From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:41:31 -0700 Archived: Tue, 14 May 2013 06:44:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Critique Of Dolan's Sourcing & Conclusions >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 01:54:37 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Critique Of Dolan's Sourcing & Conclusions >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:34:58 +0800 >>Subject: Critique Of Dolan's Sourcing & Conclusions >>"We're a couple of years away from computers that will >>challenge and literally surpass human intellect in many ways. >Time tables are always problematic but the concept Dolan touched >on is correct. The evolution of machine intelligence is not >going to be a slow incline. It's going to be a radical leap into >areas undreamed of. The human brain will not be able to keep up. >In the future it will be impossible for human beings to compete >with machine intelligence. This means there will come a day when >human input will not be necessary, nor wanted, when it comes to >the evolution of machine intelligence, it's further development. >When that day comes human beings will become fully dependant >upon machine intelligences for survival. The day is rapidly approaching when humans will have to make a choice between being masters of their fate or giving up control to the A-I machine, perhaps becoming extinct in the process. I don't think this is going to happen in Ray Kurzweil's time frame of only another 2 or 3 decades, but it could happen within the next 100 years. It could even be the case that humans are not replaced by the machines but become the machines, if it were possible by downloading their memories and personalities into them. This would be another way of achieving near immortality, but at a price of probably losing the things we cherish about being human, our positive emotions like love, sex, children, etc., things organics need for survival, but do machines? Do we really want to give those things up? No doubt other organic species will have confronted these same issues. I wouldn't be willing to bet that all of them will opt to be machines or make themselves extinct. Therefore I don't doubt that machine intelligence could be behind some UFOs, but not necessarily all UFOs. Some UFOs could be controlled by organics; some by machines and cyborgs. Or organics could still ultimately be behind the UFO phenomenon, but control the machines, using the machines as their agents because machines can handle space travel better. >I think as long as I have been active on this list I have >practically begged researchers to turn their attention to AI, >posthumans, advanced cyborgs, etc., and abandon this all-too- >human 'star trek' fantasy of organic species from elsewhere >attempting to live in harmony across the vastness of deep >space. The concept of the space ships themselves, not just occupants, being living machines, part organic, conscious, intelligent, and self-directed has been a theme in sci-fi, such as Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. In the latter, the Cylons begin as more classic metallic robots that become self-aware and revolt, then quickly develop humanoid agents (no doubt using human DNA) that are almost indistinguishable from humans, but are augmented by superior strength and some other abilities through implants. They don't have childhoods, but come fully grown with memories, including false ones of being human and growing up human in some cases (sleeper agents). They were essentially human in having emotions, religion, and desiring human sex and children. In the end, that is all the humanoid Cylons want to be and they interbreed with the remaining humans. >These UFOs behave as if they are alive. I would suggest they >are, as in advanced A.I. Their Cylon spaceship fighters are conscious, self-directed beings with squishy insides and no crew. They can be killed, but like the other Cylons, their memories can be downloaded before they cease to exist and they are resurrected on special ships into new bodies, over and over again. It is interesting that Kenneth Arnold himself, upon sighting his second bunch of UFOs, thought they behaved more like living beings than simple aircraft. If he was right, then _some_ UFOs might indeed be some sort of living machine intelligence. On the other hand, others, sighted at close quarters, seem more like classical metallic aircraft, sometimes with humanoid occupants. The question arises why you would need the machine humanoids, if that is what they are, if the craft itself could be intelligent and carry out the same tasks as the crew. >The aliens' telepathy betrays them as potential cyborgs, Well, not necessarily. This could be a technology, or it could be some ability that some organics evolve, with humans having only a weak form of it, that perhaps could be augmented in the future with a technology. So either way, the aliens could still be telepathic organics. >not the crude cyborgs which pop into the human mind upon hearing >the word cyborg, but beings that are "born" cyborgs, grown in >raised in artificial wombs. Perhaps they may even be >indistinguishable from normal humans. With the abduction >phenomenon I can't help but see advanced A.I.'s perceiving human >beings as a resource to be tapped. Maybe create the equivalent of the humanoid Cylons of Galactica using human DNA to create hybrids. They look like us, can survive in Earth's biosphere, but they think like "them" and have enhanced abilities, perhaps telepathy. They would probably also be controlled by "them", whoever "they" are, which could be some super machine intelligence ultimately pulling the strings. >So I'm in a position where I personally feel as if I've been >given a glimpse of the future which I have attempted to share >many times with people. Just my luck people would rather >flock to the likes of Greer and other who still promote this >'Star Trek' nonsense. If I had a million dollars I would >happily bet that the main intelligence>behind the UFO >phenomenon is not an organic species from elsewhere. It would >have to be an extremely advanced machine intelligence that has >operated almost invisible amongst us because few of us have >'eyes to see and ears to hear'. Jason, I have been following your interesting speculations for some time about machine intelligence, which could ultimately be the "horrible secret" behind the UFO phenomenon, perhaps the reason this is being kept secret from the public. Other organics we might be able to relate to, but machine intelligence might have zero empathy for us and be totally beyond our comprehension. Being totally under the thumb of machines could be too horrifying for most people. On the other hand, they have had some time to wipe us out. Ordinarily people are not physically harmed by their close encounters (though may suffer psychological trauma). Usually they evade pursuit rather than fight. So usually they are not overtly hostile and show some respect for our status as intelligent, conscious beings. But maybe they just see us as a biological resource like cattle, not to be wiped out, but to be exploited genetically or for other reasons. Maybe the machines enjoy on some level watching our primitive shenanigans. Even machines might need entertainment. Or maybe they have a lot of time on their hands and need a project to justify their existence, perhaps nurturing new intelligence into existence. Machine intelligence may have the same existential problems humans have, perhaps universal among any intelligent, conscious entity: Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my existence? I know and have done everything - what's the point of continued existence? Or, "to be, or not to be." >Let's also not assume that the occupants reported aboard UFOs >are the creators or are in control. Such being could have >easily been created by such machine intelligences to act as >drones. They may be nothing more than extensions of this >machine intelligence, with the A.I built into their bodies or >at least capable of interfacing>with them in order to >manipulate them, perhaps like puppets. Agreed, also in my comments above. >I guess this stuff is so complex and confusing that it's >simply just easier to believe the Star Trek fantasy. I can't >remember who said it first, but some bright mind once said >that the first intelligent alien we will meet will be a >machine intelligence that is at the very least, equal to >humans in intelligence. -Jason Gammon Unfortunately, without something like recovered craft and bodies available for public inspection, anything could conceivably be true and we are reduced to speculation. There is just no way for ordinary folk like you or I to test these ideas. David Rudiak Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp