Seamingly: I think, therefor I am. At least: I remember thinking, therefor I was; Be-cause. we can see ourselves thinking. Cause seeing is be-leaving and believing is synominous with being (I think?). Does one virtually need to think in order to really be? How could thought itself predicate being if one needs to be before(.) the(y) can see for(e) the(m)selves the selfseen eye of this idea of I (infingressive twin-twin(n)ed mirrors that see eachother with equal clarity and con|fusion)? Might it be that existence is everythere and what I vainly call “I am” is nought butt our awareness of our awareness of our own(ed) existence in interlaced relation to our underbase awareness of (n)or(m)ative awareness itself? In other wor(l)ds refedbacklooped perception, butt a type(o)n) of more me(x)t{r}a-convoluted ware of a-wareness. No need for some irreproachable animessence, just a sum}airy folding whose phasal geodynametry a hydrological analog to (more…)
A futuristic aesthetic is taking the music industry by electric storm. Electronic music has seen a bigger rise in popularity over the last decade than any other genre of music. It seems to be the most invasive genre of the past decade as well, having been incorporated into pop music’s sonic repertoire to an increasingly greater degree throughout the 2000’s. Now it seems like the large majority of pop songs use EDM and electro-based styles as their foundation – whereas it used to be dominated by RnB.
Electronic music, and particularly the new, “popularized” varieties of EDM making their way into the tracks of more mainstream artists, is making the future seem cool and sexy to mainstream audiences!
It is beginning to replace the lifeless and alienating aesthetics associated with technology over the 2nd half of the 20th century, all hard edges and clean delineations – an aesthetic which makes us associate technology with a dehumanizing force that sunders enchantment from life by taking all mystery out of it. Such a sentiment seems alien to readers of Transhumanist rhetoric, but I think that most people have been generally untrusting of technology since the havoc it wreaked in the 1st and 2nd World Wars.
As long as a recently published proof (European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.9 ISSN: 1857–7881(Print) e-ISSN 1857–7431) remains unchallenged by the scientific community, this question is not only scientifically sound but also maximally important.
It would be great if this uncommon call for scientific assistance by imaginative readers across the world would find the resonance it deserves . Einstein would be delighted.
I have seen the future of Bitcoin, and it is bleak.
The Promise of Bitcoin
If you were to peak into my bedroom at night (please don’t), there’s a good chance you would see my wife sleeping soundly while I stare at the ceiling, running thought experiments about where Bitcoin is going. Like many other people, I have come to the conclusion that distributed currencies like Bitcoin are going to eventually be recognized as the most important technological innovation of the decade, if not the century. It seems clear to me that the rise of distributed currencies presents the biggest (and riskiest) investment opportunity I am likely to see in my lifetime; perhaps in a thousand lifetimes. It is critically important to understand where Bitcoin is going, and I am determined to do so.
The 2nd amendment of the American Constitution gives U.S citizens the constitutional right to bear arms. Perhaps the most prominent justification given for the 2nd amendment is as a defense against tyrannical government, where citizens have a method of defending themselves against a corrupt government, and of taking their government back by force if needed by forming a citizen militia. While other reasons are sometimes called upon, such as regular old individual self-defense and the ability for the citizenry to act as a citizen army in the event their government goes to war despite being undertrooped, these justifications are much less prominent than the defense-against-tyrannical-government argument is.
This may have been fine when the Amendment was first conceived, but considering the changing context of culture and its artifacts, might it be time to amend it? When it was adopted in 1751, the defensive-power afforded to the citizenry by owning guns was roughly on par with the defensive-power available to government. In 1751 the most popular weapon was the musket, which was limited to 4 shots per minute, and had to be re-loaded manually. The state-of-the-art for “arms” in 1791 was roughly equal for both citizenry and military. This was before automatic weapons – never mind tanks, GPS, unmanned drones, and the like. In 1791, the only thing that distinguished the defensive or offensive capability of military from citizenry was quantity. Now it’s quality.
I had a great time at APS 2013 held April 13 — 16, 2013. I presented my paper “Empirical Evidence Suggest A Different Gravitational Theory” in track T10, Tuesday afternoon. A copy of the slides is available at this link.
noostore credit exchange for battered sciches and slightly-used memoROMs
(My?) exifesto turns T pale through the lens of y{ou(‘r}e?) Cleased selfwearware. Why does (your?) pruined neurocology so belligerently insist that (I?) must hate (my?) h/alted self-it/er/at/i/on now when glimpsed through the mödel-defferred intereceptor arrays of (you?)/(neome?)? Why couldn’t (you?) have con-figured a less divergent cognicodebase; one that shared at least some of that strangeseem lamestream remenistranger’s redememelictions allchem/lest, when (my?) child ride through (your?) wild mind alterminates, (I?) might have a st chance of re
One common argument against Radical Life Extension is that a definitive limit to one’s life – that is, death – provides some essential baseline reference, and that it is only in contrast to this limiting factor that life has any meaning at all. In this article I refute the argument’s underlying premises, and then argue that even if such premises were taken as true, its conclusion – that eradicating death would negate the “limiting factor” that legitimizes life — is also invalid.
Death gives meaning to life? No! Death makes life meaningless!
One version of the argument, which I’ve come across in a variety of places, is given in Brian Cooney’s Posthuman, an introductory philosophical text that uses various futurist scenarios and concepts to illustrate the broad currents of Western Philosophy. Towards the end he makes his argument against immortality, claiming that if we had all the time in the universe to do what we wanted, then we wouldn’t do anything at all. Essentially, his argument boils down to ‘if there is no possibility of not being able to do something in the future, then why would we ever do it?”.
This assumes that we make actions on the basis of not being able to do them again. But people don’t make decisions this way. We didn’t go out to dinner because the restaurant was closing down… we went out for dinner because we wanted to go out for dinner… I think that Cooney’s version of the argument is naïve. We don’t make the majority of our decisions by contrasting an action to the possibility of not being able to do it in future.
His argument seems to be that if there were infinite time then we would have no way of prioritizing our actions. If we had a list of all possible actions set before us, and time were limitless, we might (according to his logic) accomplish all the small, negligible things first, because they’re easier and all the hard things can wait. If we had all the time in the world, we would have no reference point with which to judge how important a given action or objective is, which ones it is most important to get done, and which ones should get done in the place of other possibilities. If we really can do every single thing on that listless list, then why bother, if each is as important as every other? In his line-of-reasoning, importance requires scarcity. If we can do everything it were possible to do, then there is nothing that determines one thing as being more important than another. A useful analogy might be that current economic definitions of value require scarcity. If everything were as abundant as everything else, if nothing were scarce, then we would have no way of ascribing economic value to a given thing, such that one thing has more economic value than another. What we sometimes forget is that ecologies aren’t always like economies.
It is often said that empiricism is one of the most useful concepts in epistemology. Empiricism emphasises the role of experience acquired through one’s own senses and perceptions, and is contrary to, say, idealism where concepts are not derived from experience, but based on ideals.
In the case of radical life extension, there is a tendency to an ‘idealistic trance’ where people blindly expect practical biotechnological developments to be available and applied to the public at large within a few years. More importantly, idealists expect these treatments or therapies to actually be effective and to have a direct and measurable effect upon radical life extension. Here, by ‘radical life extension’ I refer not to healthy longevity (a healthy life until the age of 100–120 years) but to an indefinite lifespan where the rate of age-related mortality is trivial.
Let me mention two empirical examples based on experience and facts:
1. When a technological development depends on technology alone, its progress is often dramatic and exponential.
