 11th dimension, developing computers for the next generation of robots, and speculating about civilizations millions of years ahead of ours, says Dr. Michio Kaku, author of the best-sellers Hyperspace and Visions and co-founder of String Field Theory, in this interview by KurzweilAI.net Editor Amara D. Angelica.

Published on KurzweilAI.net June 26, 2003.

What are the burning issues for you currently?

Well, several things. Professionally, I work on something called Superstring theory, or now called M-theory, and the goal is to find an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, which will allow us to "read the mind of God," as Einstein used to say.

In other words, we want a single theory that gives us an elegant, beautiful representation of the forces that govern the Universe. Now, after two thousand years of investigation into the nature of matter, we physicists believe that there are four fundamental forces that govern the Universe.

Some physicists have speculated about the existence of a fifth force, which may be some kind of paranormal or psychic force, but so far we find no reproducible evidence of a fifth force.

Now, each time a force has been mastered, human history has undergone a significant change. In the 1600s, when Isaac Newton first unraveled the secret of gravity, he also created a mechanics. And from Newtons Laws and his mechanics, the foundation was laid for the steam engine, and eventually the Industrial Revolution.

So, in other words, in some sense, a byproduct of the mastery of the first force, gravity, helped to spur the creation of the Industrial Revolution, which in turn is perhaps one of the greatest revolutions in human history.

The second great force is the electromagnetic force; that is, the force of light, electricity, magnetism, the Internet, computers, transistors, lasers, microwaves, x-rays, etc.

And then in the 1860s, it was James Clerk Maxwell, the Scottish physicist at Cambridge University, who finally wrote down Maxwells equations, which allow us to summarize the dynamics of light.

That helped to unleash the Electric Age, and the Information Age, which have changed all of human history. Now its hard to believe, but Newtons equations and Einsteins equations are no more than about half an inch long.

Maxwells equations are also about half an inch long. For example, Maxwells equations say that the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second-rank tensor equals zero. Thats Maxwells equations, the equations for light. And in fact, at Berkeley, you can buy a T-shirt which says, "In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light, and it was good."

So, the mastery of the first two forces helped to unleash, respectively, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.

The last two forces are the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force, and they in turn have helped us to unlock the secret of the stars, via Einsteins equations E=mc2, and many people think that far in the future, the human race may ultimately derive its energy not only from solar power, which is the power of fusion, but also fusion power on the Earth, in terms of fusion reactors, which operate on seawater, and create no copious quantities of radioactive waste.

So, in summary, the mastery of each force helped to unleash a new revolution in human history.

Today, we physicists are embarking upon the greatest quest of all, which is to unify all four of these forces into a single comprehensive theory. The first force, gravity, is now represented by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, which gives us the Big Bang, black holes, and expanding universe. Its a theory of the very large; its a theory of smooth, space-time manifolds like bedsheets and trampoline nets.

The second theory, the quantum theory, is the exact opposite. The quantum theory allows us to unify the electromagnetic, weak and strong force. However, it is based on discrete, tiny packets of energy called quanta, rather than smooth bedsheets, and it is based on probabilities, rather than the certainty of Einsteins equations. So these two theories summarize the sum total of all physical knowledge of the physical universe.

Any equation describing the physical universe ultimately is derived from one of these two theories. The problem is these two theories are diametrically opposed. They are based on different assumptions, different principles, and different mathematics. Our job as physicists is to unify the two into a single, comprehensive theory. Now, over the last decades, the giants of the twentieth century have tried to do this and have failed.

For example, Niels Bohr, the founder of atomic physics and the quantum theory, was very skeptical about many attempts over the decades to create a Unified Field Theory. One day, Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel laureate, was giving a talk about his version of the Unified Field Theory, and in a very famous story, Bohr stood up in the back of the room and said, "Mr. Pauli, we in the back are convinced that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."

So today, we realize that a true Unified Field Theory must be bizarre, must be fantastic, incredible, mind-boggling, crazy, because all the sane alternatives have been studied and discarded.

Today we have string theory, which is based on the idea that the subatomic particles we see in nature are nothing but notes we see on a tiny, vibrating string. If you kick the string, then an electron will turn into a neutrino. If you kick it again, the vibrating string will turn from a neutrino into a photon or a graviton. And if you kick it enough times, the vibrating string will then mutate into all the subatomic particles.

Therefore we no longer in some sense have to deal with thousands of subatomic particles coming from our atom smashers, we just have to realize that what makes them, what drives them, is a vibrating string. Now when these strings collide, they form atoms and nuclei, and so in some sense, the melodies that you can write on the string correspond to the laws of chemistry. Physics is then reduced to the laws of harmony that we can write on a string. The Universe is a symphony of strings. And what is the mind of God that Einstein used to write about? According to this picture, the mind of God is music resonating through ten- or eleven-dimensional hyperspace, which of course begs the question, "If the universe is a symphony, then is there a composer to the symphony?" But thats another question.

What do you think of Sir Martin Rees concerns about the risk of creating black holes on Earth in his book, Our Final Hour?

I havent read his book, but perhaps Sir Martin Rees is referring to many press reports that claim that the Earth may be swallowed up by a black hole created by our machines. This started with a letter to the editor in Scientific American asking whether the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven, Long Island, will create a black hole which will swallow up the earth. This was then picked up by the Sunday London Times who then splashed it on the international wire services, and all of a sudden, we physicists were deluged with hundreds of emails and telegrams asking whether or not we are going to destroy the world when we create a black hole in Long Island.

However, you can calculate that in outer space, cosmic rays have more energy than the par
ticles produced in our most powerful atom smashers, and black holes do not form in outer space. Not to mention the fact that to create a black hole, you would have to have the mass of a giant star. In fact, an object ten to fifty times the mass of our star may in fact form a black hole. So the probability of a black hole forming in Long Island is zero.

However, Sir Martin Rees also has written a book, talking about the Multiverse. And that is also the subject of my next book, coming out late next year, called Parallel Worlds. We physicists no longer believe in a Universe. We physicists believe in a Multiverse that resembles the boiling of water. Water boils when tiny particles, or bubbles, form, which then begin to rapidly expand. If our Universe is a bubble in boiling water, then perhaps Big Bangs happen all the time.

Now, the Multiverse idea is consistent with Superstring theory, in the sense that Superstring theory has millions of solutions, each of which seems to correspond to a self-consistent Universe. So in some sense, Superstring theory is drowning in its own riches. Instead of predicting a unique Universe, it seems to allow the possibility of a Multiverse of Universes.

This may also help to answer the question raised by the Anthropic Principle. Our Universe seems to have known that we were coming. The conditions for life are extremely stringent. Life and consciousness can only exist in a very narrow band of physical parameters. For example, if the proton is not stable, then the Universe will collapse into a useless heap of electrons and neutrinos. If the proton were a little bit different in mass, it would decay, and all our DNA molecules would decay along with it.

In fact, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of coincidences, happy coincidences, that make life possible. Life, and especially consciousness, is quite fragile. It depends on stable matter, like protons, that exists for billions of years in a stable environment, sufficient to create autocatalytic molecules that can reproduce themselves, and thereby create Life. In physics, it is extremely hard to create this kind of Universe. You have to play with the parameters, you have to juggle the numbers, cook the books, in order to create a Universe which is consistent with Life.

However, the Multiverse idea explains this problem, because it simply means we coexist with dead Universes. In other Universes, the proton is not stable. In other Universes, the Big Bang took place, and then it collapsed rapidly into a Big Crunch, or these Universes had a Big Bang, and immediately went into a Big Freeze, where temperatures were so low, that Life could never get started.

So, in the Multiverse of Universes, many of these Universes are in fact dead, and our Universe in this sense is special, in that Life is possible in this Universe. Now, in religion, we have the Judeo-Christian idea of an instant of time, a genesis, when God said, "Let there be light." But in Buddhism, we have a contradictory philosophy, which says that the Universe is timeless. It had no beginning, and it had no end, it just is. Its eternal, and it has no beginning or end.

The Multiverse idea allows us to combine these two pictures into a coherent, pleasing picture. It says that in the beginning, there was nothing, nothing but hyperspace, perhaps ten- or eleven-dimensional hyperspace. But hyperspace was unstable, because of the quantum principle. And because of the quantum principle, there were fluctuations, fluctuations in nothing. This means that bubbles began to form in nothing, and these bubbles began to expand rapidly, giving us the Universe. So, in other words, the Judeo-Christian genesis takes place within the Buddhist nirvana, all the time, and our Multiverse percolates universes.

Now this also raises the possibility of Universes that look just like ours, except theres one quantum difference. Lets say for example, that a cosmic ray went through Churchills mother, and Churchill was never born, as a consequence. In that Universe, which is only one quantum event away from our Universe, England never had a dynamic leader to lead its forces against Hitler, and Hitler was able to overcome England, and in fact conquer the world.

So, we are one quantum event away from Universes that look quite different from ours, and its still not clear how we physicists resolve this question. This paradox revolves around the Schrdingers Cat problem, which is still largely unsolved. In any quantum theory, we have the possibility that atoms can exist in two places at the same time, in two states at the same time. And then Erwin Schrdinger, the founder of quantum mechanics, asked the question: lets say we put a cat in a box, and the cat is connected to a jar of poison gas, which is connected to a hammer, which is connected to a Geiger counter, which is connected to uranium. Everyone believes that uranium has to be described by the quantum theory. Thats why we have atomic bombs, in fact. No one disputes this.

But if the uranium decays, triggering the Geiger counter, setting off the hammer, destroying the jar of poison gas, then I might kill the cat. And so, is the cat dead or alive? Believe it or not, we physicists have to superimpose, or add together, the wave function of a dead cat with the wave function of a live cat. So the cat is neither dead nor alive.

This is perhaps one of the deepest questions in all the quantum theory, with Nobel laureates arguing with other Nobel laureates about the meaning of reality itself.

Now, in philosophy, solipsists like Bishop Berkeley used to believe that if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one there to listen to the tree fall, then perhaps the tree did not fall at all. However, Newtonians believe that if a tree falls in the forest, that you dont have to have a human there to witness the event.

The quantum theory puts a whole new spin on this. The quantum theory says that before you look at the tree, the tree could be in any possible state. It could be burnt, a sapling, it could be firewood, it could be burnt to the ground. It could be in any of an infinite number of possible states. Now, when you look at it, it suddenly springs into existence and becomes a tree.

Einstein never liked this. When people used to come to his house, he used to ask them, "Look at the moon. Does the moon exist because a mouse looks at the moon?" Well, in some sense, yes. According to the Copenhagen school of Neils Bohr, observation determines existence.

Now, there are at least two ways to resolve this. The first is the Wigner school. Eugene Wigner was one of the creators of the atomic bomb and a Nobel laureate. And he believed that observation creates the Universe. An infinite sequence of observations is necessary to create the Universe, and in fact, maybe theres a cosmic observer, a God of some sort, that makes the Universe spring into existence.

Theres another theory, however, called decoherence, or many worlds, which believes that the Universe simply splits each time, so that we live in a world where the cat is alive, but theres an equal world where the cat is dead. In that world, they have people, they react normally, they think that their world is the only world, but in that world, the cat is dead. And, in fact, we exist simultaneously with that world.

This means that theres probably a Universe where you were never born, but everything else is the same. Or perhaps your mother had extra brothers and sisters for you, in which case your family is much larger. Now, this can be compared to sitting in a room, listening to radio. When you listen to radio, you hear many fr
equencies. They exist simultaneously all around you in the room. However, your radio is only tuned to one frequency. In the same way, in your living room, there is the wave function of dinosaurs. There is the wave function of aliens from outer space. There is the wave function of the Roman Empire, because it never fell, 1500 years ago.

All of this coexists inside your living room. However, just like you can only tune into one radio channel, you can only tune into one reality channel, and that is the channel that you exist in. So, in some sense it is true that we coexist with all possible universes. The catch is, we cannot communicate with them, we cannot enter these universes.

However, I personally believe that at some point in the future, that may be our only salvation. The latest cosmological data indicates that the Universe is accelerating, not slowing down, which means the Universe will eventually hit a Big Freeze, trillions of years from now, when temperatures are so low that it will be impossible to have any intelligent being survive.

When the Universe dies, theres one and only one way to survive in a freezing Universe, and that is to leave the Universe. In evolution, there is a law of biology that says if the environment becomes hostile, either you adapt, you leave, or you die.

When the Universe freezes and temperatures reach near absolute zero, you cannot adapt. The laws of thermodynamics are quite rigid on this question. Either you will die, or you will leave. This means, of course, that we have to create machines that will allow us to enter eleven-dimensional hyperspace. This is still quite speculative, but String theory, in some sense, may be our only salvation. For advanced civilizations in outer space, either we leave or we die.

That brings up a question. Matrix Reloaded seems to be based on parallel universes. What do you think of the film in terms of its metaphors?

Well, the technology found in the Matrix would correspond to that of an advanced Type I or Type II civilization. We physicists, when we scan outer space, do not look for little green men in flying saucers. We look for the total energy outputs of a civilization in outer space, with a characteristic frequency. Even if intelligent beings tried to hide their existence, by the second law of thermodynamics, they create entropy, which should be visible with our detectors.

So we classify civilizations on the basis of energy outputs. A Type I civilization is planetary. They control all planetary forms of energy. They would control, for example, the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes; they would mine the oceans, any planetary form of energy they would control. Type II would be stellar. They play with solar flares. They can move stars, ignite stars, play with white dwarfs. Type III is galactic, in the sense that they have now conquered whole star systems, and are able to use black holes and star clusters for their energy supplies.

Each civilization is separated by the previous civilization by a factor of ten billion. Therefore, you can calculate numerically at what point civilizations may begin to harness certain kinds of technologies. In order to access wormholes and parallel universes, you have to be probably a Type III civilization, because by definition, a Type III civilization has enough energy to play with the Planck energy.

The Planck energy, or 1019 billion electron volts, is the energy at which space-time becomes unstable. If you were to heat up, in your microwave oven, a piece of space-time to that energy, then bubbles would form inside your microwave oven, and each bubble in turn would correspond to a baby Universe.

Now, in the Matrix, several metaphors are raised. One metaphor is whether computing machines can create artificial realities. That would require a civilization centuries or millennia ahead of ours, which would place it squarely as a Type I or Type II civilization.

However, we also have to ask a practical question: is it possible to create implants that could access our memory banks to create this artificial reality, and are machines dangerous? My answer is the following. First of all, cyborgs with neural implants: the technology does not exist, and probably wont exist for at least a century, for us to access the central nervous system. At present, we can only do primitive experiments on the brain.

For example, at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, its possible to put a glass implant into the brain of a stroke victim, and the paralyzed stroke victim is able to, by looking at the cursor of a laptop, eventually control the motion of the cursor. Its very slow and tedious; its like learning to ride a bicycle for the first time. But the brain grows into the glass bead, which is placed into the brain. The glass bead is connected to a laptop computer, and over many hours, the person is able to, by pure thought, manipulate the cursor on the screen.

So, the central nervous system is basically a black box. Except for some primitive hookups to the visual system of the brain, we scientists have not been able to access most bodily functions, because we simply dont know the code for the spinal cord and for the brain. So, neural implant technology, I believe is one hundred, maybe centuries away from ours.

On the other hand, we have to ask yet another metaphor raised by the Matrix, and that is, are machines dangerous? And the answer is, potentially, yes. However, at present, our robots have the intelligence of a cockroach, in the sense that pattern recognition and common sense are the two most difficult, unsolved problems in artificial intelligence theory. Pattern recognition means the ability to see, hear, and to understand what you are seeing and understand what you are hearing. Common sense means your ability to make sense out of the world, which even children can perform.

Those two problems are at the present time largely unsolved. Now, I think, however, that within a few decades, we should be able to create robots as smart as mice, maybe dogs and cats. However, when machines start to become as dangerous as monkeys, I think we should put a chip in their brain, to shut them off when they start to have murderous thoughts.

By the time you have monkey intelligence, you begin to have self-awareness, and with self-awareness, you begin to have an agenda created by a monkey for its own purposes. And at that point, a mechanical monkey may decide that its agenda is different from our agenda, and at that point they may become dangerous to humans. I think we have several decades before that happens, and Moores Law will probably collapse in 20 years anyway, so I think theres plenty of time before we come to the point where we have to deal with murderous robots, like in the movie 2001.

So you differ with Ray Kurzweils concept of using nanobots to reverse-engineer and upload the brain, possibly within the coming decades?

Not necessarily. Im just laying out a linear course, the trajectory where artificial intelligence theory is going today. And that is, trying to build machines which can navigate and roam in our world, and two, robots which can make sense out of the world. However, theres another divergent path one might take, and thats to harness the power of nanotechnology. However, nanotechnology is still very primitive. At the present time, we can barely build arrays of atoms. We cannot yet build the first atomic gear, for example. No one has created an atomic wheel with ball bearings. So simple machines, which even children can play with in their toy sets, dont yet exist at the atomic level. However, on a scale of deca
des, we may be able to create atomic devices that begin to mimic our own devices.

Molecular transistors can already be made. Nanotubes allow us to create strands of material that are super-strong. However, nanotechnology is still in its infancy and therefore, its still premature to say where nanotechnology will go. However, one place where technology may go is inside our body. Already, its possible to create a pill the size of an aspirin pill that has a television camera that can photograph our insides as it goes down our gullet, which means that one day surgery may become relatively obsolete.

In the future, its conceivable we may have atomic machines that enter the blood. And these atomic machines will be the size of blood cells and perhaps they would be able to perform useful functions like regulating and sensing our health, and perhaps zapping cancer cells and viruses in the process. However, this is still science fiction, because at the present time, we cant even build simple atomic machines yet.

Is there any possibility, similar to the premise of The Matrix, that we are living in a simulation?

Well, philosophically speaking, its always possible that the universe is a dream, and its always possible that our conversation with our friends is a by-product of the pickle that we had last night that upset our stomach. However, science is based upon reproducible evidence. When we go to sleep and we wake up the next day, we usually wind up in the same universe. It is reproducible. No matter how we try to avoid certain unpleasant situations, they come back to us. That is reproducible. So reality, as we commonly believe it to exist, is a reproducible experiment, its a reproducible sensation. Therefore in principle, you could never rule out the fact that the world could be a dream, but the fact of the matter is, the universe as it exists is a reproducible universe.

Now, in the Matrix, a computer simulation was run so that virtual reality became reproducible. Every time you woke up, you woke up in that same virtual reality. That technology, of course, does not violate the laws of physics. Theres nothing in relativity or the quantum theory that says that the Matrix is not possible. However, the amount of computer power necessary to drive the universe and the technology necessary for a neural implant is centuries to millennia beyond anything that we can conceive of, and therefore this is something for an advanced Type I or II civilization.

Why is a Type I required to run this kind of simulation? Is number crunching the problem?

Yes, its simply a matter of number crunching. At the present time, we scientists simply do not know how to interface with the brain. You see, one of the problems is, the brain, strictly speaking, is not a digital computer at all. The brain is not a Turing machine. A Turing machine is a black box with an input tape and an output tape and a central processing unit. That is the essential element of a Turing machine: information processing is localized in one point. However, our brain is actually a learning machine; its a neural network.

Many people find this hard to believe, but theres no software, there is no operating system, there is no Windows programming for the brain. The brain is a vast collection, perhaps a hundred billion neurons, each neuron with 10,000 connections, which slowly and painfully interacts with the environment. Some neural pathways are genetically programmed to give us instinct. However, for the most part, our cerebral cortex has to be reprogrammed every time we bump into reality.

As a consequence, we cannot simply put a chip in our brain that augments our memory and enhances our intelligence. Memory and thinking, we now realize, is distributed throughout the entire brain. For example, its possible to have people with only half a brain. There was a documented case recently where a young girl had half her brain removed and shes still fully functional.

So, the brain can operate with half of its mass removed. However, you remove one transistor in your Pentium computer and the whole computer dies. So, theres a fundamental difference between digital computerswhich are easily programmed, which are modular, and you can insert different kinds of subroutines in themand neural networks, where learning is distributed throughout the entire device, making it extremely difficult to reprogram. That is the reason why, even if we could create an advanced PlayStation that would run simulations on a PC screen, that software cannot simply be injected into the human brain, because the brain has no operating system.

Ray Kurzweils next book, The Singularity is Near, predicts that possibly within the coming decades, there will be super-intelligence emerging on the planet that will surpass that of humans. What do you think of that idea?

Yes, that sounds interesting. But Moores Law will have collapsed by then, so well have a little breather. In 20 years time, the quantum theory takes over, so Moores Law collapses and well probably stagnate for a few decades after that. Moores Law, which states that computer power doubles every 18 months, will not last forever. The quantum theory giveth, the quantum theory taketh away. The quantum theory makes possible transistors, which can be etched by ultraviolet rays onto smaller and smaller chips of silicon. This process will end in about 15 to 20 years. The senior engineers at Intel now admit for the first time that, yes, they are facing the end.

The thinnest layer on a Pentium chip consists of about 20 atoms. When we start to hit five atoms in the thinnest layer of a Pentium chip, the quantum theory takes over, electrons can now tunnel outside the layer, and the Pentium chip short-circuits. Therefore, within a 15 to 20 year time frame, Moores Law could collapse, and Silicon Valley could become a Rust Belt.

This means that we physicists are desperately trying to create the architecture for the post-silicon era. This means using quantum computers, quantum dot computers, optical computers, DNA computers, atomic computers, molecular computers, in order to bridge the gap when Moores Law collapses in 15 to 20 years. The wealth of nations depends upon the technology that will replace the power of silicon.

This also means that you cannot project artificial intelligence exponentially into the future. Some people think that Moores Law will extend forever; in which case humans will be reduced to zoo animals and our robot creations will throw peanuts at us and make us dance behind bars. Now, that may eventually happen. It is certainly consistent within the laws of physics.

However, the laws of the quantum theory say that were going to face a massive problem 15 to 20 years from now. Now, some remedial methods have been proposed; for example, building cubical chips, chips that are stacked on chips to create a 3-dimensional array. However, the problem there is heat production. Tremendous quantities of heat are produced by cubical chips, such that you can fry an egg on top of a cubical chip. Therefore, I firmly believe that we may be able to squeeze a few more years out of Moores Law, perhaps designing clever cubical chips that are super-cooled, perhaps using x-rays to etch our chips instead of ultraviolet rays. However, that only delays the inevitable. Sooner or later, the quantum theory kills you. Sooner or later, when we hit five atoms, we dont know where the electron is anymore, and we have to go to the next generation, which relies on the quantum theory and atoms and molecules.

Therefore, I say that all bets are off in terms of projecting machine intellig
ence beyond a 20-year time frame. Theres nothing in the laws of physics that says that computers cannot exceed human intelligence. All I raise is that we physicists are desperately trying to patch up Moores Law, and at the present time we have to admit that we have no successor to silicon, which means that Moores Law will collapse in 15 to 20 years.

So are you saying that quantum computing and nanocomputing are not likely to be available by then?

No, no, Im just saying its very difficult. At the present time we physicists have been able to compute on seven atoms. That is the worlds record for a quantum computer. And that quantum computer was able to calculate 3 x 5 = 15. Now, being able to calculate 3 x 5 = 15 does not equal the convenience of a laptop computer that can crunch potentially millions of calculations per second. The problem with quantum computers is that any contamination, any atomic disturbance, disturbs the alignment of the atoms and the atoms then collapse into randomness. This is extremely difficult, because any cosmic ray, any air molecule, any disturbance can conceivably destroy the coherence of our atomic computer to make them useless.

Unless you have redundant parallel computing?

Even if you have parallel computing you still have to have each parallel computer component free of any disturbance. So, no matter how you cut it, the practical problems of building quantum computers, although within the laws of physics, are extremely difficult, because it requires that we remove all in contact with the environment at the atomic level. In practice, weve only been able to do this with a handful of atoms, meaning that quantum computers are still a gleam in the eye of most physicists.

Now, if a quantum computer can be successfully built, it would, of course, scare the CIA and all the governments of the world, because it would be able to crack any code created by a Turing machine. A quantum computer would be able to perform calculations that are inconceivable by a Turing machine. Calculations that require an infinite amount of time on a Turing machine can be calculated in a few seconds by a quantum computer. For example, if you shine laser beams on a collection of coherent atoms, the laser beam scatters, and in some sense performs a quantum calculation, which exceeds the memory capability of any Turing machine.

However, as I mentioned, the problem is that these atoms have to be in perfect coherence, and the problems of doing this are staggering in the sense that even a random collision with a subatomic particle could in fact destroy the coherence and make the quantum computer impractical.

So, Im not saying that its impossible to build a quantum computer; Im just saying that its awfully difficult.

When do you think we might expect SETI [Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence] to be successful?

I personally think that SETI is looking in the wrong direction. If, for example, were walking down a country road and we see an anthill, do we go down to the ant and say, "I bring you trinkets, I bring you beads, I bring you knowledge, I bring you medicine, I bring you nuclear technology, take me to your leader"? Or, do we simply step on them? Any civilization capable of reaching the planet Earth would be perhaps a Type III civilization. And the difference between you and the ant is comparable to the distance between you and a Type III civilization. Therefore, for the most part, a Type III civilization would operate with a completely different agenda and message than our civilization.

Lets say that a ten-lane superhighway is being built next to the anthill. The question is: would the ants even know what a ten-lane superhighway is, or what its used for, or how to communicate with the workers who are just feet away? And the answer is no. One question that we sometimes ask is if there is a Type III civilization in our backyard, in the Milky Way galaxy, would we even know its presence? And if you think about it, you realize that theres a good chance that we, like ants in an anthill, would not understand or be able to make sense of a ten-lane superhighway next door.

So this means there that could very well be a Type III civilization in our galaxy, it just means that were not smart enough to find one. Now, a Type III civilization is not going to make contact by sending Captain Kirk on the Enterprise to meet our leader. A Type III civilization would send self-replicating Von Neumann probes to colonize the galaxy with robots. For example, consider a virus. A virus only consists of thousands of atoms. Its a molecule in some sense. But in about one week, it can colonize an entire human being made of trillions of cells. How is that possible?

Well, a Von Neumann probe would be a self-replicating robot that lands on a moon; a moon, because they are stable, with no erosion, and theyre stable for billions of years. The probe would then make carbon copies of itself by the millions. It would create a factory to build copies of itself. And then these probes would then rocket to other nearby star systems, land on moons, to create a million more copies by building a factory on that moon. Eventually, there would be sphere surrounding the mother planet, expanding at near-light velocity, containing trillions of these Von Neumann probes, and that is perhaps the most efficient way to colonize the galaxy. This means that perhaps, on our moon there is a Von Neumann probe, left over from a visitation that took place million of years ago, and the probe is simply waiting for us to make the transition from Type 0 to Type I.

The Sentinel.

Yes. This, of course, is the basis of the movie 2001, because at the beginning of the movie, Kubrick interviewed many prominent scientists, and asked them the question, "What is the most likely way that an advanced civilization would probe the universe?" And that is, of course, through self-replicating Von Neumann probes, which create moon bases. That is the basis of the movie 2001, where the probe simply waits for us to become interesting. If were Type 0, were not very interesting. We have all the savagery and all the suicidal tendencies of fundamentalism, nationalism, sectarianism, that are sufficient to rip apart our world.

By the time weve become Type I, weve become interesting, weve become planetary, we begin to resolve our differences. We have centuries in which to exist on a single planet to create a paradise on Earth, a paradise of knowledge and prosperity.

2003 KurzweilAI.net

The rest is here:

Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence ...

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off

Best Nootropics – Top Nootropic Drugs & Supplements Online

Posted: at 2:48 am

Welcome to NootropicsInfo.com

NootropicsInfo.com lets you explore the world of nootropics. It's an exciting area, as there are many regular users. We will provide you with the information you need to achieve the results you want with nootropics. Once you're more familiar with the types of nootropics and what they do, you can begin to build your own regime.

You will find the benefits, side-effects, method of action, administration directions, history, and much more regarding a wide variety of nootropics. Once you have obtained this vital knowledge, you will better understand the processes involved. You can then choose the best nootropic supplements for you and your needs.

Since the 1950s, advances have been made in the field of neuroscience, targeting cognitive abilities. Cognition is all of our mental abilities and processes that relate to knowledge. Nootropics tend to target these areas and processes, improving; memory, attention, reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, and more.

'Nootropics' or 'smart drugs,' are natural or synthetic compounds that improve cognitive functioning. Most commonly, users see improvements in their ability to focus and learn, while memory and motivation are improved.

Many have probably seen the movie 'Limitless.' The gentleman in this film took a pill and miraculously became a cognitive superhuman. He had higher intelligence and was much more efficient. This was Hollywood, and nootropics do not affect us in such a way.

Nootropics do not provide users with mental abilities. Instead, these nootropics enhance the mental strength that you have already built. Our mental abilities are generally formed through studying, engaging in mental exercises, and discipline. These nootropics give you a boost, allowing you to improve cognition.

Many work with our brain's natural neurotransmitters, as well as oxygen levels in the brain. Many degenerative conditions have a depletion in neurotransmitters. This is the main target for a variety of nootropics. Acetylcholine, glutamate, dopamine, and serotonin are some of the neurotransmitters involved. Once levels are increased, positive benefits are experienced.

People are naturally interested in how nootropics actually work. Although one simplified answer would be ideal, this is not the case. There are various different nootropics, as well as methods involved.

In order to fully grasp nootropics, you need to have a thorough understanding of the different types available. Some groups have a concrete history, while others have been released in the past few years.

If youre new to the world of nootropics, youre probably wondering what a stack is. A nootropic stack is when two or more nootropics are combined to achieve a desired effect.

The main reasons most users take nootropics, are due to the positive effects they have on both cognitive functioning. Although nootropics differ, you can stack multiple to achieve higher levels of attention...

Many people take nootropics to combat poor mood, while benefiting from a variety cognitive improvements and improved brain health. Depression and anxiety is a growing concern, affecting millions of people.

The term nootropics is fairly vague, as there are many different supplements available. Each substance yields its own unique effects, taking different methods of action. Although they differ, there are some general benefits that are experienced.

Memory

Many of the nootropics have a positive effect on one's memory. Regardless of your age, memory is a crucial aspect of your cognition. Many nootropics were designed and developed to target degenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's and dementia.

It is not just these individuals that benefit. There are many casual users that benefit as well. For example, students are able to retain more information when they're taking certain nootropics. Piracetam is a common memory enhancer, it is also the oldest racetam.

Focus and Attention

Think about some mornings. It can be hard to get motivated and focused. What do many of us do? We reach for a coffee, caffeine to be specific. Many nootropics provide this advantage, with less side-effects than caffeine. Focus and attention are heightened, as well as a sense of clarity.

Improved Mood

Some individuals experienced heightened cognitive functioning due to improved mood and reduced stress. When you're less stressed, you tend to perform better mentally. This has been seen through numerous studies.

Energy Levels

Many nootropics prevent fatigue by blocking certain receptors or producing more energy. When users are less tired, they can work more efficiently. This is often seen through an increase in oxygen uptake and glucose metabolism. Glucose is essentially fuel for the brain. When energy levels are increased, motivation and attention also improve.

When you combine compounds, this is known as 'stacking.' When nootropics are stacked, they can increase benefits, while decreasing side-effects. If you're beginning, the following are some safe and easy stacks to try:

Caffeine + L-Theanine: This will help you improve your focus, motivation, and even mood. A ratio of 2:1 works best. Take 200 mg of L-Theanine and 100 mg of caffeine.

Piracetam + Choline: This is a common stack, as it is highly beneficial. Piracetam was the first nootropic to be discovered, as it increases acetylcholine uptake. Choline is essential to synthesize acetylcholine, which is why a choline supplement works so well with a racetam. When taken together, memory has been seen to improve, and headaches are diminished. You can start with around 1500 mg or Piracetam, and approximately 250 mg of a choline supplement. Alpha GPC is recommded.

Follow this link:

Best Nootropics - Top Nootropic Drugs & Supplements Online

Posted in Nootropics | Comments Off

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Posted: at 2:47 am

You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Explore More Now!

Footnotes:

Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this?

See the original post here:

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off

History of Evolution | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Posted: at 2:47 am

The word "evolution" in its broadest sense refers to change or growth that occurs in a particular order. Although this broad version of the term would include astronomical evolution and the evolution of computer design, this article focuses on the evolution of biological organisms. That use of the term dates back to the ancient Greeks, but today the word is more often used to refer to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. This theory is sometimes crudely referred to as the theory of "survival of the fittest." It was proposed by CharlesDarwin in On the Origin of Species in 1859 and, independently, by Alfred Wallace in 1858although Wallace, unlike Darwin, said the human soul is not the product of evolution.

Greek and medieval references to "evolution" use it as a descriptive term for a state of nature, in which everything in nature has a certain order or purpose. This is a teleological view of nature. For example, Aristotle classified all living organisms hierarchically in his great scala naturae or Great Chain of Being, with plants at the bottom, moving through lesser animals, and on to humans at the pinnacle of creation, each becoming progressively more perfect in form. It was the medieval philosophers, such as Augustine, who began to incorporate teleological views of nature with religion: God is the designer of all creatures, and everything has a purpose and a place as ordained by Him.

In current times, to some, the terms "evolution" and "God" may look like unlikely bed fellows (see the discussion on teleology). This is due primarily to today's rejection by biologists of a teleological view of evolution in favor of a more mechanistic one. The process of rejection is commonly considered to have begun with Descartes and to have culminated in Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection.

Fundamental to natural selection is the idea of change by common descent. This implies that all living organisms are related to each other; for any two species, if we look back far enough we will find that they are descended from a common ancestor. This is a radically different view than Aristotles Great Chain of Being, in which each species is formed individually with its own purpose and place in nature and where no species evolves into a new species. Evolution by natural selection is a purely mechanistic theory of change that does not appeal to any sense of purpose or a designer. There is no foresight or purpose in nature, and there is no implication that one species is more perfect than another. There is only change driven by selection pressures from the environment. Although the modern theory of biological evolution by natural selection is well accepted among professional biologists, there is still controversy about whether natural selection selects for fit genes or fit organisms or fit species.

Evolution by natural selection is a theory about the process of change. Although Darwin's original theory did not specify that genes account for an organism's heritable traits, that is now universally accepted among modern evolutionists. In a given population, natural selection occurs when genetically-based traits that promote survival in one's environment are passed onto future generations and become more frequent in later generations. Organisms develop different survival and reproduction enhancing traits in response to their different environments (with abundance or shortage of food, presence or absence of predators, and so forth) and, given enough time and environmental changes, these small changes can accumulate to form a whole new species. Thus for Darwin there is no sharp distinction between a new variation and a new species. This theory accounts for the diversity of Earth's organisms better than theological design theories or competing scientific theories such as Lamarck's theory that an organism can pass on to its offspringcharacteristics that it acquired during its lifetime.

Evolution by natural selection works on three principles: variation (within a given generation there will be variation in traits, some that aid survival and reproduction and some that dont, and some that have a genetic basis and some that dont); competition (there will be limited resources that individuals must compete for, and traits that aid survival and reproduction will help in competition); and heritability (only traits that aid survival and reproduction and have a genetic basis can passed onto future generations).

Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.

If the mechanical view is to be found in these philosophers, the teleological occurs in Heraclitus, who conceives the process as a rational development, in accordance with the Logos and names steps of the process, as from igneous air to water, and thence to earth. The Stoics followed Heraclitus in the main lines of their physics. The primal principle is, as with him, igneous air. only that this is named God by them with much greater definiteness. The Godhead has life in itself, and develops into the universe, differentiating primarily into two kinds of elements the finer or active, and the coarser or passive. Formation or development goes on continuously, under the impulse of the formative principle, by whatever name it is known, until all is once more dissolved by the ekpyrosis into the fundamental principle, and the whole process begins over again. Their conception of the process as analogous to the development of the seed finds special expression in their term of logos spermatikos. In one point the Stoics differ essentially from Heraclitus. With them the whole process is accomplished according to certain ends indwelling in the Godhead, which is a provident, careful intelligence, while no providence is assumed in Heraclitus.

Empedocles asserts definitely that the sphairos, as the full reconciliation of opposites, is opposed, as the superior, to the individual beings brought into existence by hatred, which are then once more united by love to the primal essence, the interchange of world-periods thus continuing indefinitely. Development is to be found also in the atomistic philosopher Democritus; in a purely mechanical manner without any purpose, bodies come into existence out of atoms, and
ultimately entire worlds appear and disappear from and to eternity. Like his predecessors, Deinocritus, deduces organic beings from what is inorganic-moist earth or slime.

Development, as well as the process of becoming, in general, was denied by the Eleatic philosophers. Their doctrine, diametrically opposed to the older thoroughgoing evolutionism, had its influence in determining the acceptance of unchangeable ideas, or forms, by Plato and Aristotle. Though Plato reproduces the doctrine of Heraclitus as to the flux of all things in the phenomenal world, he denies any continuous change in the world of ideas. Change is permanent only in so far as the eternal forms stamp themselves upon individual objects. Though this, as a rule, takes place but imperfectly, the stubborn mass is so far affected that all works out as far as possible for the best. The demiurge willed that all should become as far as possible like himself; and so the world finally becomes beautiful and perfect. Here we have a development, though the principle which has the most real existence does not change; the forms, or archetypal ideas, remain eternally what they are.

In Aristotle also the forms are the real existences, working in matter but eternally remaining the same, at once the motive cause and the effectual end of all things. Here the idea of evolution is clearer than in Plato, especially for the physical world, which is wholly dominated by purpose. The transition from lifeless to living matter is a gradual one, so that the dividing-line between them is scarcely perceptible. Next to lifeless matter comes the vegetable kingdom, which seems, compared with the inorganic, to have life, but appears lifeless compared with the organic. The transition from plants to animals is again a gradual one. The lowest organisms originate from the primeval slime, or from animal differentiation; there is a continual progression from simple, undeveloped types to the higher and more perfect. As the highest stage, the end and aim of the whole process, man appears; all lower forms are merely unsuccessful attempts to produce him. The ape is a transitional stage between man and other viviparous animals. If development has so important a work in Aristotle's physics, it is not less important in his metaphysics. The whole transition from potentiality to actuality (from dynamis toentelecheia) is nothing but a transition from the lower to the higher, everything striving to assimilate itself to the absolutely perfect, to the Divine. Thus Aristotle, like Plato, regards the entire order of the universe as a sort of deification. But the part played in the development by the Godhead, the absolutely immaterial form, is less than that of the forms which operate in matter, since, being already everything,, it is incapable of becoming anything else. Thus Aristotle, despite his evolutionistic notions, does not take the view of a thoroughgoing evolutionist as regards the universe; nor do the Neoplatonists, whose highest principle remains wholly unchanged, though all things emanate from it.

The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy, both on account of the dualism which runs through them as an echo of Plato and Aristotle, and on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied; and with Augustine (De civitate dei, xv. 1) it is taken as the basis for a philosophy of history. Erigena and some of his followers seem to teach a sort of evolution. The issue of finite beings from God is called analysis or resolution in contrast to the reverse or deification the return to God, who once more assimilates all things. God himself, although denominated the beginning, middle, and end, all in all remains unmixed in his own essence, transcendent though immanent in the world. The teaching of. Nicholas of Cusa is similar to Erigena's, though a certain amount of Pythagoreanism comes in here. The world exhibits explicitly what the Godhead implicitly contains; the world is an animated, ordered whole, in which God is everywhere present. Since God embraces all things in himself, he unites all opposites: he is the complicatio omnium contradictoriorum. The idea of evolution thus appears in Nicholas in a rather pantheistic form, but it is not developed.

In spite of some obscurities in his conception of the world Giordano Bruno is a little clearer. According to him God is the immanent first cause in the universe; there is no difference between matter and form; matter, which includes in itself forms and ends, is the source of all becoming and of all actuality. The infinite ether which fills infinite space conceals within itself the nucleus of all things, and they proceed from it according to determinate laws, yet in a teleological manner. Thus the worlds originate not by an arbitrary act, but by an inner necessity of the divine nature. They are natura naturata, as distinguished from the operative nature of God, natitra naturans, which is present in all thin-S as the being- of all that is, the beauty of all that is fair. As in the Stoic teaching, with which Bruno's philosophy has much in common, the conception of evolution comes out clearly both for physics and metaphysics.

Leibniz attempted to reconcile the mechanical-physical and the teleological views, after Descartes, in his Principia philosophitce, excluding all purpose, had explained nature both lifeless and living, as mere mechanism. It is right, however, to point out that Descartes had a metaphysics above his physics, in which the conception of God took an important place, and that thus the mechanical notion of evolution did not really include everything. In Leibnitz the principles of mechanics and physics are dependent upon the direction of a supreme intelligence, without which they would be inexplicable to us. Only by such a preliminary assumption are we able to recognize that one ordered thing follows upon another continuously. It is in this sense that the law of continuity is to be understood, which is of such great importance in Leibnitz. At bottom it is the same as the law of ordered development. The genera of all beings follow continuously one upon another, and between the main classes, as between animals and vegetables, there must be a continuous sequence of intermediate beings. Here again, however, evolution is not taught in its most thorough form, since the divine monad, of God, does not come into the world but transcends it.

Among the German philosophers of the eighteenth century Herder must be mentioned first of the pioneers of modern evolutionism. He lays down the doctrine of a continuous development in the unity of nature from inorganic to organic, from the stone to the plant, from the plant to the animal, and from the animal to man. As nature develops according to fixed laws and natural conditions, so does history, which is only a continuation of the process of nature. Both nature and history labor to educate man in perfect humanity; but as this is seldom attained, a future life is suggested. Lessing had dwelt on the education of the human race as a development to the higher and more perfect. It is only recently that the significance of Herder, in regard to the conception and treatment of historic development, has been adequately recognized. Goethe also followed out the idea of evolution in his zoological and botanical investigations, with his theory of the metamorphosis of plants and his endeavor to discover unity in different organisms.

Kant is also often mentioned as having been an early teacher of the modern theory of descent. It is true he considers the analogy of the forms which he fin
ds in various classes of organisms a ground for supposing that they may have come originally from a common source. He calls the hypothesis that specifically different being have originated one from the other "a daring adventure of the reason." But he entertains the thought that in a later epoch "an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture." Here, indeed, important ideas of Darwin were anticipated; but Kant's critical system was such that development could have no predominant place in it.

The idea of evolution came out more strongly in his German idealistic successors, especially in Schelling, who regarded nature as a preliminary stage to mind, and the process of physical development as continuing in history. The unconscious productions of nature are only unsuccessful attempts to reflect itself; lifeless nature is an immature intelligence, so that in its phenomena an intelligent character appears only unconsciously. Its highest aim, that, of becoming an object to itself, is only attained in the highest and last reflection-in man, or in what we call reason, through which for the first time nature returns perfectly upon itself. All stages of nature are connected by a common life, and show in their development a conclusive unity. The course of history as a whole must be conceived as offering a gradually progressive revelation of the Absolute. For this he names three periods-that of fate, that of nature, and that of providence, of which we are now in the second. Schelling's followers carried the idea of development somewhat further than their master. This is true especially of Oken, who conceives natural science as the science of the eternal transformation of God into the world, of the dissolution of the Absolute into plurality, and of its continuous further operation in this plurality. The development is continued through the vegetable and animal kingdoms up to man, who in his art and science and polity completely establishes the will of nature. Oken, it is true, conceived man as the sole object of all animal development, so that the lower stages are only abortive attempts to produce him-a theory afterward controverted by Ernst von Baer and Cuvier, the former of whom, standing somewhat in opposition to Darwin, is of great interest to the student of the history of the theory of evolution.

Some evolutionistic ideas are found in Krause and Schleiermacher; but Hegel, with his absolute idealism, is a more notable representative of them. In his system philosophy is the science of the Absolute, of the absolute reason developing or unfolding itself. Reason develops itself first in the abstract element of thought, then expresses itself externally in nature, and finally returns from this externalization into itself in mind. As Heraclitus had taught eternal becoming, so Hegel, who avowedly accepted all the propositions of the Ephesian philosopher in his logic, taught eternal proceeding. The difference between the Greek and the German was that the former believed in the flux of matter, of fire transmuting itself by degrees into all things, and in nature as the sole existence, outside of which there was nothing; while the latter conceived the abstract idea or reason as that which really is or becomes, and nature as only a necessary but transient phase in the process of development. With Heraclitus evolution meant the return of all things into the primal principle followed by a new world-development; with Hegel it was an eternal process of thought, giving no answer to the question as to the end of historical development.

While Heraclitus had laid down his doctrine of eternal becoming rather by intuition than on the ground of experience, and the entire evolutionary process of Hegel had been expressly conceived as based on pure thought, Darwin's and Wallace's epoch-making doctrine rested upon a vast mass of ascertained facts. He was, of course, not the first to lay down the origin of species one from another as a formal doctrine. Besides those predecessors of his to whom allusion has already been made, two others may be mentioned here: his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who emphasized organic variability; and still more Lamarck, who denied the immutability of species and forms, and claimed to have demonstrated by observation the gradual development of the animal kingdom. What is new in Charles Darwin is not his theory of descent, but its confirmation by the theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. Thus a result is brought about which corresponds as far as possible to a rational end in a purely mechanical process, without any cooperation of teleological principles, without any innate tendency in the organisms to proceed to a higher stage. This theory postulates in the later organisms deviations from the earlier ones; and that these deviations, in so far as they are improvements, perpetuate themselves and become generic marks of differentiation. This, however, imports a difficulty, since the origin of the first of these deviations is inexplicable. The differentia of mankind, whom Darwin, led by the force of analogy, deduces from a species of apes, consists in intellect and moral qualities, but comes into existence only by degrees. The moral sensibilities develop from the original social impulse innate in man; this impulse is an effort to secure not so much individual happiness as the general welfare.

It would be impossible to name here all those who, in different countries, have followed in Darwin's footsteps, first in the biological field and then in those of psychology, ethics, sociology, and religion. They have carried his teaching further in several directions, modifying it to some extent and making it fruitful, while positivism has not seldom come into alliance with it. In Germany Ernst Haeckel must be mentioned with his biogenetic law, according to which the development of the individual is an epitome of the history of the race, and with his less securely grounded notion of the world-ether as a creative deity. In France Alfred Fouillee worked out a theory of idea-forces, a combination of Platonic idealism with English (though not specifically Darwinian) evolutionism. Marie-Jean Guyau understood by evolution a life led according to the fundamental law that the most intensive life is also the most extensive. He develops his ethics altogether from the facts of the social existence of mankind, and his religion is a universal sociomorphism, the feeling of the unity of man with the entire cosmos.

The most careful and thorough development of the whole system took place in England. For a long time it was represented principally by the work of Herbert Spencer, who had come out for the principle of evolution even before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. He carries the idea through the whole range of philosophy in his great System of Synthetic Philosophy and undertakes to show that development is the highest law of all nature, not merely of the organic. As the foundation of ill that exists, though itself unknowable and only revealing itself in material and mental forms, he places a power, the Absolute, of which we have but an indefinite conception. The individual processes of the world of phenomena are classed under the head of evolution, or extension of movement, with which integration of matter, union into a single whole, is connected, and dissolution or absorption of movement, which includes disintegration of matter, the breaking of connection. Both processes go on
simultaneously, and include the history of every existence which we can perceive. In the course of their development the organisms incorporate matter with themselves; the plant grows by taking into itself elements which have previously existed in the form of gases, and the animal by assimilating elements found in plants and in other animals. The same sort of integration is observed in social organisms, as when nomadic families unite into a tribe, or subjects under a prince, and princes under a king. In like manner integration is evident in the development of language, of art, and of science, especially philosophy. But as the individuals unite into a whole, a strongly marked differentiation goes on at the same time, as in the distinction between the surface and the interior of the earth, or between various climates. Natural selection is not considered necessary to account for varying species, but gradual conditions of life create them. The aim of the development is to show a condition of perfect balance in the whole; when this is attained, the development, in virtue of the continuous operation of external powers, passes into dissolution. Those epochs of development and of dissolution follow alternately upon each other. This view of Spencer suggests the hodos ano and hodos kato of Heraclitus, and his flowing back of individual things into the primal principle.

Similar principles are carried out not only for organic phenomena but also for mental and social; and on the basis of the theory of evolution a remarkable combination of intuitionism and empiricism is achieved. In his principles of sociology Spencer lays down the laws of hyperorganic evolution, and gives the various stages of human customs and especially of religious ideas, deducing all religion much too one-sidedly from ancestor-worship. The belief in an immortal " second self " is explained by such phenomena as shadows and echoes. The notion of gods is suppose to arise from the idea of a ghostly life after death. In his Principles of Ethics he attempts a similar compromise between intuitionism and empiricism, deducing the consciousness of duty from innumerable accumulated experiences. The compelling element in moral actions, originally arising from fear of religious, civil, or social punishment, disappears with the development of true morality. There is no permanent opposition between egoism and altruism, but the latter develops simultaneously with the former.

Spencer's ethical principles were fruitfully modified, especially by Sir Leslie Stephen and S. Alexander, though with constant adherence to the idea of development. While the doctrine of evolution in Huxley and Tyndall is associated with agnosticism, and thus freed from all connection with metaphysics, as indeed was the case with Spencer, in spite of his recognition of the Absolute as the necessary basis for religion and for thought, in another direction an attempt was made to combine evolutionism closely with a metaphysics in which the idea of God was prominent. Thus the evolution theory of Clifford and Romanes led them to a thoroughgoing monism, and that of J. M. F. Schiller to pluralism. According to the last-named a personal deity, limited in power, exists side by side with a multitude of intellectual beings, who existed before the formation of the world in a chaotic state as absolutely isolated individuals. The process of world formation begins with the decision of the divine Spirit to bring a harmony of the cosmos out of these many existences. Though Spencer's influence in philosophical development was not so great in Germany as in England, the idea of development has continued in recent years to exert no little power. Space forbids more than a mention of Lotze's teleological idealism; Von Harttmann's absolute monism, in which the goal of the teleological development of the universe is the reversion of the will into not-willing; Wundt's metaphysics of the will, according to which the world is a development, an eternal becoming, in which nature is a preliminary stage to mind; and Nietzsche's individualism, the final point of which is the development of the superman.

The author of this article is anonymous. The IEP is actively seeking an author who will write a replacement article.

Originally posted here:

History of Evolution | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off

Evolution – Conservapedia

Posted: at 2:47 am

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."[2] Currently, there are several theories of evolution.

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics.[3] In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[4]

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. [5] In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ critical thinking skills when examining the evolutionary paradigm. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.[6]

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.[7] Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." [8] The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.[9] In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.[10] In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[11]

Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[12] In addition, China has the world's largest atheist population and the rapid growth of biblical creationism/Evangelical Christianity in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on global atheism (see: China and biblical creationism and Asian atheism).

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[13][14] Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[15][16]

The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.[17] In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.[18] Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[19]

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[20]

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[21]Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[22] Darwin was a weak atheist/agnostic (see: religious views of Charles Darwin) .[23] Charles Darwins casual mentioning of a creator in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.[24] The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. [25] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.[26]

Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled Descent of Man.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the Western world, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C.[27] The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of theistic evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.[28]

In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.[29] In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.[30][31] The January 20, 2012 article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."[32]

In response to evolutionary indoctrination and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization
Creation Ministries International created a Question evolution! campaign which poses 15 questions for evolutionists. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.[33] See also: Causes of evolutionary belief

What is Darwinism? – TalkOrigins Archive

Posted: at 2:46 am

What is Darwinism? Joel Hanes

n One Long Argument, Ernst Mayr (evolutionary biologist, and originator of the Biological Species Concept) summarizes Darwin's theories, and traces the history of their acceptance by the world scientific community.

In the Preface , he begins:

In Chapter Four, "Ideological Opposition to Darwin's Five Theories", Mayr summarizes "Darwin's Theory", or "Darwinism", thus:

... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought.

... One particulary cogent reason why Darwinism cannot be a single monolithic theory is that organic evolution consists of two essentially independent processes, as we have seen: transformation in time, and diversification in ecological and geographical space. The two processes require a minimum of two entirely independent and very different theories.

... I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:

Let's look at some of the implications of Mayr's analysis.

At first blush, (4) Gradualism seems like it might conflict with Gould & Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium" theory; but on closer examination, not so.

Here [thanks to Robert Low] are two relevant quotes from On the Origin of Species:

"Varieties are often at first local...rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will simply be classed as new species."

Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous -- only that it does not proceed by "jumps" in a single generation (what Mayr calls "saltational" change). That is, despite the distortions of some anti-evolutionists, Darwin explictly did not think that evolution proceeds by the production of "hopeful monsters" -- Darwin himself never proposed that a fully-dinosaur parent gave birth to fully-bird progeny. Rather, the change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations. Note that change over a thousand generations of any species appears as "sudden" or "abrupt" change in the fossil record, because a thousand generations is such an infinitesimally small fraction of Earth's history.

(5) Natural selection, doesn't account for some of the kinds of variation that we see in species -- particularly non-adaptive traits -- but you'll notice that Darwin didn't claim that natural selection explained all traits, merely the adaptive ones.

After Darwin, some biologists distorted the theory of natural selection into the doctrine of "strict adaptionism", in which every feature of every organism was held to be produced by natural selection (and thus some explanation of why the feature is adaptive was required.) But Darwin didn't say that all selection is natural (adaptive) selection -- only that natural selection is the source of some change, and can explain why adaptive change occurs. Modern biologists have proposed other mechanisms for change -- neutral selection, genetic drift, the "founder effect", etc. -- and Darwin himself thought that sexual selection could be important. None of these contradict the idea of natural selection; as additional mechanisms for genetic change over time, they augment it.

Here [thanks to Ken Smith] is a quote from the final chapter of the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species:

This has been of no avail.

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.

Mayr recaps the history of Darwinist theories, and addresses the claims that Darwinism has been disproved or superseded in Chapter Ten: "New Frontiers in Evolutionary Biology".

...

Opponents of the [modern evolutionary] synthesis consistently confound three schools of Darwinism:

Darwinism is not a simple theory that is either true or false but is rather a highly complex research program that is being continuously modified and improved. This was true before the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, and it continues to be true after the synthesis. Table 2 lists many of the significant stages in the modification of Darwinism that one might recognize. Yet recognizing such seemingly discontinuous periods is in many respects an artificial enterprise. ... each of these periods was heterogeneous to some extent, owing to the diversity in the thinking of different evolutionists. Most critics who have attempted to refute the evolutionary synthesis have failed to recognize this diversity of views and thus have succeeded in refuting only the reductionist fringe of the Darwinism camp.

...

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin, First Edition 1859. Sixth Edition 1872.

Visit link:

What is Darwinism? - TalkOrigins Archive

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off

Trasferimento della mente – Wikipedia

Posted: at 2:46 am

Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.

Il trasferimento della mente o mind uploading (in lingua inglese letteralmente "caricamento della mente") o emulazione del cervello l'ipotetico processo del trasferimento o della copia di una mente cosciente da un cervello a un substrato non biologico. Il processo prevede la scansione e la mappatura dettagliata del cervello biologico e la copia del suo stato in un sistema informatico o altro dispositivo di calcolo.[1] Il computer eseguirebbe una simulazione del modello cos fedele all'originale che la mente simulata si comporterebbe, in sostanza, allo stesso modo del cervello originale, o per tutti gli scopi pratici, in maniera indistinguibile.[2] La mente simulata verrebbe considerata parte della realt virtuale del mondo simulato e potrebbe essere supportata da un modello anatomico tridimensionale che simula il corpo. In alternativa, la mente simulata potrebbe risiedere in un computer (o connessa ad esso) innestato all'interno di un robot umanoide o di un corpo biologico sostituendone il cervello.

L'emulazione di un intero cervello viene considerata dai futurologi come il punto logico finale[2] nei campi della neuroscienza computazionale e della neuroinformatica, ossia nella simulazione del cervello per scopi di ricerca medica. Essa viene trattata in pubblicazioni di ricerca riguardanti l'intelligenza artificiale[3] come un approccio all'intelligenza artificiale forte. Secondo i futurologi e per i movimenti transumanisti il mind uploading una tecnologia che rappresenta un'importante possibilit di estensione della vita, originariamente suggerita dalla letteratura biomedica gi nel 1971.[4] Il mind uploading rappresenta, inoltre, un elemento centrale in numerose opere di fantascienza, quali romanzi e film, come, ad esempio Transcendence.

Il mind uploading viene considerato da alcuni scienziati come una tecnologia teorica e futuribile ma possibile,[2] sebbene i principali finanziatori della ricerca e le principali riviste scientifiche rimangano scettici. Diverse previsioni contraddittorie sono state formulate riguardo a quando un cervello umano potr essere interamente emulato e alcune delle previsioni fatte in passato sono risultate troppo ottimistiche. Gi nel 1950 uno dei padri fondatori della cibernetica, Norbert Wiener, predisse che un giorno si sarebbe potuta trasferire una mente attraverso i fili di un telegrafo.[1] Una ricerca tradizionale nel campo comunque in corso in settori pertinenti, compresi campi quali lo sviluppo di supercomputer sempre pi veloci, la realt virtuale, le interfacce neurali, la mappatura e la simulazione di cervelli di animali, la connettomica e l'estrazione di informazioni da un cervello in funzione.[5] La questione del trasferimento dei dati e dell'intera struttura funzionale di un cervello tramite un processo tecnologico un argomento discusso anche dai filosofi, e la possibilit di una reale attuazione del processo pu essere vista come impossibile o inaccettabile da coloro che possiedono una visione dualistica del mondo, che comune a molte religioni.

Il cervello dell'essere umano contiene circa 86 miliardi di cellule nervose, chiamate neuroni, ciascuna singolarmente legata ad altri neuroni per mezzo di connettori chiamati assoni e dendriti. I segnali che percorrono le giunture (sinapsi) di queste connessioni vengono trasmessi tramite il rilascio e il rilevamento di sostanze chimiche note come neurotrasmettitori. Si concordi nel credere che la mente umana sia in gran parte una propriet emergente dell'elaborazione delle informazioni di questa rete neurale.

I neuroscienziati hanno dichiarato che importanti funzioni svolte dalla mente, come l'apprendimento, la memoria e la coscienza, sono dovuti a processi puramente fisici ed elettrochimici nel cervello e sono regolati da leggi vigenti. Christof Koch e Giulio Tononi hanno scritto nell'IEEE Spectrum:

Il concetto di mind uploading si basa su questa visione meccanicistica della mente, e nega la visione vitalista della vita umana e della coscienza. Molti eminenti scienziati, informatici e neuroscienziati hanno previsto che i computer saranno in grado di pensare e persino di raggiungere il livello di coscienza, inclusi Koch e Tononi,[6]Douglas Hofstadter,[7]Jeff Hawkins,[7]Marvin Minsky,[8]Randal A. Koene,[9] e Rodolfo Llins.[10]

Tale capacit di intelligenza delle macchine potrebbe fornire il substrato computazionale necessario per il caricamento della mente. Tuttavia, anche se il mind uploading dipende da una tale capacit generale, concettualmente distinto dalle forme generali di intelligenza artificiale in quanto il risultato di una rianimazione dinamica di informazioni derivanti da una mente umana in modo che la mente conservi un senso di identit storica (altre forme sono possibili ma comprometterebbero o eliminerebbero la caratteristica dell'estensione della vita generalmente associata con il mind uploading). Le informazioni trasferite e rianimate diverrebbero una forma di intelligenza artificiale, talvolta chiamata anche infomorfo o "nomorph".

Molti teorici hanno presentato modelli del cervello e hanno stabilito una serie di stime della quantit di potenza di calcolo necessaria per simulazioni parziali e complete. Secondo questi modelli, il mind uploading pu diventare possibile entro qualche decennio, se le tendenze nel progresso tecnologico, come quelle rappresentate dalla legge di Moore, continuassero allo stesso ritmo esponenziale.[11]

La prospettiva di caricare la coscienza umana in questo modo solleva molte questioni filosofiche che coinvolgono l'identit, l'individualit e questioni riguardanti l'anima e la mente definite come il contenuto informativo del cervello, cos come numerosi problemi di etica medica e moralit alla base processo.

In teoria, se le informazioni e i processi della mente possono essere dissociati dal corpo biologico, essi non sono pi legate ai limiti fisici individuali di quel corpo. Inoltre, le informazioni all'interno di un cervello potrebbero essere in parte o interamente copiate o trasferite a una o pi altri substrati (come una memorizzazione di tipo digitale o un altro cervello), riducendo o eliminando il rischio di mortalit. Questa lettura del processo fu proposta per la prima volta nella letteratura biomedica nel 1971 dal biogerontologo George M. Martin dell'Universit di Washington.[4]

Una intelligenza basata su computer, come quella risultante da un mind uploading, potrebbe pensare molto pi velocemente di un essere umano. I neuroni umani scambiano i segnali elettrochimici con una velocit massima di circa 150 metri al secondo, mentre la velocit della luce di circa 300 milioni di metri al secondo, circa due milioni di volte pi veloce. Inoltre, i neuroni possono generare un massimo di circa 200-1000 potenziali d'azione o "picchi" al secondo, mentre il numero di segnali al secondo nei moderni chip per computer di circa 3GHz (circa 20 milioni di volte maggiore) e dovrebbe aumentare di almeno un fattore 100. Pertanto, anche se i componenti del computer responsabile della simulazione di un cervello non sono significativamente pi piccoli rispetto a quelli di un cervello biologico, e anche se la temperatura di questi componenti non significativamente pi bassa, Eliezer Yudkowsky del Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence calcola un limite massimo teorico per la velocit di una futura rete neurale artificiale. La rete potrebbe in teoria funzionare circa un milione di volte pi velocemente di un vero cervello, sperimentando un anno di tempo soggettivo in soli 31 secondi di tempo reale.[12][13][14]

Tuttavia, ne
lla pratica questa implementazione in parallelo richiederebbe entit computazionali per ciascuno dei cento miliardi di neuroni e ciascuna delle 100.000 miliardi di sinapsi. Ci richiede un computer o reti neurali artificiali dalle potenzialit enormi, molto pi grandi anche degli attuali supercomputer.[13] In un'implementazione meno futuristica, il time-sharing permetterebbe l'emulazione sequenziale di diversi neuroni con la stessa unit di calcolo. Cos le dimensioni del computer potrebbero essere pi limitate, anche se l'aumento di velocit potrebbe essere minore. Supponendo che le minicolonne corticali raggruppate in ipercolonne siano le unit di calcolo, il cervello di un mammifero pu essere emulato da un supercomputer di oggi, ma risulterebbe operante a una velocit inferiore rispetto a quella del cervello biologico.[15]

Il mind uploading pone potenziali benefici per i viaggi nello spazio interstellare perch consentirebbe ad esseri immortali di viaggiare per il cosmo senza soffrire di accelerazione estrema oltre che delle limitazioni intrinseche di un corpo biologico. Una societ intera di menti processate con un mind uploading pu essere emulata da un computer su una nave spaziale dalle dimensioni estremamente limitate, che consuma molta meno energia rispetto a quella utilizzata per i viaggi spaziali tradizionali.

Le menti digitalizzate avrebbero il controllo della nave e sarebbero in grado di prendere decisioni sul viaggio in tempo reale, indipendentemente da eventuali segnali provenienti dalla Terra, che potrebbero eventualmente richiedere mesi o anni per raggiungere l'astronave. Inoltre una coscienza virtuale pu essere posta in uno stato di ibernazione, o le sue attivit rallentate; le menti virtuali non dovrebbero quindi essere costrette a sperimentare la noia infinita di un viaggio che potrebbe richiedere anche migliaia di anni. Le menti potrebbero essere risvegliate solo quando il computer di bordo rileva che la destinazione stata raggiunta.

Un'altra possibilit per il viaggio sarebbe quella di trasmettere una mente tramite un laser, o via radio, tra due localit gi colonizzate. Il viaggio richiederebbe solo l'energia per trasmettere i segnali con la potenza necessaria per la destinazione.

Un altro concetto collegato al mind uploading, esplorato pi nella fantascienza che nella speculazione scientifica, la possibilit di ottenere diverse copie speculari di una sola mente umana. Tali copie potrebbero consentire a un "individuo" di provare pi cose in una volta, reintegrando le esperienze di tutte le copie in una mente centrale in un certo momento del futuro, di fatto permettendo a un singolo essere senziente di vivere in molti luoghi e fare pi cose contemporaneamente; questo concetto stato esplorato in particolare nella narrativa. Tali copie parziali e complete di un essere senziente sollevano questioni interessanti per quanto riguarda l'identit e l'individualit.

I sostenitori del mind uploading puntano alla legge di Moore per sostenere l'idea secondo cui la potenza di calcolo necessaria potrebbe essere disponibile in pochi decenni. Tuttavia, le effettive esigenze di calcolo per l'esecuzione di una mente umana caricata in un supporto tecnologico sono molto difficili da quantificare, rendendo altamente speculativo tale argomento. Indipendentemente dalla tecnica utilizzata per acquisire o ricreare la funzione di una mente umana, le esigenze di elaborazione possono essere immense, a causa del gran numero di neuroni presenti nel cervello umano e della notevole complessit di ogni neurone.

Nel 2004 Henry Markram, ricercatore capo del "Blue Brain Project", ha dichiarato che "non il loro obiettivo costruire una rete intelligente neurale", basata esclusivamente sulle esigenze computazioni che un tale progetto richiederebbe:[16]

Cinque anni pi tardi, dopo la riuscita simulazione di una parte di cervello di un ratto, lo stesso scienziato si rivelato molto pi ottimista al riguardo. Nel 2009, quando era direttore del progetto Blue Brain, aveva affermato che "Un dettagliato e funzionale cervello umano artificiale pu essere costruito entro i prossimi 10 anni".[18]

Poich la funzione della mente umana, e i suoi collegamenti con il funzionamento della rete neurale del cervello, sono questioni poco conosciute, il mind uploading si basa sul concetto di emulazione della rete neurale. Invece di dover comprendere i processi psicologici di alto livello e le grandi strutture del cervello, e di costruire su di essi un modello utilizzando l'intelligenza artificiale classica e i modelli della psicologia cognitiva, viene scansionato il basso livello di struttura della rete neurale sottostante, mappato e quindi emulato con un sistema informatico. Per dirla con la terminologia informatica, piuttosto che fare un'analisi e un reverse engineering del comportamento degli algoritmi e delle strutture dei dati che risiedono nel cervello, uno schema del suo codice sorgente viene ricompilato in un altro linguaggio di programmazione. La mente umana e l'identit personale verrebbero poi, in teoria, generati dalla rete neurale emulata nello stesso modo in cui vengono generati dalla rete neurale biologica.

D'altra parte, una simulazione a scala molecolare del cervello potrebbe non essere necessaria, a condizione che il funzionamento dei neuroni non sia influenzato da processi della meccanica quantistica. L'approccio all'emulazione della rete neurale richiede solo che siano compresi il funzionamento e l'interazione dei neuroni e delle sinapsi. Si prevede che possa essere sufficiente un modello black box dell'elaborazione del segnale con il quale i neuroni rispondono agli impulsi nervosi (elettrici e trasmissione sinaptica chimica).

richiesto un modello sufficientemente complesso e accurato dei neuroni. Un tradizionale modello artificiale di una rete neurale, ad esempio un modello di rete multi-livello di tipo perceptron, non considerato sufficiente. richiesto il modello di una rete neuronale di impulsi (SNN, Spiking Neural Network), che rifletterebbe la propriet del neurone che spara impulsi solo quando un potenziale di membrana raggiunge un certo livello. probabile che il modello debba includere delay (ritardi nella risposta), funzioni non lineari ed equazioni differenziali che descrivono il rapporto tra i parametri elettrofisiologici come correnti elettriche, tensioni, stati di membrane (stati dei canali ionici) e neuromodulatori.

Dal momento che si ritiene che l'apprendimento e la memoria a lungo termine siano il risultato del rafforzamento o dell'indebolimento delle sinapsi attraverso un meccanismo noto come plasticit sinaptica o adattamento sinaptico, il modello dovrebbe comprendere questo meccanismo. Dovrebbero essere inseriti nel modello anche le risposte dei recettori sensoriali ai vari stimoli.

Inoltre, il modello dovrebbe includere necessariamente il metabolismo del cervello, ossia le modalit con le quali i neuroni sono affetti dagli ormoni e da altre sostanze chimiche che possono attraversare la barriera emato-encefalica. Si ritiene probabile che il modello debba includere anche neuromodulatori, neurotrasmettitori e canali ionici al momento sconosciuti. Si ritiene improbabile che il modello di simulazione debba includere anche l'interazione delle proteine, il che renderebbe il tutto computazionalmente molto pi complesso.[2]

Un modello di simulazione digitale al computer di un sistema analogico come il cervello un'approssimazione che pu comportare casuali errori di quantizzazione e di distorsione. Tuttavia, i neuroni biologici soffrono anche di casualit e di precisione limitata, per esempio a causa di rumori di fondo (informazioni irri
levanti, non corrette o duplicate). Gli errori del modello possono essere ridotti, rispetto a quelli del cervello biologico, scegliendo risoluzioni e frequenza di campionamento sufficientemente variabili e modelli sufficientemente accurati di non linearit. La potenza di calcolo e di memoria del computer deve comunque essere sufficiente per eseguire tali simulazioni di grandi dimensioni, preferibilmente in tempo reale.

Durante la modellazione e la simulazione del cervello di un individuo, una mappa del cervello o un database delle varie connessioni tra i neuroni devono essere estratti da un modello anatomico del cervello. Questa mappatura della rete dovrebbe mostrare la connettivit di tutto il sistema nervoso umano, tra cui il midollo spinale, i recettori sensoriali e le cellule muscolari. Una scansione di tipo distruttivo del cervello umano, compresi i dettagli sinaptici, possibile dalla fine del 2010.[19] Una mappa completa del cervello dovrebbe anche riflettere la forza sinaptica (il "peso") di ciascuna connessione. Non chiaro se questo sia possibile con la tecnologia attuale.

stato proposto che la memoria a breve termine e la memoria di lavoro possano essere una prolungata o ripetuta azione dei neuroni, cos come i processi dinamici intra-neurali. Poich lo stato del segnale elettrico e chimico delle sinapsi e dei neuroni pu essere difficile da estrarre, l'uploading potrebbe comportare per la mente caricata una perdita di memoria degli eventi immediatamente prima della scansione del cervello. Una completa mappatura del cervello occuperebbe meno di 2 x 1016 byte (20.000 terabyte) e memorizzerebbe gli indirizzi dei neuroni connessi, il tipo di sinapsi e il "peso" delle sinapsi per ciascuna delle 1015 sinapsi del cervello.

Un possibile metodo per il mind uploading il sezionamento seriale del cervello, processo in cui il tessuto cerebrale e forse altre parti del sistema nervoso sono congelati e poi scansionati e analizzati strato per strato, in modo da catturare la struttura dei neuroni e delle loro interconnessioni.[20] La struttura della superficie esposta del tessuto nervoso congelato verrebbe acquisita e registrata, e poi lo strato superficiale di tessuto asportato. Anche se questo sarebbe un processo molto lento e laborioso, la ricerca attualmente in corso per automatizzare la raccolta e la microscopia di sezioni seriali.[21] Le scansioni sarebbero quindi analizzate e verrebbe ricreato un modello della rete neurale nel sistema in cui la mente stata caricata.

Ci sono diverse incertezze riguardo a questo approccio che utilizza le attuali tecniche di microscopia. Se possibile replicare la funzione dei neuroni solo visualizzandone la struttura visibile, la risoluzione offerta da un microscopio elettronico a scansione sarebbe sufficiente per una tale tecnica.[21] Tuttavia, dato che la funzione del tessuto cerebrale in parte determinata da eventi molecolari, questo potrebbe non bastare per la cattura e la simulazione delle funzioni dei neuroni. possibile estendere le tecniche di sezionamento seriale e catturare la composizione molecolare interna dei neuroni, attraverso l'utilizzo di sofisticati metodi di colorazione immunoistochimica che potrebbero poi essere letti attraverso la microscopia confocale a scansione laser. Tuttavia, dato che la genesi fisiologica della mente non attualmente nota, questo metodo non pu essere in grado di accedere a tutte le informazioni biochimiche necessarie per ricreare un cervello umano con una sufficiente fedelt.

Pu anche essere possibile creare mappe 3D funzionali dell'attivit cerebrale, utilizzando avanzate tecnologie di neuroimaging, come la risonanza magnetica funzionale (fMRI, per mappare il cambiamento del flusso sanguigno), magnetoencefalografia (MEG, per la mappatura delle correnti elettriche), o combinazioni di pi metodi, per costruire un dettagliato modello tridimensionale del cervello con metodi non invasivi e non distruttivi. Oggi, la fMRI spesso combinata con la magnetoencefalografia per la creazione di mappe funzionali della corteccia cerebrale umana durante i compiti cognitivi pi complessi, dato che due metodi sono complementari. Anche se la tecnologia di imaging attuale manca della risoluzione spaziale necessaria per raccogliere le informazioni necessarie per una simile scansione, importanti sviluppi recenti e futuri sono previsti atti a migliorare sostanzialmente sia la risoluzione spaziale che quella temporale delle tecnologie esistenti.[22]

Processo di acquisizione da una risonanza magnetica della intera rete strutturale di un cervello.

Le interfacce neurali (BCI, Brain-Computer Interface; note anche come interfacce neuro-computer o interfacce cerebrali) costituiscono una delle tecnologie ipotetiche per la lettura delle informazioni di un cervello funzionante. La produzione di questo dispositivo o di uno simile potrebbe rivelarsi basilare nel processo di mind uploading di un soggetto umano vivente.

Una rete neurale artificiale, descritta come "grande e complessa quanto la met del cervello di un topo", stato eseguita su un supercomputer IBM Blue Gene da un gruppo di ricerca dell'Universit del Nevada nel 2007. Per simulare il tempo di un secondo ci sono voluti dieci secondi di tempo di esecuzione del computer. I ricercatori hanno riferito di aver constatato impulsi nervosi "biologicamente coerenti" attraverso la corteccia virtuale. Tuttavia, nella simulazione mancavano le strutture cerebrali in tempo reale del cervello dei topi, e i ricercatori hanno riferito che intendono migliorare in tal senso l'accuratezza del modello dei neuroni.[23]

Blue Brain un progetto, lanciato nel maggio 2005 da IBM e dall'cole polytechnique fdrale di Losanna, che ha l'obiettivo di creare una simulazione al computer di una colonna corticale dei mammiferi a livello molecolare.[24] Il progetto utilizza un supercomputer su base Blue Gene per simulare il comportamento elettrico dei neuroni in base alla loro connessione sinaptica e sulle relative correnti di membrana. L'obiettivo iniziale del progetto, completato nel dicembre 2006,[25] era la simulazione della colonna neocorticale di un topo, che pu essere considerata la pi piccola unit funzionale della corteccia cerebrale (la parte del cervello ritenuta responsabile delle funzioni superiori, come il pensiero cosciente), contenente 10.000 neuroni (e 108 sinapsi). Tra il 1995 e il 2005, Henry Markram mapp i tipi di neuroni e le loro connessioni in una colonna. Nel novembre 2007,[26] il progetto arriv al termine della prima fase, durante la quale erano stati raccolti i dati per il processo di creazione, validazione e ricerca della colonna neocorticale. Il progetto si propone di rivelare alla fine gli aspetti della cognizione umana e di vari disturbi psichiatrici causati dal malfunzionamento dei neuroni, come l'autismo, e di capire come gli agenti farmacologici influenzano il comportamento della rete neurale.

Un'organizzazione chiamata Brain Preservation Foundation[27] stata fondata nel 2010 e offre un premio Brain Preservation Technology al fine di promuovere le ricerche nel campo della preservazione del cervello. Il premio viene assegnato in due parti: il 25% verr assegnato al primo team internazionale che riuscir a preservare l'intero cervello di un topo, il 75% al team che riuscir per primo a preservare l'intero cervello di un animale di grandi dimensioni in un modo che possa essere adottato anche per gli esseri umani dopo la morte clinica. In definitiva l'obiettivo di questo premio quello di generare una intera mappa del cervello che possa essere utilizzata a sostegno degli sforzi separati per fare l'uploading e possibilment
e "rivitalizzare" una mente in uno spazio virtuale.

Pu essere difficile garantire la tutela dei diritti umani in mondi simulati. Per esempio, i ricercatori delle scienze sociali potrebbero essere tentati di utilizzare le menti simulate, o intere societ di menti simulate, per esperimenti controllati in cui sono esposte molte copie delle stesse menti (in serie o contemporaneamente) in condizioni di prova diverse.

L'unica risorsa fisica limitata a cui necessariamente attenersi in un mondo simulato la capacit di calcolo, e quindi la velocit e la complessit della simulazione. Individui ricchi o privilegiati in una societ di menti emulate potrebbero cos fare un'esperienza soggettiva del tempo ben maggiore rispetto ad altre nello stesso tempo reale, o potrebbero essere in grado di eseguire pi copie di loro stessi o di altri, e quindi produrre pi servizi e diventare ancora pi ricchi. Altri potrebbero soffrire della mancanza di risorse computazionali (starvation) e mostrare un comportamento al rallentatore.

Un altro problema filosofico derivante dal mind uploading ruota intorno all'individualit della mente caricata: pu essere considerata la stessa dell'originale, dotata della stessa coscienza, o semplicemente una copia esatta con gli stessi ricordi e la personalit? E se invece risultassero differenti, quali sarebbero le differenze tra la copia e l'originale?

Le principali tecnologie di scansione del cervello prese in considerazione, come il sezionamento seriale, risulterebbero necessariamente distruttive e il cervello originale non sopravviverebbe alla procedura di scansione. Ma se l'originale pu essere mantenuto intatto, la coscienza emulata potrebbe essere una copia esatta e speculare della persona biologica. In questo caso diverrebbe implicita la possibilit di copie multiple di una singola coscienza originale che pu letteralmente "entrare" in una o pi copie, dal momento che queste tecnologie comportano generalmente la simulazione di un cervello umano in un computer di qualche tipo, tramite file digitali che possono essere copiati all'infinito (storage permettendo) con assoluta precisione. Il problema infatti reso ancora pi complesso proprio da questa possibilit di creare un numero potenzialmente infinito di copie inizialmente identiche del soggetto originale che sarebbero ovviamente tutte presenti, allo stesso tempo, come esseri distinti. Si suppone che una volta che le varie versioni vengono poi esposte, dopo l'uploading, a diversi input sensoriali, le loro esperienze comincerebbero a divergere, rendendole semplicemente menti distinte, anche se tutti i loro ricordi fino al momento della copia resterebbero gli stessi. Ma molte varianti, pi o meno complesse, sono possibili. A seconda della capacit di calcolo, la simulazione pu essere eseguita con un tempo pi veloce o pi lento rispetto al tempo fisico, con ovvie conseguenze per l'interazione tra una mente biologica e una mente simulata. Un cervello emulato pu essere inoltre avviato, messo in pausa per un backup e riavviato di nuovo da uno stato di backup salvato in qualsiasi momento. La mente simulata in quest'ultimo caso, necessariamente non ricorderebbe tutto ci che successo dopo l'istante della messa in pausa e forse non potrebbe nemmeno essere consapevole che un duplicato appena avviato. Risulterebbero diverse le interazioni possibili tra copie di cervelli emulati; una versione precedente di una mente simulata pu interagire con una versione pi "giovane" e condividere esperienze con essa.

Il limite di Bekenstein il limite superiore delle informazioni che possono essere contenute all'interno di una regione finita di spazio che ha una quantit finita di energia o, al contrario, la quantit massima di informazioni necessarie a descrivere perfettamente un dato sistema fisico fino al livello quantistico.[28]

Un cervello umano medio ha un peso di 1,5kg e un volume di 1260cm. L'energia (E=mc) sar 1.348131017J e se si considera il cervello una sfera il raggio sar 6.70030102metri.

Il limite di Bekenstein per un cervello umano medio sarebbe 2.589911042bit che rappresenta il limite superiore delle informazioni necessarie per ricreare perfettamente un cervello umano medio fino al livello quantico. Ci implica che il numero dei diversi stati (=2I) del cervello umano (e della mente se si considera il fisicalismo) almeno 107.796401041.

Tuttavia, come descritto sopra, secondo molti sostenitori del mind uploading i modelli a livello quantistico e la simulazione dei neuroni a scala molecolare non saranno necessari, quindi il limite di Bekenstein rappresenta solo un limite massimo. Si stima che l'ippocampo di un cervello umano adulto possa memorizzare dati fino a un limite equivalente a 2,5 petabyte in campo binario.[29]

I seguaci del Movimento Raeliano sostengono il mind uploading nel processo di clonazione umana per raggiungere la vita eterna. Vivere all'interno di un computer viene vista come una delle principali possibilit.[30] Il mind uploading viene sostenuto anche da diversi ricercatori nel campo delle neuroscienze e dell'intelligenza artificiale, come Marvin Minsky. Nel 1993, Joe Strout cre un piccolo sito web chiamato Mind Uploading Home Page, e cominci a sostenere l'idea della creazione di circoli sulla crionica in rete. Molti transumanisti credono allo sviluppo e all'implementazione del mind uploading e alcuni di essi, tra cui Nick Bostrom, prevedono che sar possibile entro il XXI secolo considerando le tendenze tecnologiche, come la legge di Moore.[2]

Il libro Beyond Humanity: CyberEvolution and Future Minds di Gregory S. Paul & Earl D. Cox,, tratta dell'eventualit (per gli autori, quasi inevitabile) dell'evoluzione dei computer in esseri senzienti, ma si occupa anche di mind uploading. Wetwares: Experiments in PostVital Living, di Richard Doyle Wetwares, tratta ampiamente il mind uploading e sostiene che gli esseri umani sono parte di un "fenotipo di vita artificiale". La visione di Doyle inverte il processo del mind uploading introducendo forme di vita artificiali attivamente alla ricerca di incarnazioni biologiche come parte della loro strategia riproduttiva. Raymond Kurzweil, esponente di rilievo del transumanesimo e convinto sostenitore della probabilit di una singolarit tecnologica, ha suggerito che il percorso pi facile per arrivare a un livello umano di intelligenza artificiale potrebbe trovarsi nel reverse-engineering del cervello umano, argomento che usa di solito per riferirsi alla creazione di una nuova intelligenza in base ai principi di funzionamento del cervello e all'uploading di singole menti umane sulla base di scansioni e simulazioni estremamente dettagliate. L'idea discussa anche nel suo libro La singolarit vicina.

See more here:

Trasferimento della mente - Wikipedia

Posted in Mind Uploading | Comments Off

Intro to Artificial Intelligence Course and Training …

Posted: at 2:46 am

Watch Video

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a field that has a long history but is still constantly and actively growing and changing. In this course, youll learn the basics of modern AI as well as some of the representative applications of AI. Along the way, we also hope to excite you about the numerous applications and huge possibilities in the field of AI, which continues to expand human capability beyond our imagination.

Note: Parts of this course are featured in the Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree and the Data Analyst Nanodegree programs. If you are interested in AI, be sure to check out those programs as well!

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is increasingly prevalent in our everyday lives. It has uses in a variety of industries from gaming, journalism/media, to finance, as well as in the state-of-the-art research fields from robotics, medical diagnosis, and quantum science. In this course youll learn the basics and applications of AI, including: machine learning, probabilistic reasoning, robotics, computer vision, and natural language processing.

Some of the topics in Introduction to Artificial Intelligence will build on probability theory and linear algebra. You should have understanding of probability theory comparable to that covered in our Intro to Statistics course.

See the Technology Requirements for using Udacity.

Peter Norvig is Director of Research at Google Inc. He is also a Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence and the Association for Computing Machinery. Norvig is co-author of the popular textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prior to joining Google he was the head of the Computation Sciences Division at NASA Ames Research Center.

Sebastian Thrun is a Research Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, a Google Fellow, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the German Academy of Sciences. Thrun is best known for his research in robotics and machine learning, specifically his work with self-driving cars.

This class is self paced. You can begin whenever you like and then follow your own pace. Its a good idea to set goals for yourself to make sure you stick with the course.

This class will always be available!

Take a look at the Class Summary, What Should I Know, and What Will I Learn sections above. If you want to know more, just enroll in the course and start exploring.

Yes! The point is for you to learn what YOU need (or want) to learn. If you already know something, feel free to skip ahead. If you ever find that youre confused, you can always go back and watch something that you skipped.

Its completely free! If youre feeling generous, we would love to have you contribute your thoughts, questions, and answers to the course discussion forum.

Collaboration is a great way to learn. You should do it! The key is to use collaboration as a way to enhance learning, not as a way of sharing answers without understanding them.

Udacity classes are a little different from traditional courses. We intersperse our video segments with interactive questions. There are many reasons for including these questions: to get you thinking, to check your understanding, for fun, etc... But really, they are there to help you learn. They are NOT there to evaluate your intelligence, so try not to let them stress you out.

Learn actively! You will retain more of what you learn if you take notes, draw diagrams, make notecards, and actively try to make sense of the material.

Nanodegree is a trademark of Udacity 20112016 Udacity, Inc.

Continue reading here:

Intro to Artificial Intelligence Course and Training ...

Posted in Artificial Intelligence | Comments Off

Seasteading | Online Only | n+1

Posted: at 2:43 am

Ephemerisle, 2009. Photo by Liz Henry via flickr.

To get to Ephemerisle, the floating festival of radical self-reliance, I left San Francisco in a rental car and drove east through Oakland, along the California Delta Highway, and onto Route 4. I passed windmill farms, trailer parks, and fields of produce dotted with multicolored Porta Potties. I took an accidental detour around Stockton, a municipality that would soon declare bankruptcy, citing generous public pensions as a main reason for its economic collapse. After rumbling along the gravely path, I reached the edge of the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta. The delta is one of the most dredged, dammed, and government subsidized bodies of water in the region. Its estimated that it provides two-thirds of Californians with their water supply.

At the marina closest to the festival, I spotted a group of Ephemerislers in swimsuits crammed into a dinghy. I approached them, but they were uninterested in small talk: their engine had run out of gas, and the marina was all out, too. They could give me a ride, they said, if I tracked down fuel. I contemplated the sad marina, its shabby rental boats, the murky water. Almost an hour had passed when the festivals ferry service showed up. At around noon, six of us took off in a small motorboat, speeding past Venice Island, a private sliver of land where Barron Hilton, heir to the Hilton hotel fortune, hunts ducks and puts on an annual July 4th firework display. Five minutes later, Ephemerisle came into sight, bobbing gently in an area called the Mandeville Tip.

It looked, at first, like a shapeless pile of floating junk, but as the boat drew closer, a sense of order emerged. The island was made up of two rows of houseboats, anchored about a hundred feet apart, with a smaller cluster of boats and yachts set off to the west. The boats had been bound together with planks, barrels, cleats, and ropes, assembled ad-hoc by someone with at least a rudimentary understanding of knots and anchors. Residents decorated their decks with banners and flags and tied kayaks and inflatable toys off the sides, giving the overall landscape the cephalopodan quality of raver pants. Dirty socks and plastic dishes and iPads and iPhones littered the decks. An enormous sound system blasted dance music, it turned out, at all hours of the day.

Each of the two-dozen boats at the party had a nameBayesian Conspiracy, Snuggly Nemo, Magic Carpet, Mini-ocracyand each name a personality to match, conveyed by the resident boaters choice of drug, beverage, or degree of exhibitionism. When I arrived, the Ephemerislers were partying in various stages of undress. They had been encouraged to make the space their own, to mind their own business, and to do as they pleased. This was, after all, a celebration of the laissez-faire lifean escape from the oppressive, rule-bound grind of dry land. In this suspended, provisional unreality, everybody was a planner, an economist, a designer, a king. Attendees were ready for everything the elements had in store, but knew escape was just a few clicks away, should the experiment go terribly wrong.

It is apparently a coincidence that Ephemerisles location shared a name with the 16th-century proto-libertarian philosopher Bernard de Mandeville. Mandeville Tip is a breezy point in the middle of the Delta, flanked by levees and a short boat ride away from a former county park. Its named after a 19th-century Californian politician, J. W. Mandeville, but the more well-known Mandeville, of the Fable of the Bees, had much in common with Ephemerisles freewheeling spirit. The Fables most famous lines, cited by Keynes, come from Mandevilles poem entitled The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turnd Honest, which argues that allowing private vices makes for good public policy. Bare Virtue cant make Nations live / In Splendor; they, that would revive / A Golden Age, must be as free / For Acorns, as for Honesty, concludes Mandeville, after bemoaning the unhappiness and lack of prosperity the bees experience while living in a more wholesome, regulated hive. Ephemerisle was its own little beehive of decadence, a floating pillow fort saturated in sex and soft drugs. It billed itself as a gathering of people interested in the possibility of permanent experimental ocean communities, but felt more like Burning Man, if Burners frolicked in the tears of Ludwig Von Mises.

Ephemerisle got its libertarian streak from its founders: the event was originally conceived of by the Seasteading Institute, a San Francisco nonprofit that supports the creation of thousands of floating city-states in international waters. After overseeing the first Ephemerisle in 2009, the Institute handed over responsibility for the festival to the community in 2010it turns out a raucous floating party costs too much for a tiny think tank to insureand last year, the group consisted of 300 amateur boaters, intoxicated partiers, and a committed clan of Seasteaders.

Seasteaders made up about a quarter of Ephemerisles attendees. If they took the operation somewhat more seriously than the young Californians who came just to party and build things, its because they dream of a day when theyll have their pick of floating city-states to live on, work from, and eventually abandon in favor of a different platform when they get bored. Borrowing from the lexicon of evolution, the Seasteaders say that a Cambrian explosion of these new countries will bring about greater freedom of choice for individuals, stimulate competition between existing governments, and provide blank nation-slates for experiments in governance. Ephemerisle is supposed to distill the ambitious project into a weekend that would give people the direct experience of political autonomy. It combines its political ambitions with appeals to back-to-the-land survivalism, off-the-grid drug use, and a vague nostalgia for water parks. There are no tickets, no central organizers, no rules, no rangers to keep you safe, reads the Ephemerisle mission statement. Its a new adventure into an alien environment, with discoveries, adventures, and mishaps along the way.

I was dropped off on the North neighborhoodthe most raucous of the threewhich, in addition to a row of houseboats, had a big platform serving as a communal front yard. One of the boats had pirated a radio station, Radio FMerisle. Other boats had tents pitched on their roofs to accommodate boatless hangers-on. It was a vision straight out of Neal Stephensons cult sci-fi novel Snow Crash (1992), which turned out to be one of the most influential texts in the Seasteading communitybeloved for its dystopian portrayals of life in a virtual, post-statist society. Small pleasure craft, sampans, junk, dhows, dinghies, life rafts, houseboats, makeshift structures built on air-filled oil drums and slabs of styrofoam, wrote Stephenson two decades ago, describing an itinerant flotilla full of refugees called The Raft. A good fifty percent of it isnt real boat material at all, just a garble of ropes, cables, planks, nets, and other debris tied together on top of whatever kind of flotsam was handy.

As I hopped from boat to boat and onto the platform, I noticed many of the men in attendance had sparkly turquoise polish on their grubby toenails. On one of the houseboats, a body-painting session was in full swing, but the hot California sun quickly reduced the painted swirls to an eczemic crust. Within minutes, I overheard an endless stream of conversations about start-ups, incubators, hackerspaces and apps. Naked bodies ambled by. While looking for a bathroom, I walked in on a couple having sex in a houseboats aft cabin.

I ha
d arranged via Facebook and Paypal to sleep in a houseboat in the South neighborhood of the island, not realizing the logistical difficulties involved: unless a motorboat happened to be passing by, the options for moving from one platform to another were limited to kayaking or pulling oneself across with a rope while balancing on wooden planks. The rope looked precarious, so I found a soggy kayak and paddled over three days worth of luggage, food, and supplies. The South looked a lot like the North, only less busy. Its smaller shared platform housed the Cuddle Gallery, a large white tent adorned with a cloth jellyfish where boatless residents could nap and work by day, and sleep, or cuddle, at night.

My cabin mates were already in the South when I arrived. Cyprien Noel, a soft-spoken French libertarian and an avid advocate for the Seasteading project, had rented the houseboat from the marina with his sister and brother-in-law, who were visiting him in the Bay Area from France. Hed also invited two Chinese engineers from San Jose and a woman in her thirties who had brought with her an espresso machine, a waffle iron, and a milk frother that looked like it hadnt been cleaned in weeks. They planned to stay afloat for four nights and four days.

I asked Cyprien how hed ended up so far from home. He explained, in French, that after trying unsuccessfully to obtain an American visa to work as an entrepreneur, hed won the Green Card lottery and immigrated to the United States about four years ago. He wanted to leave France in part to escape an overbearing state that he found closed and afraid, and today sees Seasteading as a potential solution to the lack of competition in government. Theres no real innovation or genuinely free market in France. I was tired of it, he said, adding, Libertarians in the US dont know how good they have it.

The Seasteading Institute was founded in 2008 by PayPal founder Peter Thiel and Patri Friedman, a former Google engineer best known for being Milton Friedmans grandson. Although both men are outspoken libertarians, the nonprofit institute insists that it isnt politically motivated. It claims to want more space for political experimentationand the beauty of aquatic governance experiments is that theyre free to fail on their own merits. If we can solve the engineering challenges of Seasteading, two-thirds of the Earths surface becomes open for these political start-ups, explains Friedman, a self-styled cult leader whos known to the community as just Patri. The Seasteaders have chosen as their motto Let a Thousand Nations Blooman apparent spin on Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, a Maoist policy which encouraged dissidents to speak out and then used their views as a pretext to jail them.

The mantra was repeated many times during the Seasteading Institutes third annual conference, which took place one week before Ephemerisle in the basement of the San Francisco Grand Meridien Hotel. The Institute hasnt been officially affiliated with Ephemerisle since 2009, but a number of attendees, many of them Seasteading Institute staffers, had plans to go to the festival and encouraged me to come party with them. A few older donors to the Seasteading cause planned to make appearances at Ephemerisle, expecting to look out of place in the festivals trippy, offbeat surroundings. There was a rumor that Peter Thiel would go, too, but no one could confirm it.

The crowd at the conference was disproportionately white, male (I counted maybe ten women in the room) and wealthy (tickets started at $715), and the vast majority of attendees needed no prompting to profess their tax-hating libertarian views just minutes into a conversation. The junket also brought together a number of academics, who, I later learned, had been courted by the Seasteading Institute because their expertiselegal, environmental, or technicalhappened to contribute to the greater Seasteading project. The experts had no plans to visit Ephemerisle; in fact, the movements radical, libertine side seemed to elude them completely.

Like Ephemerisle, the tenor of the conference was scrappy, defiant, and idealistic. The event was staffed by a group of a dozen Seasteading Institute ambassadors, who proselytize for the cause all over the world, and talks ranged from the highly speculativeSeasteading for Medical Tourism, The Economic Viability of Large Floating Structuresto the practical: Seastead Security, for instance, outlined how water cannons and noise machines can protect the cities from pirates and government agents. A panel of legal experts offered a dense explanation of the legal aspects of Seasteading, which is theoretically possible since no one nation has jurisdiction over the high seas. Still, as one lawyer on the panel pointed out, theres no way of knowing how existing countries will react to this assault on their dignity. The Seasteaders I spoke to were undeterred by the possibility of a seastead shutting down at the hands of a belligerent country or the international community. One Institute ambassador who spoke of Patri Friedman in hushed, reverent tones, told me she was confident that the movement was on the right side of history, and that they would be vindicated in the end.

A Costa Rican professor of agricultural engineering named Ricardo Radulovich gave one of the sessions most impassioned talks, about how terrestrial crops like tomatoes could thrive at sea and how algae could provide a sustainable energy alternative to fossil fuels. I met Radulovich, a dapper, ponytailed man in his fifties, over breakfast on the first day of the conference. After telling me about his passion for seaweed, Radulovich pulled a small vial of dried algae from his pocket and opened it on the table. Between bites of his Continental breakfast, he assured me that the powder, which smelled like fish food, would someday feed the world. He described his involvement in Seasteading as a conversion: I couldnt care less about land anymore. I was able to transcend land. It is too limited for the solutions we need.

The end of the second day of the conference ended with a boat cruise, complete with open bar and live jazz band. The ship looped around the Bay as the sun set. The Seasteading Institutes male employees looked like theyd stepped out of a casino, wearing jaunty fitted suits, sunglasses, fedoras, and silver jewelry. Attendees name-dropped Austrian economists and carried on long discussions about the restrictive, freedom-thwarting nature of American immigration policy. I sat at a table with a clean-cut young Seasteading Institute employee named Charlie, who was explaining to an older gentleman the merits of the Paleo diet, a lifestyle that advocates eating a lot of fat and mimicking the eating habits of our caveman ancestors. Paleo was one of the meal options I was given when I signed up for the conference; I would soon learn that it was popular lifestyle among the new wave of tech-libertarians.

I advocate butter for life extension and feeling vibrant, said Charlie Some foods just give you the urge to lift things. His interlocutor, an Institute ambassador in his fifties, looked a little confused. Im sick of being fat, he said. Can we have a seastead with a bootcamp?

The Institute also held a dinner for its benefactors aboard Forbes Island, a floating restaurant off of Pier 39. The dining area was below the deck and maritime paraphernalia adorned the walls of the dim cabin. The room could have passed for a Midtown social club, with its entrepreneurial young men and its rare steaks and red wine, except that the scene would periodically tilt overa queasy reminder that there was no ground below.

I met Patri Fr
iedman in the apartment of Seasteading donor John Chisholm, on the thirty-third floor of Infinity Towers, a high-rise development in San Franciscos SoMa district. Just over five feet tall with a mane of curly black hair and a wiry beard covering his pointy chin, he sat in a chair by the window, explaining his political philosophy while puffing on an electronic cigarette. Seasteading, Patri told me, was borne out of his personal dissatisfaction with the range, as a consumer. The faulty products that Patri referred to were countries.

Some thirty years ago Patris grandfather famously argued that companies have a social responsibility to increase profits and engage in competition. He didnt advocate for a complete free-for-allbusinesses and individuals, he insisted, must play by the rulesbut governments shouldnt be allowed to thwart free trade by monopolizing industry, either. Patri has adapted this thesis for a globalized ideas economy in which countries and borders dont matter as much as the free flow of people, money, and information. Governments, Patri says, should operate the way companies do, serving their customers (that is, citizens) with the best product possible. And like retail consumers, citizens ought to be able to vote with their feet, converging in self-selected groups and encouraging governments to compete for their allegiances. What if Apples genius designers applied their insights on a user experience to build a city thats as fun to use as an iPad? Patri asked during his talk at the conference.

As the theory goes, increased competition for citizens in the public sector would cause the best systems to attract more people, encouraging the widespread adoption of the most popular forms of governance while precipitating the decline of oppressive ones. Thousands of aquatic petri dishes (or, as his colleagues quip, Patri dishes) would encourage people to try out new forms of government to see which ones worked best. If the market were truly free, this would occur naturally, but the structural constraints of the world we live inthe finite number of countries, the limits on mobility based on a persons citizenship, and the artificially imposed impossibility of starting new countries from scratchinstead creates a monopoly on the governance market. Existing governments have no interest in making themselves vulnerable by opening up their borders, so the only solution is to go create thousands of start-up countries in the legal vacuum of international waters.

Patri came to these conclusions after having searched far and wide for Utopia. After graduating from college with a degree in discrete math in 2002, he led the itinerant and occasionally debauched life of a self-professed trust fund kid: living abroad, playing poker, experimenting with drugs and sex, and traveling the world looking for a country to call his own. The thought of living alone, on an island that is completely mine, quietly building infrastructure and waiting for others to choose to join me, is a serene one, Friedman wrote in a Livejournal entry (since deleted) during an exploratory trip to Costa Rica shortly after September 11. True freedom would be worth long periods of isolation. But how much loneliness can I accept for this little step towards freedom, this slight disentanglement from government?

Patris initial hopes for starting an anarcho-capitalist commune in Costa Rica didnt pan out. He liked the idea of Switzerland and Singapore well enough, but they werent long-term solutions. He even considered buying into a citizenship-by-investment scheme in the Caribbean to escape the US, but the costs, he said, were too high. So Patri returned to California, enrolled in a part-time MBA program at Stanford, and began thinking about more radical ways to opt outstarting, then leaving, an intentional community, and co-founding the Seasteading Institute. To spend the rest of my life living under a society whose rules dont fit with my sense of justicethat just sounded horrible and miserable, Patri told me. So I learned about this whole history of nation-founding and floating city movements, and was like You know, theres something to this. People should be able to start new countries. And I think the ocean is the most realistic way of doing it.

The idea of an island utopia isnt exactly new. Erwin S. Strausss How to Start Your Own Country (1983) has served both as a handbook both for new country founders and for historians of floating-city ventures. Strausss definition of a country is a loose one: sidestepping the mainstream understanding of what constitutes a countrya population, a currency, land, and some sort of law, for startersStrauss focuses on one-man attempts at physical DIY statehood staged on ships, fortresses, and artificial land masses.

In 1965, Ernest Hemingways little brother Leicester announced himself the president of the Republic of New Atlantis, an eight-by-thirty-foot barge anchored near the west coast of Jamaica, and later claimed sovereignty over a larger barge near the Bahamas. A few years later, an Objectivist businessman named Werner K. Stiefel founded Operation Atlantis, a new country venture he planned to develop on an island in the Caribbean. Operation Atlantis was originally run out of a motel in upstate New York, where Stiefel lodged volunteers in exchange for their labor. His staff spent several years preparing a ship that finally launched off the East Coast in December 1969, but the Atlanteans took a few liberties with the ships design, according to Strauss, and the boat sank in a hurricane. Then in 1972 a Lithuanian immigrant-turned Las Vegas real estate mogul named Michael J. Oliver hired an Australian dredging ship for $10,000 a week to fill in two reefs with sand 260 miles northeast of the Kingdom of Tonga. He filled fifteen acres, hoping that investors would finance the remaining 1,485 acres to build an island, but the King of Tonga intervened, sending a gang of Tongan convicts to plant a Tongan flag, sing the Tongan national anthem, and claim the land for the Kingdom.

The best-known self-made country is the Principality of Sealand, founded by Paddy Roy Bates, a British pirate radio operator who moved into a World War II anti-aircraft tower off the coast of Great Britain. Bates declared his independence on September 2, 1967 and went to great lengths to preserve his honor, firing shots at repairmen working on a nearby tower and taking some German businessmen hostage after they attempted a purported coup dtat. About ten years ago Prince Roy started a data hosting service called HavenCo with entrepreneur and cyberpunk author Sean Hasting, hoping to build a relatively unregulated alternative to existing server farms on Sealand. The experiment was short-lived: it turned out that the rig-like platform lacked the necessary infrastructure to host sophisticated servers, and when Hastings dropped out for personal reasons in 2002 there was no one to lead the way.

Four years later, a fire broke out on Sealand. The Bateses were in Spain at the time; the only Sealand resident, a security guard, was rescued by the British Royal Air Force. The damage reached half a million pounds, but authorities decided not to charge Sealand for the trouble.

A more contemporary example of aquatic self-governance is Freewinds, a cruise ship chartered by the Church of Scientology (another California-based, sci-fi inspired faction of privileged, somewhat paranoid individuals). Freewinds houses the Sea Org, the groups elite junior corps, and flies a Panamanian flag, functioning essentially as its own floating nation. But its anything but idyllic: a number of former residents have publicly complained about the
slavelike conditions and environmental hazards on the ship.

The vast majority of the ventures in How to Start Your Own Country are either the follies of egocentric young men or thinly veiled tax and regulation avoidance schemes. None of the countries Strauss describes were ever recognized by other, existing countries, or by the UN, which is generally how new states gain legitimacy. Aware of this history, the Seasteading Institute has done what it can to distance itself from the comical undoings of new countries pastcouching its free-market theories in techno-utopian language and using the abracadabra of innovation as its crutch. People dismiss the idea as crackpotish, remarked John Chisholm, the donor, at the conference. But if you address them as you would your fellow futurist, it might be more palatable.

The Institute has also focused on the idea of creating artificial landmass on its owna way, perhaps, to demand legitimacy from those unwilling to see ships or barges as proper countries. Recast in the language of the start-up economy, the spectacular failures of DIY countries become noble enterprises. And, like start-up companies, they just might succeed in changing the way we see the worldand make a few people very, very rich. The countrys running on an operating system from 1778, Patri told me. If cars did that, wed be riding horses.

As he spoke, Patri gestured toward the great beyond. The view was breathtaking: wall-to-wall windows overlooked the Bay Bridge, and the water looked like an inky, peaceful swimming pool. Lookthats a container ship coming out of the Port of Oakland, going out to the bridge, he said, pointing to a large vessel with the giddy enthusiasm of a small child. It was easy, from three hundred feet up, to imagine a seastead in its place.

After I met my cabin-mates on Ephemerisles South Island, I kayaked back to the North to catch the senior director of the Seasteading Institute introducing a series of lectures on the main platform The state of Seasteading is strong! declared Randy Hencken, a ropey man with dragon tattoos covering his chest and back. Hencken, who had recently left a job at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, explained that a dearth of employment and freedom on land would precipitate the development of seasteads over the next two decades. The Institute had already made progress: an anonymous donor had given them a 275-foot cruise ship, and a general-audience book about Seasteading will be published by Simon & Schuster later this year.

The first presentation showcased the jellypus, an iPad-controlled luminescent jellyfish that sat about a foot under water, pulsing with light to the rhythm of whatever song was on. Then Michael Hartl, a bald, affable physicist who told me he writes off Ephemerisle as a business expense in his taxes (networking) led a pirate shanty sing-along in a pitch-perfect baritone. Hartl embodies what tech entrepreneurs call creative disruption: he made a name for himself by pressing mathematicians to stop using Pi as a constant and instead rely on the more elegant Tau, the ratio of a circles circumference to its radius. Hartl has also taught astrophysics at Caltech and mentored Thiel Fellowscollege students whom Peter Thiel, perhaps the worlds most famous disrupter, paid $100,000 to drop out of school and start companies. Ever since I was a little kid, Ive wanted to be a pirate, Hartl beamed. And now Im doing it!

A young man named Kevin then went on at length about how large doses of electrolytesthe equivalent of twenty Gatoradescan make you smarter.

What about Creatine? asked an audience member. Does Creatine make you smarter?

Only if youre a vegetarian, replied Kevin. Creatine only makes you smarter if you dont eat meat.

In addition to seeing government as just another problem that technology can overcome, Seasteaders try to hack every aspect of their existence down to their self-care regimens. Many participate in health and fitness regimes like the Paleo Diet and Crossfitlifestyles that dovetail nicely with more mainstream libertarian retro-futurism, which argues humans ought to live more like they did before their freedom was impinged upon by large state governments, all while enjoying the enhancements of technological innovation forged in the free market. It wasnt just Charlie from the boat cruise who proselytized the health benefits of butter: the unofficial beverage of Ephemerisle was Bulletproof Coffeeblack coffee with half a stick of butter mixed inwhich advocates claim increases their mental acuity and helps them stay trim. The inventor of the concoction claims to have increased his IQ by twenty points and lost 100 pounds as a result of his experiments hacking his biology. He was at Ephemerisle, too and later, in an email, told me hed had a great time.

This tendency toward engineering everything spills into the social sphere. To supplement real or perceived romantic shortcomings, some Seasteaders dabble in pickup artistry, a method of seducing women thats been likened to an algorithm and self-legitimized by handpicked data and bunk theories about evolution. The male vanity coursing under all this life-hacking may explain why so few women participate in projects like these. While theres little overt sexism in the gay-friendly, drug-happy Seasteading community, theres nothing preventing a hypothetical start-up country from regressing into a patriarchal, Paleo-Futuristic state. If anything, the movements reverence for caveman essentialism suggests the latterthat real goal is to remake civilization, starting from a primal, natural condition that they can revive in the modern world thanks to new technologies.

Or maybe the goal is to build Facebook, the country. Seasteading rhetoric echoes early visions of the Internet, recalling John Perry Barlows web manifesto, The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Perry liberally employs the metaphor of a seamless, timeless, borderless ocean to describe the web, and his vehement resistance to any form of Internet regulation has a real-life parallel in the no-countries, no-rules ethos that Seasteaders embrace. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks, wrote Barlow, on behalf of Cyberspace, in 1996. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. The idea of the Internet promised an impossible libertarian dream: a way to be alone, together.

The actual Internet has largely failed to live up to Barlows ideal of fluid, seamless space. But that hasnt stopped Seasteading from attempting to recreate his vision IRL. At Ephemerisle, Internet piracy manifested in hacked radio stations and in the shanties of actual pirates. Memesbacon, cuddling, BFFLswere acted out offline. There was even a rumor that someone had brought a cat onto one of the houseboats. The festival was conceived of and organized almost entirely online; it has its own Facebook page, a Twitter, a detailed wiki with planning notes, evaluations, and a postmortem for the past few events.

Its no coincidence that members of the online Reddit community, all male, made plans independently of the Seasteaders to take over an island in the Caribbean. The project failed.

On Saturday morning, I woke up at sunrise after having slept on a foldout bench in the front section of our houseboat. The wind had picked up dramatically overnight, and when I s
tepped onto the deck for some fresh air I nearly lost my balance. Over the next four hours, the gusts proceeded to tear the floating cities apart. The platforms rocked on the water and the inflatable rafts tied to out boat now blew violently onto our deck, knocking over chairs and crashing into the doorframe.

I watched from my boat as the islands deteriorated in slow motion. First, the North side rotated 90 degrees; then, it began to lose chunks of its main platform, one by one. The South began to wobble precariously, and a few rugged types whod taken charge of the situation were yelling orders at each other from their decks and frantically Tweeting alerts to other islands. The turquoise toenail polish the men had applied the day before sparkled on their bloodied feet as they attempted to untangle rogue anchors from the riverbed and fold up the Cuddle Gallery, which was on the verge of blowing away.

Ephemerisle had entered a state of emergency, and its residents were more than ready to declare martial law. The North is floating toward us! barked a young man from outside. Stay in your houseboats! When I tried to escape my stuffy cabin and climb up to the roof, a second young man gave me a brusque lecture on safety.

By mid-morning, the two main cities had fractured into a half dozen stranded units floating alone in the turbulent waters. The West had vanished entirelyone of the boats had drifted off and gotten stuck by a nearby levee, while most of the others took off to other parts of the river. There was no reliable form of communication between the boats. A few people had radios. Some yelled. The rest of us had half-charged phones with weak Internet connections. Transport, as always, was limited.

Confined to a few square feet with a leaky trash bag and too many bodies in one cabin, my cabin-mates and I showered with tepid river water and nursed hangovers with our dwindling supply of store-bought liquids. Dirty, smelly, and bored, we sat around and tried to make small talk. We had nothing to talk about; aquatic life had grown tiresome.

Sorry it didnt work out quite as planned, you guys, said Cyprien. Its not so fun being isolated. The Chinese engineers napped, and Cypriens relatives hung out at the back of the boat looking bored. On the other end, some people just took off and went home. Im done with this. Goodbye! yelled Michael Hartl from his deck.

As Hartls boat rumbled away into the distance, a sense of relief washed over the South. We remembered that nothing bound us to this placewe could leave. No countries, no rules: when Id asked Patri what would happen if a seastead turned into a dictatorship, or the Scientologists Freewinds ship, hed advocated for the right of exit. It is this rightultimately, the right to choose ones neighborswas what made Seasteading so desirable in the first place. You could build a utopia, but you had no obligation to stick with it. After all, one quality of utopia, at least libertarian utopia, was that you could leave anytime. So we did.

Ephemerisle, though, went on through Sunday, and ended on a happy note. Those who persevered pieced what was left of the two remaining neighborhoods back together when the wind died down, and continued their revelry late into the night with just one notable incident. At around 5 PM a young man decided to go skinny-dipping in the river. He had dropped acid earlier in the day, so a fellow Ephemerisler, worried about his safety, coaxed him out and called the Coast Guard over to the islands for guidance. The man was standing on a houseboat wearing nothing but his blanket when the officers arrived; when he saw them, he dropped the sheet, jumped in the water again, and swam away. He reached a levee, scrambled out of the water, and took off running through the reedsa free man living a free life, in the radical wilderness of the American West.

But the law was onto him, and the law won: within minutes, the naked white male was caught, cuffed, and escorted back to dry land. The Ephemerislers watched from their boats.

If you like this article, please subscribe to n+1.

Go here to read the rest:

Seasteading | Online Only | n+1

Posted in Seasteading | Comments Off

Seastead – Seasteading

Posted: at 2:43 am

From Seasteading

A seastead is a structure which is safe to live on in international waters. The goal is to enable dynamic geography where people can pick which legal system they are in without having to box up their stuff and change houses. Since the focus is on living on the water, not getting anywhere quickly or carrying heavy cargo, a seastead design can sacrifice speed through the water and cargo capacity to achieve lower costs per square foot and greater stability than a boat/yacht/ship of similar price. The goal of seasteading is to make a community of people living on affordable seasteads.

There are several different lines of thinking about what seasteads should look like and the best strategies to get them built. The table below shows the main visions for what we should be working on to advance seasteading.

Note that the above approaches are not mutually exclusive, except in the sense that if you spend your time and money on one you don't have it to spend on another.

Go here to see the original:

Seastead - Seasteading

Posted in Seasteading | Comments Off

Monthly Archives: June 2016

Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence …

Best Nootropics – Top Nootropic Drugs & Supplements Online

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

History of Evolution | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Evolution – Conservapedia

What is Darwinism? – TalkOrigins Archive

Trasferimento della mente – Wikipedia

Intro to Artificial Intelligence Course and Training …

Seasteading | Online Only | n+1

Seastead – Seasteading

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution