Comments on: Ask Ray | The future of human self-awareness: deeper mirrors http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the-future-of-human-self-awareness-deeper-mirrors Accelerating Intelligence Thu, 23 May 2013 19:43:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: TheSingularityIsGood http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the-future-of-human-self-awareness-deeper-mirrors/comment-page-1#comment-2908 TheSingularityIsGood Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:18:23 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=101733#comment-2908 Dear Ray, My husband and I are your fans and followers. We are so impressed by the movie Transcendent Man, which we watched the other night. Your personal story touched our lives. Your mission to defy death is a noble one. I, too, fear death the way you do only that I doubt if I am disciplined enough to take 250 pills a day. My background is the humanities and my husband’s business but we both admire science and especially the “science of the future” so to speak. I am particularly fascinated by AI. The idea of having a smart machine understanding our needs and fulfilling them is very tempting. I was wondering if, in theory, one day we could create a man/cyborg/robot/half machine/half man who would encompass several fictional characters gathered from books and films, a so-called prototype of all desired characteristics. I also wish to live at a time where that special robotic blood cell is available for our use…Would not that be lovely if we store no more fat and the Type 1 diabetes my husband suffers from be resolved? We wonder what your thoughts are on Fusion Power. You mentioned solar panels but isn’t Fusion even better? My husband had interviewed personnel in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and could not be happier speaking with those great minds. Although I somewhat fear to lose some of our humanity, I am all for “improvement”. Life is difficult enough and I would enjoy a “godlike” existence. I wonder about your views about Jung and the film Knowing, as well as The Road and Limitless. With all the natural disasters going on, do you think we will make it to The Singularity? The film Artificial Intelligence is one of my favorites although it makes me very sad. I think we would need to consider compassion for those “machines” as well, not just for humans. We have watched and read so much by Carl Sagan, Phillip Dick and Arthur Clarke, as well as Asimov and Heinlein. Your work is sacred for us as it can save the human race from itself. Personally, I regard you as our next Einstein and DaVinci if not much better than them. I wish we could attend the Singularity University but we live on the other coast…Perhaps we could visit you in the MIT for a lecture or a seminar one day? Thank you so much for what you have been doing for humanity. Best Wishes. Sorry that we were unable to post this in a thread of its own. Dear Ray,

My husband and I are your fans and followers. We are so impressed by the movie Transcendent Man, which we watched the other night. Your personal story touched our lives. Your mission to defy death is a noble one. I, too, fear death the way you do only that I doubt if I am disciplined enough to take 250 pills a day. My background is the humanities and my husband’s business but we both admire science and especially the “science of the future” so to speak. I am particularly fascinated by AI. The idea of having a smart machine understanding our needs and fulfilling them is very tempting. I was wondering if, in theory, one day we could create a man/cyborg/robot/half machine/half man who would encompass several fictional characters gathered from books and films, a so-called prototype of all desired characteristics. I also wish to live at a time where that special robotic blood cell is available for our use…Would not that be lovely if we store no more fat and the Type 1 diabetes my husband suffers from be resolved?

We wonder what your thoughts are on Fusion Power. You mentioned solar panels but isn’t Fusion even better? My husband had interviewed personnel in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and could not be happier speaking with those great minds. Although I somewhat fear to lose some of our humanity, I am all for “improvement”. Life is difficult enough and I would enjoy a “godlike” existence. I wonder about your views about Jung and the film Knowing, as well as The Road and Limitless. With all the natural disasters going on, do you think we will make it to The Singularity? The film Artificial Intelligence is one of my favorites although it makes me very sad. I think we would need to consider compassion for those “machines” as well, not just for humans. We have watched and read so much by Carl Sagan, Phillip Dick and Arthur Clarke, as well as Asimov and Heinlein. Your work is sacred for us as it can save the human race from itself. Personally, I regard you as our next Einstein and DaVinci if not much better than them.

I wish we could attend the Singularity University but we live on the other coast…Perhaps we could visit you in the MIT for a lecture or a seminar one day? Thank you so much for what you have been doing for humanity. Best Wishes. Sorry that we were unable to post this in a thread of its own.

]]> By: jabelar http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the-future-of-human-self-awareness-deeper-mirrors/comment-page-1#comment-1688 jabelar Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:51:55 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=101733#comment-1688 This is in line with most spiritual/mystical traditions (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.) already agree that it is of key importance (for freeing and expanding awareness) to break down the sense of the "self". This process usually includes losing attachment to your "self image", reducing "self importance" and eliminating "self pity". Definitely uploading to new substrates will require such steps. This is in line with most spiritual/mystical traditions (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.) already agree that it is of key importance (for freeing and expanding awareness) to break down the sense of the “self”. This process usually includes losing attachment to your “self image”, reducing “self importance” and eliminating “self pity”. Definitely uploading to new substrates will require such steps.

]]> By: alef1@msn.com http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the-future-of-human-self-awareness-deeper-mirrors/comment-page-1#comment-1503 alef1@msn.com Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:49:15 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=101733#comment-1503 Ray wrote: "It is remarkable how much people identify with their visual appearance. When I changed myself into Ramona for my 2001 TED presentation, even though the technology was fairly crude by today’s standards, it did give me the idea that my true identity is not my visual appearance, that we can and will change that. We need deeper mirrors. " One set of deeper mirrors already exist in our dreams. Images of ourselves in dreams often reflect our inner ideas of ourselves. Although this can vary over time - and even from dream to dream on the same night, a common denominator usually emerges. If we identify with our current physical appearance, and/or functionality, our dream bodies will simulate these, right down to a limp or the latest gray hair. Given the mind-body connection, the state of ones dream body may indicate whether the self-image we hold of ourselves will have an ongoing positive or a negative effect on our overall health. And as far as "actual" mirrors go, reasonably adept lucid dreamers can choose to look into dream mirrors and see what they "reflect". In my own experience the result of this kind of experiment often proves both surprising and enlightening. Yours towards greater lucidity, Ed Ray wrote: “It is remarkable how much people identify with their visual appearance. When I changed myself into Ramona for my 2001 TED presentation, even though the technology was fairly crude by today’s standards, it did give me the idea that my true identity is not my visual appearance, that we can and will change that. We need deeper mirrors. ”

One set of deeper mirrors already exist in our dreams. Images of ourselves in dreams often reflect our inner ideas of ourselves. Although this can vary over time – and even from dream to dream on the same night, a common denominator usually emerges. If we identify with our current physical appearance, and/or functionality, our dream bodies will simulate these, right down to a limp or the latest gray hair. Given the mind-body connection, the state of ones dream body may indicate whether the self-image we hold of ourselves will have an ongoing positive or a negative effect on our overall health. And as far as “actual” mirrors go, reasonably adept lucid dreamers can choose to look into dream mirrors and see what they “reflect”. In my own experience the result of this kind of experiment often proves both surprising and enlightening. Yours towards greater lucidity, Ed

]]> By: ghandchi http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the-future-of-human-self-awareness-deeper-mirrors/comment-page-1#comment-1489 ghandchi Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:11:18 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=101733#comment-1489 Let me note why I am looking at evolution of self-awareness nowadays. I have come to the conclusion that secularism failed in half of the world for over a century because of a reason different from major explanations. Socialism, Fascism, and various nationalist movements such as Kemalism in Turkey were all secular and failed. The first critics of Leninism like Lucas and Mannheim in 1929 thought the reason for Communist dictatorship was its utopian thinking. But the democratic thought of modern society, from John Locke to John Stuart Mill, is very utopian. Of course, not all utopians have promoted *closed society*. Thus Karl Popper said the problem is not ideologies but is lack of strife for an Open Society. Nonetheless he failed to explain why socialism in half of the world and various forms of nationalism such as Kemalism in Turkey were not able to form Open Society. Liberalism in its comprehensive form of Kantism was also ideological in societies that could hardly be considered inclined to Open Society and comprehensive liberalism itself, which is like any other strong ideology, in contrast to liberalism of recent thinkers like John Rawls, was the main version of liberalism promoted during Enlightenment in Europe and America but they did not end up in dictatorship. Daniel Bell in his End of Ideology in 1960 concluding from Stalinism thought the time of ideologies which were at their zenith in 19th Century is over and predicted parochial currents of thought after that. But his prediction failed and we witnessed comprehensive ideologies again in 60's and beyond including Maoism, feminism, antiwar currents, etc. My point here is that in Western Europe and countries that can be considered extensions of Europe like America, Canada, Australia, where the successful half of secularism we see, intellectual currents followed a paradigm that was best formulated by Descartes’ ergo sum principle of "I think therefore I am." In other words, Enlightenment even in its most comprehensive form of Kantian liberalism did not try to think for people but challenged various thoughts, whereas for example Marxist-Leninists even said it outright that worker's ideology cannot be arrived at by workers themselves and had to be injected to them by the intellectuals who had discovered it (http://www.ghandchi.com/299-MarxismEng.htm). And starting with Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the modern state was not considered as referee of people and various social groups and was looked at as representative of dictatorship of one class and thus by the time of Critique of Gotha Program, we see the advocacy of Dictatorship of Proletariat to replace the assumed dictatorship of Bourgeoisie, i.e. by using so-called workers’ class ideology formulated by Marxists. Similar patterns can be seen in other forms of secularism of the failed half of the world. In fact, Medieval ideologies were closed societies too because the God of Abrahamic religions was supposed to think for people. It is true that the Gods of Greece or Rome had power, and they were creators, but they did *not* think for people whereas the Christian or Islamic God, in most versions of these religions, not only thought for people but He was even in people's head thinking for them all the time (protestants) or had representatives to speak on his behalf (Catholic priests or Islamic Mollahs). European modernism ended all that by getting people to think for themselves. Descartes himself was not against religion or against the state of his time but was advocating people thinking for themselves. Today in US or in Europe most people are still religious but their Christianity is different from that of Medieval Times when the adherents choosing it by themselves. Of course when people think for themselves they will mot necessarily be irreligious or scientific even though Descartes founded scientific thinking and modernism and people like Willis Harman and Morris Berman were antiscienticist as far as modern post-Copernican science is concerned, but neither one throws away self thinking of the individual. This is what was failed by the secular currents of half of the world. I mean Karl Popper said that if all be equal he would choose socialism but since it means sacrificing freedom for justice, he would rather not, because then when justice is not present, he cannot challenge the situation due to lack of freedom. I think one should even go one step back from the issue of freedom vs justice and see that *self-awareness* is what is more fundamental to both. This is why self-awareness has come to my focus. All the Best, Sam Let me note why I am looking at evolution of self-awareness nowadays. I have come to the conclusion that secularism failed in half of the world for over a century because of a reason different from major explanations. Socialism, Fascism, and various nationalist movements such as Kemalism in Turkey were all secular and failed. The first critics of Leninism like Lucas and Mannheim in 1929 thought the reason for Communist dictatorship was its utopian thinking. But the democratic thought of modern society, from John Locke to John Stuart Mill, is very utopian. Of course, not all utopians have promoted *closed society*. Thus Karl Popper said the problem is not ideologies but is lack of strife for an Open Society. Nonetheless he failed to explain why socialism in half of the world and various forms of nationalism such as Kemalism in Turkey were not able to form Open Society. Liberalism in its comprehensive form of Kantism was also ideological in societies that could hardly be considered inclined to Open Society and comprehensive liberalism itself, which is like any other strong ideology, in contrast to liberalism of recent thinkers like John Rawls, was the main version of liberalism promoted during Enlightenment in Europe and America but they did not end up in dictatorship. Daniel Bell in his End of Ideology in 1960 concluding from Stalinism thought the time of ideologies which were at their zenith in 19th Century is over and predicted parochial currents of thought after that. But his prediction failed and we witnessed comprehensive ideologies again in 60′s and beyond including Maoism, feminism, antiwar currents, etc. My point here is that in Western Europe and countries that can be considered extensions of Europe like America, Canada, Australia, where the successful half of secularism we see, intellectual currents followed a paradigm that was best formulated by Descartes’ ergo sum principle of “I think therefore I am.” In other words, Enlightenment even in its most comprehensive form of Kantian liberalism did not try to think for people but challenged various thoughts, whereas for example Marxist-Leninists even said it outright that worker’s ideology cannot be arrived at by workers themselves and had to be injected to them by the intellectuals who had discovered it (http://www.ghandchi.com/299-MarxismEng.htm). And starting with Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the modern state was not considered as referee of people and various social groups and was looked at as representative of dictatorship of one class and thus by the time of Critique of Gotha Program, we see the advocacy of Dictatorship of Proletariat to replace the assumed dictatorship of Bourgeoisie, i.e. by using so-called workers’ class ideology formulated by Marxists. Similar patterns can be seen in other forms of secularism of the failed half of the world. In fact, Medieval ideologies were closed societies too because the God of Abrahamic religions was supposed to think for people. It is true that the Gods of Greece or Rome had power, and they were creators, but they did *not* think for people whereas the Christian or Islamic God, in most versions of these religions, not only thought for people but He was even in people’s head thinking for them all the time (protestants) or had representatives to speak on his behalf (Catholic priests or Islamic Mollahs). European modernism ended all that by getting people to think for themselves. Descartes himself was not against religion or against the state of his time but was advocating people thinking for themselves. Today in US or in Europe most people are still religious but their Christianity is different from that of Medieval Times when the adherents choosing it by themselves. Of course when people think for themselves they will mot necessarily be irreligious or scientific even though Descartes founded scientific thinking and modernism and people like Willis Harman and Morris Berman were antiscienticist as far as modern post-Copernican science is concerned, but neither one throws away self thinking of the individual. This is what was failed by the secular currents of half of the world. I mean Karl Popper said that if all be equal he would choose socialism but since it means sacrificing freedom for justice, he would rather not, because then when justice is not present, he cannot challenge the situation due to lack of freedom. I think one should even go one step back from the issue of freedom vs justice and see that *self-awareness* is what is more fundamental to both. This is why self-awareness has come to my focus. All the Best, Sam

]]>