Saturday, August 14, 2010

Comment to liveblogging Singularity Summit Ray Kurzweil

Can be found at:

Forgive these naive questions I'm primarily just a poetic observer: But...speaking of the mind, the brain, etc. Isn't there more to what constitutes individual minds, brains, etc.?

1. Question, don't we live in a large living ecosystem, with all kinds of autonomic and automatic patterns on the diverse set of multiple species (subsystems) that constitutes the ecosystem to survive? Aren't we humans also a 'living system with a multitude of living systems that constitute us'; built in autonomic and automatic patterns that are hedonically (pain/pleasure) controlled and reflexively driven to reinforce our ability to survive? The ecosystem and our individual subsystems living systems (that constitute our human system) as they are, work in such a robust and ingenious way (yet we want to go around and/or beat them, in other words to beat death without thought of long term effects on the larger system that sustains us?). The egg trying to beat the Chicken? Isn't the cycle of life in all systems considered birth of an expression to it's decay and death, making room for newer expressions for evolutionary sustenance? If we human systems actually are clever enough to change our human cycles, will it in the long term set our ecosystem into an unbalanced mode? Creating disease in the system towards death anyway? In other words there is no way to beat death or even maintain your individual expression (outside the system). Nature provided you to extend through sexual reproduction, don't you trust this?

Back to question on the mind: Isn't our very "humanness"/"minds" a phenomenon of engagement and attachments. We survive in a network of relationships with other human beings, other species of this planet, and the nurturing from the overall ecosystem (what we live in). Each knot of individuality is bound to the next, creating the social fabric in which our very person-hood (minds) has true existence. Isolating an individual (mind) is an illusion. If we unravel the social contacts, don't the knots (mind) disappear to?

Don't we also have a mix of signals that also drives us human species today to mentally divine our individual realities in it (as a way to filter noise for sustenance of our individual minds), for balanced sustenance in the large ecosystem? All the while we create more complexity (noise) in our ecosystem; e.g., economic systems, political national systems, international systems, etc.; and all these systems are dynamic (wherein individual human realities are dynamic evolving systems as well). Isn't it all just noise and filtering?
Machines are not direct components of the ecosystem (they are human by products); so they don't have the same drivers that the ecosystems do (which humans are merely a small part of, as arrogant as we are).

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Economist Article "And Man Made Life" May 20th 2010

Synthetic biology, "And man made life"
Artificial life, the stuff of dreams and nightmares, has arrived May 20th 2010
Found at:

Comment also found in Economist Article Comment Area:

Mobbet (WIntelAgency's Pen Name) wrote: May 23rd 2010 2:07 GMT

Being complex adaptive vs. clever is the big question: We always get caught into our own cleverness (being able to recognize our achievements, cleverness of invention for making short term survival easier, mimicking our planetary functions for what we believe is more efficiency). We find ourselves so much more caught today into our cleverness that sometimes I wonder if we may have blinded ourselves to what the accomplishments (by-products of cleverness) really set in motion (i.e., short term satisfaction monetarily, prestige wise, or pleasure wise); wherein we are unable to recognize the long-term effects possibly baring out ecologically destructive reactions to our very survivability. Is our cleverness primarily working today for short term vs. the long term balance and sustenance needed for the ecosystem?

Autonomy and Human limits, what and where are the limits with what we do with our ecosystem?

Co-evolution: All systems appear to exist within their own environment and they are also part of that environment. Therefore, as the environment changes they need to adapt to ensure best fit. But because they are part of their environment, when they adapt, they effect change on their environment, and as it changes they need to re adapt, and so it goes on as a continual process.

Some people draw distinctions between complex adaptive systems and complex evolving systems. Where the former continuously adapt to the changes around them but do not learn from the process. And where the latter learn and evolve from each change enabling them to maintain balance in their environment, better predict likely changes in the future, and prepare for them accordingly.

Will these new lifeforms be complex evolving?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Why is there just focus on climate and not overall planetary health?

I have been trying to discover existing positive efforts in resolving the debates on global ecosystem health issues. Yes, I agree that some of the ecosystem health issues are changes in the climate, but there are also other elements and signals such as extinction rate of planetary species, environmental erosion and degradation e.g., rain forests, farming agricultures, ocean and other water reservoirs pollution, etc. Yet the primary corporate funded media and political propaganda fronts primarily focus on using the term climate change? We, humans, are most likely the culprits with our economy and technology boom pumping out mass amounts of human by-products polluting the airways (including electronic airways), environments, and more with wastes of our productivity over carbonating the planet (impacting all species and essential resources for sustenance on this planet). So, in reality, do we really need to look at our global to individual behavior to better understand how to recognize what the root causes is? What is needed to foster international recognition and agreement on this issue? Is it:
1) to recognize and accept a global commission to oversee international collaborative programs for identification, discovery, recognition and consensus on planetary health; and the big question is can humans ever collectively do this?
2) identification and recognition of existing research programs working to identify symptoms and root causes to any degradation to planetary ecosystem health, can we do this and maintain fair competition in working this out?
3) identification of good guidance practices and policies that can be easily adapted to other nations with positive stewardship agreements towards curbing threats to the planetary health and enhancing planetary health & economy? Is there any chance of reality here?