From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:33:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Critique Of Dolan's Sourcing & Conclusions >From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:41:31 -0700 >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 >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? There are conscious choices and unconscious choices. Humans have already made the choice to merge with machines. The only question now is if the process of merging with machines progresses slowly or is 'rushed'. The slower the better. The slower the less likely humanity would consciously understand what is taking place. Then there is the question of whether or not merging with machines would be forced upon people. Regardless, the end result is those who merge with machines, becoming cyborgs or uploading their consciousness into machines, will naturally take over. Those humans who reject the merger will be pushed further and further to the edges of society. When the day comes when pure humans contribute absolutely nothing to society then that is when their survival is most at stake. They could easily be viewed as nuisances, pests. It is then a friendly 'god' will have to take care of them, perhaps preparing a planet in advance and moving select humans to the planet where humanity can begin anew. For all we know that is our own origin. >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 you missed the point here. The very same future we face has played out elsewhere in the Universe. If an organic species elsewhee created advanced A.I. and that A.I. upgraded it's intelligence multitudes more advanced than it's creators then the end result is the same. There will come a day when the organic species input is no longer required, or wanted, and the machines are in control. I've already stated this several times now. Deep space belongs to machines, not to organic species. >>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. Yes, I've mentioned the Cylons several times over the years. They are grown in artificial wombs, very similar to reports of 'alien fetuses' from abductees. >>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. Having a drone force could pose an advantage, especially if the objective involves operations on earth or another planet. The drones would be expendable. I wrote a post I think way back in 2006 on how the grays could be created using human sperm and ova. The would be cyborgs, controlled by the machines as a work force. The apparent 'fetus-like' features could even be a result of the speeding up of physical development or growth, preventing the formation of adult features. The process may also involve genetic manipulation. The beings most likely contain a 'yolk sack' of sorts, perhaps a more highly developed liver or other organ that stores their nourishment. When the 'yolk sack' is depleted, the beings die. >>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. There are no organic species on earth that use telepathy as a primary means of communication. There is no scientific understand how telepathy could even function. The belief that telepathy is a naturally evolved process is one of those beliefs associated with the 'star trek' fantasy. Believers will point to cases of human telepathy, even though such cases are no where near the level of abilities displayed by aliens. The easiest explanation is that the telepathy displayed by aliens is via technology, not evolution. >>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. The humanoid models of Cylons are not created from human DNA. They are completely synthetic, but so perfect that even under the microscope they appear human. Put yourself in the 'shoes' of an advanced A.I. You are creating beings you will use as workforce. These being could be fully robotic, cyborgs, or even purely organic. All three would require some level of intelligence on their own. However, it would be in your best interests if you write your own self into their programming so that you can take over when needed. In the very least it would be in your best interest to create an interface which would allow you to control the beings at your will. Of course with organic species it would be handled differently and would involve genetic manipulation. >>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. Yes, I've also spent a very long time speculating if this is the reason why the UFO phenomenon is covered-up, not because of who they are, but what they are. >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. Perhaps. It could also be they have plans for us and those plans involve us needing to be a bit more technologically advanced than we are now. Perhaps they are playing the waiting game. Perhaps they are actively helping us with technology to speed the process up. Who knows? >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 That's a defeatist attitude, David. We can use our brains. We can think like machines and rank the likelihood of possibilities. For example, the possibility that alien telepathy is due to technology, and would imply the beings are cyborgs is far more likely than the telepathy being a naturally evolved ability. Although it's not definitive it does serve to help shed light on the phenomenon and steer people in the right direction. But we have to clear our minds of the Star-Trek nonsense first. My gut instinct tell me that those who have access to crash material know only a slight more than we who are not privy to those secrets. I want to burn them even more and take the piss out of them by helping us 'catch up' as much as possible. -Jason Gammon 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp