Member 2664
108 entries
502115 views

 RSS
(M)
US
Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    A little change to what the porn industry invented gets you the cheapest robot body. Baloon women are normally bought to have sex with, but they would also be useful as robot bodies if tightening muscle-like strings were embedded in their rubber (or whatever they're made of) bodies, webcams put in the eyes, a speaker in the mouth, etc. Human muscles only tighten, never push. Optionally, so you don't have to blow it up so tight, you could build a plastic skeleton shaped like a Human skeleton, with joints at the knees, elbows, etc, and put this rubber skin around it, connected at many places in the center. It would be very cheap, like those blow up beds that have plastic connecting some of their top parts to some of their bottom parts. The most expensive part would be the tightening muscle-like things and the wires from that to the laptop-computer on its back (or somewhere inside?). Or is there some reason a robot has to be made of hard expensive materials? This cheap robot would weigh 10 pounds but be Human size. Some advanced technologies were invented for better porn, like higher speed internet connections. Here's the next one, a robot so accurate people will insist it wear clothes in public. For its mind, here's one way to do it:http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6816/How-Human-Intelligence-Works



    The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex  Military Industrial Complex has resulted in militaries having the most advanced and most number of robots and related research, but I expect that will change soon when pornographers realize how much men will pay for a sex-capable robot woman who can move and has some thoughts of her own. It could expand to a multi-trillion dollar industry, proving that love is stronger than war, especially the kind you do in a bed. But my main motivation for writing this was to explain a way to build cheap robot bodies using existing technology, and then I realized what long-term effect it would have.
    Thu, Apr 28, 2011  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    What you think your eyes see is mostly a memory. People think they're seeing what's in front of their eyes, but the way we think while awake is more like a dream than what's in front of our eyes. I often look straight at something and don't see it because I don't remember it. Next time you see something unlike anything you've seen before, close your eyes and think about drawing a picture of it. If you saw 2 birds behind it, are you sure you didn't see 3 birds? Was the first bird flapping its wings up or down just before you closed your eyes? My picture would be very blurry. If you were standing beside me, you wouldn't be able to tell my picture was of the same thing you're looking at. I used to have a visual memory, able to draw such a picture very accurately, but I decided there were more advantages to not thinking in such a strict logical way and slowly lost the ability. Theres 2 main reasons Monkeys have a visual memory and most Humans don't. Its a form of lossy-compression (Example: jpg, mp3, keeps the details you tend to notice) which saves memory, and it allows our thoughts to flow together in more flexible ways so we can imagine more possibilities.

    Scientists try to learn how Human brains work the hard way. They build expensive simulations, do experiments on animal brains, scan peoples' brains for electricity and blood flow patterns (functional MRI) while those people think certain things, write lots of papers, and still they are unable to write a few pages explaining to average people how Human intelligence works. I do some of that research, but I'm an expert on Human intelligence for a different reason: My mind has observed itself long enough to figure out half of how itself works. Many people have tried that, but they usually get stuck on the subjectivity and vagueness of their thoughts. Intuitively they know what a thought is, but they know of no way to figure out which neurons (brain cells) are connected to which thoughts, so they can not translate their knowledge of how their mind works into something science can use.

    Here's something unnecessary researchers want to try: A computer's video-card has a grid of brightness numbers, 1 for each colored light on the screen. If we could connect the visual part of a Human brain to a computer screen and see what its thinking (1 small group of neurons to each part of the screen), while we show the person various pictures and ideas, then we could learn how the visual-related neurons work, and then learn how the neurons connected to those work, and so on. We don't need to do that because each of us already has such a video screen in our minds. Its called "what we think our eyes see".

    Its not really what our eyes see. Its our most similar memories, twisted and rotated and re-interpreted to fill in the missing parts. Our brains throw away most of what our eyes see and fill in most of the parts from memory. While dreaming, almost the same thing happens. Our brains use nothing from our eyes and fill it all in from re-interpretations of our memory. We're mostly dreaming while awake, with the exception of a little information our brains pay attention to coming from our eyes and other senses.

    I will explain how to start with your vision, do some thought-experiments, and work backward to the other parts of your brain until you understand more about Human intelligence than scientists understand from their billions of dollars of research. I know enough about how Human intelligence works that I could build half of it and have artificial intelligence evolve the other parts, but it takes many years to fine-tune it and teach it like you teach a Human baby, like you would teach it math by giving it simulations of fingers and activating the neurons for 3 of its fingers to teach it the idea of 3, and you would teach it to multiply 2 times 5 by showing it its 2 simulated hands and they have 5 fingers each, or whatever type of simulated or robot body and senses you give it. This would be a robot or simulation so accurate it would learn ethics from the recursive thought of thinking of others as a variation of itself (a directed network where each node type is the idea of itself and one of the nodes is attached to a person) and thinking about the emotions (recursive thoughts leading to memories of pleasure or pain) itself had when things happened to itself. All that, I can define in math, but instead I'll take you through my series of thought-experiments of how I figured it out...

    You can learn most of it from your visual memory. You only need to understand these few things about neurons:
    * Each part of "what we think our eyes see" is always connected to the same small group of neurons and is brighter when there is more electricity in those neurons.
    * Each neuron is connected to thousands of other neurons, and they connect and disconnect slowly over time.
    * A thought is the specific amount of electricity in some of your neurons, what each neuron tends to do when it receives certain amounts of electricity, and the strength and physical length of the neuron-to-neuron connections. A much smaller amount, a thought is the chemicals flowing around neurons.

    This started when I was thinking about what some research said, that it takes longer to recognize a picture of something if its upside down. What was really interesting about that is if it was turned 2 times more angle, then it takes 2 times longer to recognize it. Upside down is the biggest angle. The time it takes to recognize a picture of anything is linearly proportional to the angle its turned.

    I chose something I had rarely seen, so I could experience more of the process of thinking about a new subject. I thought about an elephant. When it was drawn on "what we think our eyes see", which is also the imagination and visual neurons for dreams, I confirmed that it did take longer to draw it in my mind upside down than the same way as in my memories of elephants. After I thought about the elephant from each new angle, I found I was able to think of that angle again instantly, but any new angle took the linear rotation time. It could be a rotation from any of my old memories or new thoughts from the last minute. As I thought of the elephant from more angles, the time to think of the angles between them became less. I confirmed what I had read. Human intelligence does rotation a little at a time and repeats until it gets to the right angle. Also, I learned that such rotations create new memories which can be used as the start for new rotations, so to do it faster, you usually start from the closest memory of a rotation to the one you want, a 3d memory of an elephant's parts rotated closest to the rotation you're thinking about now.

    Remember this is causing an image of an elephant to be drawn in electricity on your visual neurons. They're not arranged in a rectangle in your brain like on a screen. They're arranged however they're connected to your optical nerves. But if you figure out which neurons are connected to which part of "what we think our eyes see", which can be done using brain scanning machines, then you would see a picture of an elephant rotating in the electricity of those neurons. There is actually a picture of an elephant, made of electricity, somewhere in your brain, if you arrange the neurons the right way like you would see on a screen. Brainwaves are so advanced they can form into the shape of an elephant, or anything else you imagine. Its important to understand that's what we're looking at when we think about rotating an elephant in our minds. We're drawing an elephant onto our visual neurons, very similar to how a computer's video-card's memory works.

    The next thought-experiment shows a flaw in how we see 2 things at once. I chose 2 things I had never seen together, to experiment with how my brain combines ideas. I thought about the same elephant with a shoe floating 3 feet above it. The shoe was drawn onto my visual neurons quickly. But when I thought about rotating them together, viewing the shoe and elephant from a different location and angle, I could only see 1 thing at a time, the shoe or the elephant. Whichever I looked at, the other instantly started looking blurry. Is my imagination really that weak that it can't handle 2 things at once without blurring 1 of them? It only happened when rotating them together.

    I'm guessing that is because the 3d-rotation part of my brain normally only does 1 object at a time and rotates the shoe or the elephant and draws them on my visual neurons separately. I confirmed that when I noticed I could rotate them together as easily as if they were a single object only after thinking about them together for 30 seconds. It was a new type of thing in my mind, a shoe-over-elephant, and it was rotated with the same linear timing as the shoe or elephant alone. At first they had to be processed separately, so the visual neurons lost their image of one while the other was being drawn, but when shoe-over-elephant became a single object in my mind, it did not have those problems.

    That is the start of my theory on how objects are represented in 3d in Human minds. They are made of other 3d objects in relative positions and rotations and sizes and stretch amounts etc. Later I'll explain how such "objects within objects" are the same type of thinking as language, goals, emotions, and other types of thinking. It sounds complex, but its really the same simple ideas repeated in different ways for many kinds of thinking.

    The next thought-experiment is about counting and how we identify if 2 things we see are the same object or idea. Think about 3 of that same elephant, all standing the same direction. Its easy. Now think about 3 elephants with a shoe above each, the shoe-over-elephant object recently created in your mind. Also easy. Rotate all that. Since they're standing the same direction, it happens almost as fast as if there's just 1 shoe-over-elephant, because the same object is rotated and drawn 3 times from slightly different angles. Now think of 100 elephants standing the same direction. Also easy.

    Here's the surprising part. If 100 elephants are easy to visualize, then 2 elephants standing opposite directions should also be easy. But its not. I experience the same blurring of 1 of 2 objects (the elephant standing forward or the one standing backward) when I pay attention to the other object, the same as happened between the shoe and elephant before it became shoe-over-elephant. Similarly, after thinking about such 2 elephants long enough, that problem goes away, and they can be rotated, moved, duplicated and rotated again, etc, as one object made of 2 of each part of an elephant. Your mind has to represent 2 of each part of an elephant because it has to know that the tail of one elephant is beside the trunk of the other elephant, for example. If you think of it as 2 elephants, instead of a single object, then you have the linear rotation time (before drawing on your visual neurons) every time you switch your attention to the other elephant.

    After it becomes 1 object in your mind, think of that two-elephants-one-reversed object and a duplicate of it rotated and beside it, so you have 4 total elephants each at a different angle. Its easier now, while at first you had problems with 2 elephants at different angles. You can continue making the total be 1 object, rotating and moving a duplicate of it, and doubling the number of elephants each time, until you have as many elephants as you want in your visual neurons, each rotated differently.

    You'll notice during your duplication of elephants that some of the parts of some of the elephants disappear until you pay attention to them again. How does your mind know what to replace the missing parts with? First your mind looks at two-elephants-one-reversed to see how each 2 elephants are standing relative to each other. Then recursively you look at the specific elephant in that. Then recursively you look at your definition of elephant for the smaller parts of elephants, and its drawn that way on your visual neurons.

    You may also notice that when you pay attention to your definition of elephant, that more than 1 elephant gets those parts updated at once. For example, I had forgotten that elephants had tusks, but when I remembered, they were drawn on all 4 elephants. First your mind updates elephant, then two-elephants-one-reversed, then both examples of two-elephants-one-reversed which you're thinking about simultaneously. Its a hierarchy, but your mind can represent non-hierarchy things too, as I'll explain later with fractals.

    The next thought-experiment is about wildcards in ideas, patterns that have places for other patterns to fit in. How does your mind decide which ideas to plug into which other ideas?

    We remember the shoe-over-elephant well. Now think of 3 elephants standing the same direction. The one on the right has a shoe over it. Rotate all that until it becomes 1 object. Now we will generalize the shoe-over-elephant object to wildcard-over-elephant. The elephant on the left has an apple over it. The elephant in the middle has an orange over it. Visualize that from various rotations. Now pay attention to the shoe (over the right elephant). The shoe-over-elephant object is a stronger memory than the apple and orange, so the shoe should not change unless you try to change it. What surprised me is what happened next when I payed attention to the 2 other elephants. What is over each of them? It switched quickly between apple and orange a few times per second, over each of those 2 elephants, because I did not have a strong memory of which elephant got which fruit. The shoe did not change, but the apple and orange did. After choosing where I wanted each fruit to be and thinking about it longer, I was able to rotate the whole thing (3 elephants with 3 things over them) without the objects switching places. Why did they switch places? Because 2 things were combined with 2 wildcard-over-elephant, but there was no strong preference between which way to combine them. My visual neurons displayed both possibilities, switching between them a few times per second.

    So far, I've explained these types of thinking:
    * 2d grid of visual neurons, absolute positions instead of relative. In math its called a matrix, but there's also the layers of edge-detection and connections to the "3d grid" described below.
    * 3d grid of object positions and rotations and sizes relative to other 3d objects. In math its called a sparse-matrix. Later I'll explain how rotation, speed, and acceleration are also dimensions attached to each of those 3 dimensions, and some ideas use a 4d grid with time, but there is no rotation between the 3d and time dimensions of the 4d grid.
    * Hierarchy of ideas, and I've claimed (but not yet explained) that it is more generally a network (of nodes pointing at nodes) which allows cycles, where some nodes are ideas and some are wildcards. In math, its called a directed-network.

    Sound is experienced similar to the 2d visual neuron grid. Human ears detect around 1500 different tones and a volume for each, many times per second. You can easily remember what you heard a few seconds ago and predict what you will hear a few seconds from now, therefore time is one of the dimensions of sound, a dimension represented almost the same way as left/right or up/down is represented in your visual neurons. The other dimension is the 1500 notes. Brightness is like their volume. I say the 1500 notes are a dimension, instead of 1500 unordered things, because you can hear the same music with all notes increased in tone, and you will recognize it as the same music. That's similar to how you recognize the same object visually if its to your left or in the center of your vision.

    ...
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     


    Statistically inputs and outputs to neurons subconsciously without extra hardware.

    A neuron is a brain cell that connects to thousands of other neurons and slowly adjusts its electricity and chemical patterns as it learns.

    An incorrect assumption has extremely delayed the creation of technology that transfers thoughts between 2 brains. That assumption is, to quickly transfer large amounts of information between a brain and a computer, you need hardware that connects directly to neurons.

    Eyes and ears transfer a lot of information to a brain, but the other part of that assumption is eyes and ears are only useful for pictures and sounds that make sense and do not appear as complete randomness or whitenoise. People assume anything that sounds like radio static (a typical random sound) can't be used to transfer useful information into a brain.

    Most of us remember what a dial-up-modem sounds like. It sounds like information is in it but its too fast for Humans to understand. That's true of the dial-up-modem sound only because its digital and is designed for a modem instead of for Human ears which can hear around 1500 tones and simultaneously a volume for each. The dial-up-modem can only hear 1 tone that oscillates between 1 and 0, and no volume, just 1 or 0. It gets 56000 of those 1s and 0s per second. Human ears are analog so they have no such limits, but brains can think at most at 100 changes per second.

    If volume can have 20 different values per tone, then Human ears can hear up to 1500*100*log_base_2(20)=650000 bits of information per second. If you could take full advantage of that speed, you could transfer a book every few seconds into your brain, but the next bottleneck is your ability to think that fast.

    If you use ears the same way dial-up-modems use a phone line, but in a way designed for Human ears and Human brains instead of computers, then your ears are much faster data transfer devices than brain implants, and the same is true for transferring information as random-appearing grids of changing colors through your eyes. We have computer speakers and screens for input to brains. We still have some work to do on the output speeds of mouse and keyboard, but there are electricity devices you can wear on your head for the output direction. For the input direction, eyes and ears are currently far ahead of the most advanced technology in their data speeds to your brain.

    So why do businesses and governments keep throwing huge amounts of money at connecting computer chips directly to neurons? They should learn to use eyes and ears to their full potential before putting so much resources into higher bandwidth connections to brains. They're not nearly using the bandwidth they already have to brains.

    Intuitively most people know how music can affect their subconscious thoughts. Music is a low bandwidth example. It has mostly predictable and repeated sounds. The same voices. The same instruments. What I'm talking about would sound more like radio static or whitenoise. You wouldn't know what information is in it from its sound. You would only understand it after it echoed around your neuron electricity patterns in subconscious ways.

    Most people have only a normal computer available, so the brain-to-computer direction of information flow has to be low bandwidth. It can be mouse movements, gyroscope based game controllers, video camera detecting motion, or devices like that. The computer-to-brain direction can be high bandwidth, able to transfer information faster than you can think about it.

    Why hasn't this been tried? Because science proceeds in small steps. This is a big step from existing technology but a small step in the way most people already have the hardware (screen, speakers, mouse, etc). The big step is going from patterns of random-appearing sounds or video to subconscious thoughts to mouse movements to software to interpret it statistically, and around that loop many times as the Human and computer learn to predict each other. Compared to that, connecting a chip directly to neurons is a small step.

    Its a feedback loop: computer, random-appearing sound or video, ears or eyes, brain, mouse movements, and back to computer. Its very indirect but uses hardware that has evolved for millions of years, compared to low-bandwidth hardware they implant in brains. Eyes and ears are much higher bandwidth, and we should be using them in feedback loops for brain-to-brain and brain-to-computer communication.

    What would it feel like? You would move the mouse and instantly hear the sounds change based on how you moved it. You would feel around the sound space for abstract patterns of information you're looking for, and you would learn to find it. When many people are connected this way through the internet, using only mouse movements and abstract random-like sounds instead of words and pictures, thoughts will flow between the brains of different people, thoughts that they don't know how to put into words. They would gradually learn to think more as 1 mind. Brains naturally learn to communicate with any system connected to them. Brains dont care how they're connected. They grow into a larger mind. It happens between the parts of your brain, and it will happen between people using this system through the internet.

    Artificial intelligence software does not have to replace us or compete with us. The best way to use it is to connect our minds together. It can be done through brain implants, but why wait for that technology to advance and become cheap and safe enough? All you need is a normal computer and the software to connect our subconscious thoughts and statistical patterns of interaction with the computer.

    Dial-up-modem sounds were designed for computers. These interactive sounds/videos would be designed for Human ears/eyes and the slower but much bigger and parallel way the data goes into brains. For years I've been carefully designing a free open-source software http://HumanAI.net  (Human and Artificial Intelligence Network, or Human AI Net) to make this work. It will be a software that does for Human brains what dial-up-modems do for computers, and it will sound a little like a dial-up-modem at first but start to sound like music when you learn how to use it. I don't need brain implants to flow subconscious thoughts between your brains over internet wires.

    Intelligence is the most powerful thing we know of. The brain implants are simply overkill, even if they become advanced enough to do what I'll use software and psychology to do. We can network our minds together and amplify intelligence and share thoughts without extra hardware. After thats working, we can go straight to quantum devices for accessing brains without implants. Lets do this through software and skip the brain implant paradigm. If it works just a little, it will be enough that our combined minds will figure out how to make it work a lot more. Thats how I prefer to start a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity  We don't need businesses and militaries to do it first. We have the hardware on our desks. We're only missing the software. It doesn't have to be smarter than Human software. It just has to be smart enough to connect our subconscious thoughts together. The authorities have their own ideas about how we should communicate and how our minds should be allowed to think together, but their technology was obsolete before it was created. We can do everything they can do without brain implants, using only software and subconscious psychology. We don't need a smarter-than-Human software, or anything nearly that advanced, to create a technology singularity. Who wants to help me change the direction of Human evolution using an open-source (GNU GPL) software? Really, you can create a technology singularity starting from a software with the intelligence of a parrot, as long as you use it to connect Human minds together.
    Sun, Apr 10, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: brain, internet, eyes, ears, implant
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Sorry if this is a newbie question, but can someone tell me the difference between past and future? I've never experienced time from past to future, as many people say they do all the time, and I'd like to try it. How will I know if it worked?

    Here's what I've heard from people who claim to have experienced time:

    * There is a lot more knowledge (books, ideas in brains, etc) about "the past" than about "the future", but there is a lot of knowledge about both.

    * The knowledge about "the past" has less contradictions. Knowledge about "the future" is organized as if theres a lot of different futures, and within each individual future the knowledge is consistent.

    * If you want the world to be a certain way, you should change what you do NOW which affects "the future" to be more that way you wanted. What you do NOW is best learned by studying knowledge about "the past" and finding 2 things in it: (1) an event similar to NOW, and (2) an event similar to the "certain way" you want the world to be, and (2) has to contain knowledge categorized as "past" which describes (1).

    * "The future" doesn't exist because "the future" has accurate knowledge about NOW but NOW does not have accurate knowledge about "the future". This one is the most confusing to me since it reminds me of an ostridge sticking its head in the dirt because if it can't see something it must not exist and therefore can't eat the ostridge.


    I really am confused about how to exist only in 1 event, which people describe as "NOW". Every event I've ever been at, I experienced as a "NOW". It makes no sense to me why, starting NOW, I should expect to experience "future" more often than "past". Both past and future have the same laws-of-physics and have my Human body in them for me to experience those events through. Please explain what I should do to experience future instead of past?

    People say that NOW affects future, but NOW does not affect past. They know NOW does not affect past because the knowledge (books, ideas in brains, etc) describes the same past they expected. You do something NOW, look in a history book again, and see it describes the same history it described when you read it a minute ago.

    Stop right there. Explain to me how you compared the 2 times you read from the history book. Do you REMEMBER reading it? Or did you go back in time 1 minute and read it again to make sure it didn't change? If you do something NOW and it changes the past, the history book would be different NOW and your memory of reading it 1 minute ago would be different too since that was in the past and you changed the past. This is the Human species' huge assumption about time... NOW does not change the past, and we know that because we don't remember the past changing.

    People ASSUME they move from past to future, but if what you do in each NOW changes that NOW, time could just as easily move SIDEWAYS, as the past and future change and slide across different possibilities of NOW. In each NOW, there would be the same knowledge (books, thoughts in brains, etc) about "the past" as most people expect, but that's all it is... knowledge, not an indication of what events are experienced BEFORE or AFTER which other events or how events flow into other events.

    SIDEWAYS TIME. It looks almost like past-to-future time except bizarre events tend to happen more often. Most people have noticed such bizarre events, things that are too specific and happen a little too often to be coincidence. Most people explain it as "God works in mysterious ways", but I explain it as "NOW affects past and future which results in SIDEWAYS TIME."

    Really, I think time moves sideways.

    So I'm sorry if this is a newbie question, but can someone please explain to me how to experience time past-to-future? I want to try it. I've experienced so many bizarre events that appeared relevant to what I was planning or thinking, that I just can't believe the past-to-future theory of time. But I'm trying to keep an open mind, so I'm willing to consider that people may actually be going forward in time, but I want some proof of this and a scientific way to test it. Do you experience time past to future? If you know how you do it, can you teach me?
    Wed, Mar 30, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: time, past, future
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     


    Flatland, the fictional place with less dimensions designed to show us how to think about other dimensions in our own physics.

    What if you had a nonlocal search-engine that attracted search-results that had bigger density (and extra info if you want: spikes of energy emitted proportional to a slow decay curve)? It would select all the pieces of weaponized uranium on the planet. And what if you had a new kind of quantum device that statistically generated some kind of interaction between such search-results and a power source? Boom. Nuclear extinction, unless you target it more specificly.

    Because of my telekinetic ability (Example video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  ) and other things I've seen in how the multiverse works, I know such a device can be built, and things a lot more dangerous than that. I don't know exactly how to build any of that, but I've seen much stranger things.

    The Human species has survived so far because governments regulate nuclear technology, but as technology continues getting easier for small groups of people to build, and advancing with more understanding of science, governments will not always have the ability to regulate the most dangerous technology.

    Therefore, a question to the Human species: When such tools of mass destruction or mass creation can be built without any special materials or lots of money and by small groups of people, and regulation fails to control that ability in everyone, what is your plan to cause those people to choose not to destroy things?
    Sat, Mar 26, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     


    How to get your consciousness into your duplicate? "Uploading" is what its called, but does it leave you as you are and let your copy live on? Here's a solution:

    This includes medical technology that does not exist yet. Its more of a thought experiment about consciousness being in 2 places at once.

    We know that a person can live with either half of their brain dead, therefore consciousness is in each half of the brain, and probably can be divided more and still be in each part.

    We know brain parts will automatically wire together. They'll even wire to a computer if done the right way. After wiring together, the brain parts start to think together. They redundantly copy their information between the different parts, often in ways specialized to each part, but still redundantly copied (many backups).

    After you grow the clone, do a half brain transplant between you and your clone, so each has half of the original brain and half of the cloned brain. Then you are equally in 2 Human bodies. Each body has most of your memories, and the cloned brain half will learn from the original brain half. Eventually the 2 Human bodies both think like you with both brain halfs.

    What would you experience then? Would you be in 2 places at once? Your original brain is in 2 bodies that have mostly the same memories and thought patterns.

    What if instead of a clone, the other brain (which you get half of 2 times) was a Human level artificial intelligence that duplicated the behaviors of each half of your original brain? Being in 2 bodies each with half your original brain and a computer half that duplicates your original brain half, what would you experience? Would you know the difference? Would half your brain be conscious and the computer part not? How can it be different if both bodies are you and both have the same behaviors, even though one has your Human left brain and the other has your Human right brain?

    Don't think its possible? My father had a series of strokes a few years ago which killed most of the left side of his brain. He was in a bed for those few years before he died. Mostly he could only move and feel on his left side. His remaining half of brain started taking over the functions of the other side of the body a little but it never allowed him more than 10% his original movement on that side. He was mostly the same person but with some memories and speaking skill gone. Brains store things very redundantly so having half a brain lets you keep most of your thoughts.

    For the religious people who think there is 1 soul to 1 body, I have this question: If you swap brain halfs with an other person, is your soul in 2 bodies at once? And what if 1 was a murderer and the other a saint? Where does the mix go? My answer to these questions is that there is no such thing as an individual unit of consciousness, just an ocean of it and I'm a drop.
    Wed, Mar 16, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: consciousness, brain, clone
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    In Buddhist philosophy, desire and mental attachment are what keeps you stuck here on Earth, but I have a much easier way to explain it. There are many philosophies I think are mostly true. Anyone can do this.

    In 2002 for a few months, I had it a small amount, compared to most people who rarely have it enough to notice it exists. Then because of an injury (which is now healed), I lost it, and its been slowly coming back but not as strong as it was in 2002.

    What is it? Moving things with my mind like in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  video, telepathy (the ability to flow thoughts to and from other people who have this ability), the ability to think something to directly cause it to happen more often statistically, the ability to experience reality in other ways than through your body like floating around like a ghost or spreading yourself over large areas, and most of all, experiencing things outside of space and time. I did all those things in 2002, while I usually couldn't do them whenever I wanted, I did have some skill. That leads to places outside of space and time and not needing to hang around Earth anymore, unless you want to.

    I very much wanted it to come back. At least I thought I did. But the problem was I wanted something else more. I wanted the usual things, video games, money, not to work at a job, to take girls out for sex and if I like them have dinner, and most of all I wanted things to be different on the Earth. I was angry at the world for screwing up in so many obvious ways and people not trying to fix it. Later I started to want things to improve the Human species, to help those who want it get to a higher level of consciousness, but now I realize even that is desire/attachment and I can only have it if I'm willing to give it up if, at any time (today or many years), I see a way to do the more important thing, which is to go to a higher level of consciousness, where I would have much more ability to very indirectly accomplish the same things by mental effort alone and from outside of space and time. If you like those things on Earth, I want you to have them, but I want something much more abstract.

    Now I remember the main reason I got it in 2002. It wasn't because I meditated more than everyone else or because I believed or did not believe something. It wasnt because of being ethical or anything like that. It wasn't anything that people normally think it is. If you want to take girls out for sex and if you like them have dinner, fight wars for stupid reasons, or things many people think are wrong, that's not a problem. If that's what you want in your version of reality, go for it. Whats important is something most people never do, and its very simple and easy to do. The main reason I got it in 2002 was because I wanted it more than anything else, more than I wanted all the money in the world, more than I wanted air to breathe. That, and enough time for it to happen, is all it takes.

    Just want it, intend for it to happen, and it will eventually. The physical world reacts much slower than other parts of the universe. But don't mistake slowness for difficulty. If you stop intending for it to happen, slowness becomes stopping or you go in a downward spiral toward the opposite of what you really wanted. All because you thought it wasn't possible or wasn't working while it was really just taking some time to work.

    Theres something wrong with a species that is more scared of large spiders than of the possibility of nuclear war. Thats how we evolved, but we can be more. If you would stop thinking in aggressive ways, you would get real power, but once you get it you won't want to use it as often. I just have a little of it, but the important thing is I have as much as I need to do what I'm here to do, and that is to work on the global telepathy network through internet connected artificial intelligence music psychology software (Audivolv and Human AI Net), until the first time I get a chance to upgrade to a higher level of consciousness. But what I'm really here to do is to think that's what I'm here to do but then realize that I didn't have to do anything at all.
     http://sourceforge.net/projects/audivolv  (See the xml file about this in version 0.3)
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet

    Most people are here on Earth because subconsciously that's what they really want. Some want to experience higher levels of consciousness and live outside of space and time and do things indirectly and more through mental effort, and the software I've started building and written technical documents about explains how to use computers to help you get there, so if I'm not able to finish it for whatever reason (and I am going to continue probably for years), its open-source (GNU GPL 2+) and you all have the ability (by building the remaining parts or paying someone to do it for you) to get to higher levels of consciousness, if that's what you really want. You can do it the traditional way, by meditating and thinking a certain way for many years, or you can automate it with software and do it quickly.

    If for whatever reason I do not continue my work, I request that someone else try to, someone like Ben Goertzel for example, who has experience in the paranormal and artificial intelligence and thinks they can be combined. But if not, the other way would be for me to telepathicly put ideas into peoples' heads to build similar things. Its a skill anyone can learn. I have to say this because it helps me lose some of my desire/attachment about it, which I need to do to get to the higher levels of consciousness, even though I intend to continue my work. I want to at least get the interactive music based psychic amplifier working in a basic way first, which basically will work by using a distributed bayesian network to coordinate, between many people and computers, mouse movements and musical instrument parameters as if they were qubits. In a fractal way, they are qubits. Brains are mostly normal computers but are a small amount quantum computers, especially in the way they do telepathy and other more direct access to reality.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

    By wanting too much to create the global telepathy network and improve the Human species, I prevented myself from getting my telepathic and telekinetic abilities back. I have them a little, but still not as much as I had in 2002. As I start to have more ability to improve the world, it appears to be the biggest desire/attachment I still have to overcome. I can do it, but I can't want it more than higher consciousness, because it affects the strategies I use to get it.

    Usually when I want something I eventually got it, and usually through a lot of hard work, but sometimes I just think something and that causes it to happen a week or a year later. Wanting something can be the motivation to make it happen or it can directly be the cause of it, as in thinking something to make it happen using psychic energy.

    My main point is its actually very easy to get higher levels of consciousness and not be stuck on Earth. I'm not stuck here. I want to be here until I get my my mad-science projects working in a basic way. After that, something very important changes, something most people never do. My first priority will be higher levels of consciousness, more important to me than having all the money in the world, or having air to breathe. That is what it means to want something more than you want anything else.

    Its not hard. Most people won't get it because they don't really want it.

    Recently, as I've been talking to people who are into this kind of thing, I was very surprised when I realized that I didn't want it. I wanted psychic powers. I wanted telepathy and telekinesis and to think things to make them happen. I wanted to be able to do such magic tricks. But that's not whats important. That's only a side-effect. Except for a few things that I want to finish first, and could leave at any time if it meant I would get the bigger things, the thing I want most right now, more than all the money in the world, more than air to breathe, is to be like I was in 2002 and continue to wherever that leads.

    What started this sequence of thoughts is people reminded me about the way consciousness and reality comes in still pictures, flashes of reality, and many of those still pictures (which may have any number of dimensions or other shapes) fit together into a multiverse. Each is a quantum wavefunction. That's why the double-slit experiment works. My strongest experience with it is when I was doing telekinesis to a volleyball laying on the floor. I saw flashes of it being at many different places, some a millimeter and some a few feet from where it really was. I saw it accelerating and jumping between still pictures, in my mind. I was looking at multiverse branches, different possibilities, or if you understand it as manyworlds theory I was looking at parallel realities. The volleyball only moved (by my mental effort) when I thought about it being very close to where it was at the time. Thinking about the variations where it was feet away did nothing, but they were interesting to look at. When it moved, I knew that was I was seeing was real. It felt like merging the multiverse branches by pulling a zipper in your clothes shut, except I was pulling on the multiverse branches, and the volleyball rolled an inch. Its a skill. Anyone can learn it, but don't expect any movement in the first 40 hours of experimenting with thinking various things. After 40 hours, it gets easier. Your time may vary. The point is consciousness and reality come in still pictures, flashes of reality, and the way they fit together in almost smooth ways (wave vs particle) and how that relates to chaos-theory of neuron firing patterns in brains is how you can learn to think something to make it happen and how you can use quantum physics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    I am not my body. I am the part of the wavefunction that is near my body. I am a blur of reality. When you're standing near me, you're also standing inside of me. In some ways, I am the space and time and mass and energy near my body. I am sometimes in many places at once. How would you know if your subconscious mind is influenced by other peoples' subconscious minds? It's subconscious. You have no way to know except if the same information is in both minds, and I've found that it is. I'm not my body. My body is a statistical pattern in a quantum wavefunction that we call reality. My consciousness has simply become attached (like desire in Buddhist philosophy) to that statistical pattern.

    Its not good to exist in this kind of reality because you have to, because you're addicted to it or accidentally keep coming back. Instead, why not go to the other parts of the universe, and see what its like, and if you prefer Earth, come back to this exact moment in time. You can be in many places at once. Its a skill you can learn.

    I thought I wanted it, but I didn't... until now. That, and time, is all it takes. I hope I've explained it enough that anyone else who wants it can get it.
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Logically it makes sense why they act like particles when observed and waves when not observed. Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips and how those statistics are affected by observing the coins. I will explain why the double-slit experiment is the same experiment as something you can do with 2 coins.



    In the double-slit experiment, an electron (or other particle/wave) has 2 holes it can go through and then is detected hitting somewhere on the back wall. If it goes through the left hole, statistically it will paint a pattern on the back wall. If it goes through the right hole, it paints a different pattern. It goes through each hole equally often as the other. Most peoples' common sense tells them that statistically it doesnt matter if you know which hole it went through because you can simply average the 2 patterns to get the pattern on the back wall for when it could go through either hole. But its a very different pattern from the average of the left-hole-pattern and right-hole-pattern. Its the same pattern as waves interfering with each other.

    Sometimes electrons act like particles and sometimes like waves, but why? I'm going to explain why that happens using common sense instead of equations. The problem is most people don't have all the parts of common sense that they think they have. If you understand the following about 2 coin flips, and you see the patterns created in the double-slit experiments, then you can put them together and understand why electrons (and other particles/waves) sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. Logically, without considering the specific equations of physics, we can know there has to be something like that in physics somewhere. Here's the 2 coin question:

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads?

    Its 1/3, not 1/4 or 1/2 like most people think, because there are 4 ways 2 coins can land and I only excluded "both tails" when I said "at least 1 coin landed heads" so that leaves 3 possibilities and I asked what is the chance of 1 of those 3 things which happen equally often. Its 1/3. If you still don't believe it, flip 2 coins many times and only ask the question when at least 1 of them lands heads and you will see that 1/3 of the time you ask the question they both land heads. The flaw in Human minds is the need to choose 1 of the coins and say it certainly landed heads, but I did not tell you any specific coin landed heads, and it does change the answer if you take that shortcut.

    Most peoples' common sense tells them that since its a symmetric question (between the 2 coins), it can't matter if they start with 1 of the 1-or-2 coins that landed heads, and they think it will get the same answer as not knowing if a specific coin is heads or not. How could it matter? We know at least 1 of the 2 coins landed heads, so I'll just define a variable called coinX=heads and figure out if coinY=heads or coinY=tails. Since coinY was randomly flipped and coins have a 1/2 chance of heads, then the chance both are heads must be 1/2. But then they think about the extra information I told them: at least 1 coin landed heads. That has to change something, so how could coinY be 1/2 chance of heads by itself and with coinX? CoinX and coinY are symmetric. You can trade them in this question and not change the answer. So whatever is true of coinY has to also be true of coinX on average. So maybe the chance both are heads is 1/4. Most people go back and forth between 1/2 and 1/4, but the answer is 1/3 as I explained above.

    How is the 2-coin experiment related to the double-slit experiment?

    The patterns of the 2 coins (how often they land heads) individually can not always be averaged to get the pattern of both coins together. If at least 1 coin landed heads and you observe a specific coin being heads, then the chance they are both heads is 1/2. If at least 1 coin landed heads but you don't observe any coin, then the chance both are heads is 1/3.

    Logically, observing a specific case of something you know has to be true in general, about the 2 coins, produces a different outcome than only knowing its true in general.

    The analogy to quantum physics is that when you observe a heads or tails, you collapse the wavefunction (including the other coin you didn't observe) to a particle and the other becomes a different wavefunction, but if you do not observe any heads or tails then its a symmetric wavefunction between the 2 coins.

    I can say the same thing about the 2 holes in the double-slit experiment. If I put an electron detector past the left hole, and shoot an electron that could go through either hole, and the detector observes or does not observe an electron, then I get a different pattern (statistically on the back wall of where the electrons hit) than if the detector was not observing the space between the left hole and the back wall. If any part of the possible paths are observed (as containing or not containing an electron), then the other possible paths are affected even though they were not observed. The electron could have gone through both slits or neither or left or right, but still the path on the right is affected by observing the path on the left.

    Most quantum physics scientists explain it as the electron going through the left hole, the right hole, both holes simultaneously, or bouncing off the thing containing the 2 holes without going through either hole. If the electron does not go through either hole, they do not count that in any of the patterns on the back wall.

    In the 2-coin experiment and double-slit experiment, there are 4 possibilities, and 1 is excluded. I need to label the 2 coins for this, like the left and right holes/slits are labeled "left" and "right". One coin is a nickel and the other is a dime. This is not the only way to pair the 4 possibilities. Its just a way to explain that they are the same problem:

    (1) Nickel heads. Dime tails. Electron left slit. Electron not right slit.

    (2) Nickel tails. Dime heads. Electron not left slit. Electron right slit.

    (3) Both coins heads. Electron goes through both slits.

    (4) Both coins tails. Electron bounces off the thing containing the slits and does not go through either. It is not true that "at least 1 coin landed heads" so I don't ask the question or keep statistics of it. The electron didn't hit the back wall so its not part of the statistical patterns.

    In the design of both experiments (2-coin and double-slit), cases (3) and (4) are opposites and cases (1) and (2) are symmetric. Exactly 1 of (3) and (4) is not counted in the statistics, but the chance is equally balanced between (1) and (2). It works the same way if you swap the left and right slits or swap the nickel and dime or swap heads and tails or swap going through a slit with not going through a slit. Its practical to test it going through the slit but not practical to test it after it bounces because bouncing is an observation by the thing it bounced on.

    Quantum physics is a kind of statistics. So is the 2-coin experiment. In the double-slit experiment and the 2-coin experiment, observing any part changes the outcome statistically. I'm not saying the math of the double-slit experiment is exactly the math of a bayesian-network (which is the kind of statistics used for the 2-coin experiment), but I explained enough similarities that quantum physics scientists should take this seriously.

    The double-slit experiment is a variation of the 2-coin experiment that uses continuous angles instead of only heads/tails.

    That is why observing things changes the outcome and why electrons/photons/etc act like particles when observed and act like waves when not observed.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads? The most important thing to remember is the question is symmetric between the 2 coins, and you can know that 1 of the 2 coins will be heads, but observing either of those coins as heads changes the outcome, like observing what goes through either slit changes the outcome.

    Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips.


    There is something which is true about the coins, and there are 2 ways which it could be true, and each of those 2 ways is symmetric, but knowing which of those 2 ways it is changes the outcome.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  selects a coin and says its heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  was used on 2 things which were identical and you have no way to tell them apart.

    If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and the first coin that landed (or the coin that landed closest to my foot, or whatever) is heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/2, because a specific coin is heads and the other is independent.

    Your observation of something which you already know to be true (but not which of 2 symmetric ways for it to be true) changes the chances, and that is exactly what we see in the double-slit experiment.

    Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: Experiment, statistics, quantum, double slit, common sense, particle, wave
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    If a business causes a problem, they should not get to profit from it. They should have to pay to solve the problem completely. This problem is not solved.

    This is a typical example:

    Someone is losing their house. Why are you losing your house? Because I can't make the payments. Why can't you make the payments? Because I lost my job. Why did you lose your job? Because the economy is having problems. Why is the economy having problems? Because the banks screwed up. Who is taking your house? One of those same banks. So the same group of businesses that caused you to lose your house is now taking your house? Yes.

    This is summarized from some youtube videos I was watching of David Icke.
    Mon, Feb 21, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: economy, bank
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Going by the standard of supply and demand, a Human life is worth as much as it costs to save the cheapest Human life, unless some people are worth more than others.

    I asked how much it costs to save the cheapest million Human lives on average in http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6176/Legal-Murder-Charity  and indirectly explained how peoples' actions and what they think it costs contradict.

    Here is the answer: Human life is worth $1000. The research is summarized herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell

    That means if you can save a random person's life for $2000 then you should not do it, because you could save 2 lives by spending it somewhere else. 2 random people or 1 random person? It's not a hard choice, unless you think some kinds of people are worth more than others.

    Most people like to pretend that everyone is worth as much as everyone else. I'm not talking about your friends and family compared to random people. I'm talking about comparing randomly selected people to randomly selected people. Is a Chinese person worth the same as a Canadian person? Answer yes or you're labeled a racist. But pay $2000 to save one instead of $2000 to save 2 of the other, and you're a good person instead of a racist. No. If you pay $2000 to save a random person's life, then you are judging that who you are saving is worth 2 times as much as the other. Your actions would mean 2 of these people are worth as much as 1 of those people. Now forget you read that, or try to find some reason to think I'm lieing, so you don't have to admit you think everyone is not equal. Or maybe it would be easier not to save anyone's life for $1000, because then nobody can figure out who you think is worth less than who else.

    It gets more complex. If a certain person is going to save an average of 9 other peoples' lives, and it costs $5000 to save that 1 person's life, then that's an average of $500 per life saved. That one person is worth more than those who don't save lives.

    But that's assuming life and death are the only things we should try to affect. Life isn't worth as much if you're always hungry or in jail or you hate yourself or lots of other things. I'm not saying the goal should be to save the most lives, but that should be part of it.

    Anyone can save many lives for $1000 each after learning the facts from various websites likehttp://givewell.org

    This is my question to everyone: How much is a random person's life worth to you, as a number of dollars on average? If you say "You can't put a price on Human life", then you're just avoiding the question, because the price is $1000. The price is known. That is the supply. I'm asking about the demand. Is it worth $1000 to you? Or how much is it worth, in dollars?

    Here's my answer: I explained above that a person who will save 9 lives is worth as much as themself plus some part of the 9 others, on average, adjusting for other factors than life and death, so they're worth maybe around 5 people. I am a mad-scientist and I expect what I build will work, so don't bother saying "You can't know what you're doing will save that many lives". If you read my other posts, including http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6090/Artificial-Intelligence-learns-music  (which is eventually going to become a new kind of communication and improve the Human species in many ways), and if you agree with me that it will have that effect, then you will understand why it is better for me to save my money and later spend less time working at jobs than it is for me to spend that money at $1000 per life saved. I'm not trying to brag about how great I am, but this example is necessary to explain something about the most effective use of your money toward solving the world's problems.

    Bill Gates had a good strategy too... He acted in a very greedy way for many years then gave many billions of dollars to stategicly chosen charities, after hiring some people to research which charities were more efficient. That's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell  researches. But for those who don't think they're going to change the world or get rich later, that doesn't apply.

    That's my excuse, and I think its a good one. If you could afford to lose $1000, what's your excuse? What are you doing to improve the world that makes your time too valuable to spend $1000 of time saving a life? I think most people are so afraid to answer that question that they become afraid to ask the questions that come before it. If you don't think a random person's life is worth $1000, you should at least admit it, because that would be progress. As things are now, people are afraid to ask the questions. Cowards.

    How many lives do you think will be saved on average as a result of people reading this thread? I'd guess at least 1. Therefore, since I think in a logical way to improve the world more efficiently, if an average person was going to die unless I deleted this writing and never wrote it again, I would choose to let them die instead of delete this writing. This thread is worth more than a Human life. I will not apologize for estimating the value of things when I do it to improve the world instead of for selfish reasons. So what is your excuse for not saving a life for $1000? All I really said is this thread is worth more than $1000.

    One last example. Since Human life is worth $1000 each, the 9/11/01 terrorist bombings (which killed around 3000 people) only did $3 million of damage to the world, which isn't really that important. The buildings cost more than the people were worth. There were other bad effects, but I'm talking about the value of the lives lost, not the value of the freedoms other people lost. And about the freedoms lost, is our freedom really worth less than 3 million dollars (or maybe 30 million if we expect more attacks would have followed)? Of course our freedom is worth a lot more than 30 million dollars.

    It doesn't have to be this way. We can solve these problems over time so Human life is worth more. If enough people save the cheapest Human lives, then the next cheapest would cost $1100 to save. Whatever you think Human life is worth, lets adjust the supply/demand so that much is spent on them.
    Sat, Feb 5, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: supply, demand, charity
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)
     
          Cancel