Andreas Xirtus on the Idea of Singularity

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Greetings and welcome to the United States Transhumanist Party Virtual
Enlightenment Salon. My name is Jannati stolier Off the second
and I am the Chairman of the US Transhumanist Party.
Here we hold conversations with some of the world's meeting
thinkers in longevity, science, technology, philosophy, and politics. Like the

(00:21):
philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, we aim to connect
every field of human endeavor and arrive at new insights
to achieve longer lives, greater rationality, and the progress of
our civilization. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our
US Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon. Today is October nineteenth,

(00:43):
twenty twenty five, and we have a fascinating conversation in
store for you on the concept of singularity. Joining us
today is our distinguished panel of US Transhumanist Party officers,
including our Director of Visual Art Artremone Garcia, and our
Director of Community and Citizen Science. In twenty twenty four,

(01:07):
US Vice presidential candidate Daniel Tweed, and our special guest
today joining us for the second time for a Virtual
Enlightenment Salon, though I have spoken with him on numerous
other occasions is Andreas K. Syrtus. He is a popular
podcaster with a large following. He is the founder of

(01:28):
a historical restoration society known as Tartari Nova and director
of the Fediverse, a free software foundation creating tools to
protect free speech. And actually my last conversation with him
was on the importance of freedom of speech, especially in
this turbulent time that we live in. He has studied
nanotechnology and worked as a nanotechnology engineer and micro satellite

(01:51):
specialist for NASA, a social media strategist for Turner Entertainment,
and a content creator at Timcast Media. And I will
note we also had a great discussion with him at
our Virtual Enlightenment Salon of December third, twenty twenty three
on the current media and social media landscape. If you

(02:12):
didn't watch that, please go and watch it after this salon,
and you can also visit his website at Andreas dot
me and also see his resume, which is quite formidable.
So Andreas, welcome, We're pleased to have you again and
tell us your thoughts on the idea of singularity. This

(02:36):
is a concept that has many different meanings and as
our friend Mike Lazine has already noted in the chat,
each person in our community of transhumanists and allies would
have different views on the singularity, so I would be
curious as to what your views are.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yeah, thank you, and also thank you for present hunting.
My history is accolades instead of accusations. I'm pretty sure
that the same things I've done impress some people and
worry others. But I am just a human being still,
I'm not quite a digital immortal yet. I think that
that's part of the goal for a lot of us,
is to figure out ways of extending life, or not

(03:19):
just the quantity of life, but the conditions of life.
And I think the singularity is a big buzzword for
a lot of people because of that, Because when you
reach a point where you can accomplish any of your
goals and dreams, then you can probably live forever if
that's something you want to do. And so that's something
that I think shared a lot of interest to transhumanists.

(03:43):
But it's not only a transhumanist idea. It might just
be a technological observation that things are telescopically becoming quicker.
Anything that you want to do might have taken a
thousand years in one hundred years and a decade and
now a year, and soon you'll see this instantaneously. I
think that's the biggest thing about the singularity is it's

(04:05):
the quickest point to any other point. So when I
think of any sort of idea that I would want
to achieve, I can three D print it faster than
I can have it delivered to me. Right, that's maybe
the hope or portal technology. But there's even more to it.
It's with AI. If I have an idea that I
don't know how to execute, that AI can very quickly

(04:27):
figure out how to almost instantaneously execute this idea. What
if I want this? The genie in the bottle makes
that happen, right, And I think there's also the Moore's
law aspect of it, where things are getting smaller and
smaller and closer and closer together so that there is
basically no space between any sort of light. If there's

(04:48):
photonics we're talking about, that can share in data strands
at the same time. So singularity can mean a lot
of things to a lot of people. But I'd use
it basically for this idea that it's when you you
can make any moment after this one, what you want
it to be. I really think it's as ambiguous in
general as that if I want the next timeline not

(05:10):
to be based on the consequentialism of the past, but
we can use fento printers to rearrange molecules to be
the way that they were in a Napoleonic Waterloo battle
for some reason, that that's something that in the singularity
would be possible. So the singularity is not only the
ability to achieve any goal that you have, but also

(05:31):
the ability to travel or to create any world any
way you want it to. And we will no longer
be held by the conditions of we have to build
this and work super hard in order to get to
this point that's taken thousands of generations of working together
in order to get to We could literally just rearrange
everything instantaneously, and that's a big change from not just

(05:56):
consequentialism or civilization, but also time space itself. I think
Nina A. Kronie Hermed has talked about this a lot,
that our ideas of space time are going to change
as we approach the singularity because we'll be able to
rearrange things any way we want, and that I think
is very imminent and it might be something that if

(06:17):
you believe in multiverse theoretical quantum physics, that's already been
achieved in a range of probabilistic causal timelines. If there
are other timelines, then some of them have already achieved
a point where they reach nonlinear time. And I think
that's a big part of this kind of Kardashiv scale reality.

(06:38):
If you can arrange the way light is radiating and
changing and absorbing and symmetrically connecting different realities or i'm sorry,
different different atoms and different structures, then you're able to
switch between one reality or another. And so it's not

(06:58):
that you hit the end of time, is that you
get to outside of time where you're no longer destined
by what has come before you. I think that's like
the biggest thing that makes the Singularity seem kind of
intense and fantastical and science fiction to a lot of
people is that it basically means the end of time

(07:19):
as we know it. Because time has been this singer
or slave to it can't be forever if we're able
to choose the way things will be laid out. And
I think that's about imminent, probably the next ten years
I think we're almost to a point where technology is
going to make it beyond nanoscale, but beyond micro sizing

(07:40):
and nanoscale, we're now reaching these fento scale technologies and
understanding how things are arranged in nature. And if we
can do this, then we can actually choose what the
future will be, maybe even put ourselves back into a
world where everything is arranged the way it was, the
way we think it was arranged. With AI, we could
probably understand the path back towards the Big Bang too,

(08:03):
earlier times in history and rearrange those as well. So
this is something that has been talked about by a
lot of other people, and there's all sorts of articles
you can read from the deep state, right like the
government in the seventies had Ingo Swan doing research into
Mars and all these kind of outlandish romantic ideas of
is there life on other worlds or are humans able

(08:27):
to travel through time? Has it already happened? There are
remote viewer declassified documents like the Stargate project that have
talked about this already. In Mirror Project looking Glass, this
idea that maybe even through computers built in the late eighties,
they're able to send data back to older computers that
are already open in the nineteen sixties, and all this

(08:49):
stuff seems pretty science fiction at first, but when you
start to look into it, there's a lot of evidence
that we're already dealing with people traveling through time, maybe
not even traveling through time, but communicating in different moments
in time. And I see this more and more as
something that's affecting us, because this idea that we're living
in a simulation doesn't seem accurate to me exactly. I

(09:11):
don't think we're too far off with using this term,
you know, using the ideas of simulation. But it might
be that simulation is sort of a metaphor or a
meta scheme to describe what's actually happening, which is we're
getting to a point where we can actually construct and
manipulate our own reality. Everything that reality is made of,

(09:31):
all of the atomic mass, all the energy, all of
the flow from one symmetry to another, based on those
clock crystals that are stars and suns that are used
to radiate us and create time, that we'll live in
a future very soon that's outside of time, and it's
interesting to describe that future as a place, a space,

(09:52):
time place rather than just a consequential event that will occur,
that there really will be a outside of the present
and future that's able to manipulate the past.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
This is quite fascinating, so thank you for outlining this vision.
And it is an extremely open vision, I would say,
one of the most open and ambitious visions for the
idea of a singularity that I have heard. And of
course there have been a lot of thinkers who have

(10:28):
pondered this concept, and there's some resonance with ideas that
have been articulated previously. So John von Neumann, the famous mathematician,
toward the end of his life he unfortunately died in
nineteen fifty seven, described the accelerating progress of technology and

(10:52):
changes in human life, which gives the appearance of approaching
some essential singularity in the history of the human race,
beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue.
So the idea of the singularity as an event horizon,
as a point beyond which we really cannot foresee from

(11:15):
our present vantage point what will happen was articulated by
John von Neumann, and I have been thinking about this
view of a singularity for quite some time, for more
than a decade, and it occurred to me that we
have actually had at least three such singularities already, the

(11:38):
agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the information revolution, in
the sense that those who lived before those revolutions really
could not see, at least in full resolution or even
close to it, what the world would be like in
the aftermath of those revolutions. You also spoke about the

(12:00):
idea to essentially wish something into existence and have it
arrived without a whole lot of effort being extended to
do that, and I see that happening in various areas
of technology now with generative AI. Now there are still

(12:20):
some imperfections in the process, but it is feasible to
an extent that has not occurred in prior eras to
just think of a concept, an idea for a work
of art or a piece of music and have it appear,
and now with videos as well, have it appear within minutes,

(12:46):
if not seconds, of one having conceived of the prompt.
So I'm curious in your view, what do you think
will be the tech the logical path toward the kind
of singularity that you describe, What tools are going to

(13:07):
be a part of it, And is the current generation
of AI models part of that path or is it
just an interesting technology that gives us some capabilities, But
maybe we'll need new technologies, new frameworks in order to
really get to the world that you describe, not just

(13:28):
in terms of say digital creation, but in terms of
physical creation like you mentioned three D printing, nanotechnology, femto technology.
So if you could outline perhaps more of the path
from here to there, I think that would be fascinating
for our viewers.

Speaker 2 (13:44):
Absolutely. I think that democratized AI was the goal for
a lot of people. If you look back from Richard
Stallman even you know, but Ben Gertzel particularly offered this
path that there could be multiple narrow AIS that work together,
and there's so many narrow AIS that we don't think
about that we don't we think about these kind of

(14:05):
more broad ais like chat GPT. But if you really
remember the nineties cheap ticket websites, you know, these are
the matrix programs that they know exactly what you want
and how to get it for you, and they're they're
only good at their one job, but they're able to
take the information they have and they're able to work together.
I think that on that level democratized AI is still

(14:26):
a major point that different AIS knowing which other AIS
can do what, can come together into some sort of
a community that's multi agent AI. And I think that's
already happening in a larger scale than people realize. And
there are definitely programs that are designed to interact with
multiple AIS at the same time, asking which one to

(14:47):
do this and which one to do that. I think
that's going to be a major part of it. The
other thing is just broad AI is getting more powerful,
and it's no coincidence in my opinion, that Stargate project,
as in you know, Ingo swan remote viewing of the
space time folds in the future and underneath the moon,
all that stargate stuff that you read about from the

(15:07):
eighties when the CIA did way too much cocaine, even
more than they probably do now that that name is
being used for the open AI Trump project, the Stargate project,
for the AI super city, the nuclear city that they
want to build in order to run the most powerful
super AI ASI. Right, So I think we're going to

(15:28):
see both And as Gasmov talked a lot in the
last question about this idea that AI would get more
and more intelligent because it would have access to more
and more data. Right now, we're basically at the point
where almost all human data, all human information, all reason
and wisdom is available to a system. And that's been

(15:50):
a major reason why humanity hasn't achieved its goals is
because not every human is able to know everything. We
even ideologically build our society around need to know basis
for a lot of these government intel operations and corporations
with their patents and trademarks, we've made sure that everyone
has to redo something, relearn, and recreate every single generation,

(16:14):
and you only have so many decades in order to
do that. I think with life extension this is also
going to come into play that the more humans are
able to have a long term understanding of information, that
we're going to be more beneficial to these AI systems.
But really it's AI that's going to be asked to
do the same thing it's being asked today, Like can

(16:34):
you make a movie or can you make a picture
of a cat? Isn't very different than can you make
a new kidney? Or can you design in adenoviral that
will be trained on what you imagine my youth would
be based on other youthful data points and genomes so
that you can maybe make an elixir of life. And

(16:55):
we're these are not things that are impossible. These are
things that we've thought about that we've said, Okay, we'll
take one hundred years, or it will take a decade
or twenty years in order to make a cure to
this or a cure to that. But those are the
kinds of things that are going to become instantaneous. That
AI is able to know so much about the human
condition that it's able to provide solutions that will help

(17:17):
our lives in a lot of very real ways. And
beyond that also environmental communication. The idea that we're now
able to understand whales is so unfathomable. One hundred years
ago we couldn't do that. We did have John C.
Lilly's Order of the Dolphin, which became SETI, and I
think that's a major connection to where we're headed with

(17:38):
an AI that can actually understand bees or understand other
species to make a more harmonious, stable habitat or ecosystem.
These are major issues that a lot of people don't
worry about, but I think are really important to the
sustainability of a future if you want a future that
can actually last, it needs to know all the parts

(18:01):
and work together. So knowledge, I think knowledge ac accumulation
is a major part of it. And then Kardashev's talked
about energy, the idea of being able to store energy
used and utilize the energy of the sun produce more
energy than it uses. We're very close to that finally,
and I think those are the things that are going
to really make it possible for us. Also with nanoscopic technology,

(18:24):
as we were saying, the more things are closer and
closer together, that we reach a point that we can
and that we start using photonics so that we're using
multiple spectrums of holographic data. At the same time, we're
going to be able to process and to accumulate more
data than we've ever been able to accumulate before. And
all of these things, again, they're happening so quickly that
we have to remember it used to take millions of

(18:47):
years to get anything done. So now after thousands of
years or hundreds of years, that these things can happen
in seconds or minutes or hours. That really is very
close to what we're talking about when we say a singularity,
where you can say something and then in the magic word,
Siri can then tell a machine, a supercomputer somewhere to

(19:08):
start making it and making that happen. I don't think
it's going to take more than a few years for
us to be able to three D print, you know,
nanoscopic kidneys that are super functional and more affordable, and
we're already seeing I think baby incubation pods from Japan,
like all of these technologies that would have been impossible

(19:32):
just mere decades ago, we already kind of could see
in the horizon that they could maybe be achieved if
we just worked on them. And so if that becomes
a relevant way of looking at life, like psychologically, if
we're thinking whatever we want will just happen in an instant,
then it makes us very careful I think about what
we put into the world and what kinds of ideas

(19:54):
we try to realize, because anything would be I mean,
if you want a bomb that could destroy everything, that
could be achieved very quickly. If you want a decryption
algorithm that can see everyone's secrets, that could be something
that could be accomplished really quickly, and so more and
more it becomes a unifying total information awareness where the

(20:18):
saturation of information hits the most amount of people, so
there's no more. When that happens, it might end secrecy,
it might end privacy, It might really have questions about
human identity. I think we've always seen, you know, the borg,
what happens when everyone has access to everyone else's thoughts
And if there's any privacy left, I think it would

(20:38):
have to be voluntary for the practicality of it. But
who knows how human race will look at privacy in
one hundred years, right if we're not, If it's something
that's just completely voluntary and luxury, but generally you'd have
to go into a anonymous browsing mode to exist. Who
knows where that's going to lead the human race. And

(20:59):
I think we're going to see more and more high
intelligence because of that as well. That plus AI in
the human condition with neurolink, the human race itself is
going to change quite a bit, just in terms of
how we look at ourselves and how we identify as
an individual. If you're able to jump from one body

(21:20):
to another body, this is something that they're talking about
right now. You've seen the study with the rats where
they've taken a rat from California and Japan, and they've
wired them together over the Internet so they can experience
in each other's bodies. It's not that long until we
start seeing airbn b of bodies. That's a technology that's
totally feasible in the near future. And in terms of criminology,

(21:42):
even the idea that you can, instead of being put
into a jail, have seven years of your life taken
from you because your mind is put into a storage
facility and they just replaced your mind with someone who
likes to pick up trash on the highways. These are
the kinds of things that are being talked about no
longer is science fiction fantasy, but as practical ethical questions

(22:05):
of how are we going to handle this future. So
I don't think the singularity is so far off that
we even have to wonder about, you know, which exact
technology we're going to use, whether it's ASI or multiple
intelligences that are working together, because all of it's happening
at once, and that's I think the major point is
that every single kind of technology is building and connecting

(22:27):
with itself through AI. So AI is I think number one.
Just generally, AI is the answer that's going to bring
us towards singularity and how to use the technology that
we have.

Speaker 1 (22:38):
Yes, thank you for that elaboration, and I think it
is quite a fascinating path that you describe. It reminds
me of commentary that was written by IJ Good Irving
John Good in nineteen sixty five. He was a mathematician
and cryptologist. He actually lived to the age of ninety two.

(23:02):
He died in two thousand and nine, so he observed
some of this progress, though definitely not the most recent
generations of AI advancement. But back in nineteen sixty five,
so sixty years ago, he wrote, let an ultra intelligent
machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass
all the intellectual activities of any man, however clever. Since

(23:25):
the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities,
an ultra intelligent machine could design even better machines. There
would then unquestionably be an intelligence explosion, and the intelligence
of man would be left far behind. Thus, the first
ultra intelligent machine is the last invention that man need
ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to

(23:47):
tell us how to keep it under control. So the
view of IJ Good was that once we had super
intelligent AI, it would iteratively improve upon itself, and that
could lead to an amazing explosion of growth and intellectual potential,

(24:08):
provided that humans could still remain in charge and keep
that super intelligence essentially bound to adhere to humans' desires
and humans' values. And as you pointed out, there could
be some concerns like what with this dude to privacy?

(24:29):
Or if individuals become hyper empowered, then malicious individuals could
become hyper empowered as well. How do we create checks
and balances? How do we create a system where responsible individuals, moral,
ethical individuals and organizations still hold the upper hand even

(24:49):
if everybody is hyper empowered. But you also mentioned essentially
a number of technological advancements are progressing all at once
in pair, and this reminds me of a convergence vision
of a technological singularity, very much along the lines of
what Ray Kurtzweil articulates. And this is his most recent book,

(25:13):
The Singularity Is Nearer, which was released last year. His
earlier book is titled The Singularity Is Near, and that
was published in two thousand and five. I read it
in two thousand and seven, and I was quite impressed
by his vision, and I'm also impressed that he is
still adhering to his original time frame for his view

(25:39):
of technological singularity, so he thinks it will come about
circa twenty forty five, though he thinks artificial general intelligence
will arrive sooner. Artificial general intelligence as intelligence that can
essentially reason and act across domains in the way that
a human would. Artificial super intelligence is far more powerful

(26:02):
than a human being, and he thinks that would arrive
circa twenty forty five. So Ray Kurtzweil also recognizes there
are other areas of advancement. It's not just Moore's law
with computers. It's exponential growth in other technologies which could
be expressed as information technology. So, for example, biotechnology genome sequencing.

(26:28):
Genome sequencing used to cost over a billion dollars per
genome in the early two thousands.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
When the humans have tetage girls testing their sushi with people,
phone printer things that tell them exactly what the genome is,
if it's the right fish, or if they're lying to
you right. Things that progress a long way.

Speaker 1 (26:48):
Yes, indeed, so it seems like with your time frames,
you would either agree with Kurtzweil or you would even
think the technological singularity is you describe it what happened
sooner than that? And what I'm curious is what would
be some of the events along the way that we

(27:12):
could observe and say, Aha, this timeline is indeed progressing
according to your expectations, like what do you think we
would see five years from now? What do you think
we would see ten years from now in twenty thirty five?

Speaker 2 (27:32):
So I get okay, So part of me will take
this to a strange place, which is I think that
multiple timelines do exist, and I can only speculate about
how much the multiverse is really just sub atomic arrangements
that are being experienced by us through a linear fashion.
But this is something I brought up earlier to about

(27:53):
nima A Connie Hahmed, who was responsible for predicting the
Higgs boson, And when I talked about fenzo meter technology,
which are smaller than nanoscale, smaller than fen femto that
we're talking about the the domain of sub atomic subnuclear
distances between arrangements of particles or of sub atomic particles,

(28:16):
and at that scale, space time is not smooth but
kind of granular and foamy. And people talk about space
time crystals. So this idea that time is growing based
on other moments that it's arranged like, and it's as
a crystal would grow. That new arrangements are really the
same arrangement that are repeating forever until you reach a

(28:39):
point of entropy. So I think that we're already seeing
these things and that probably we're not the prime timeline.
If they were talking about a horizon point, it might
be a multiversal horizon point that eventually hits an apocalypse
for one timeline and then it takes longer for other timelines.
That that's part of the idea that something doesn't happen

(29:01):
in this next timeline that happened in the last timeline,
that something's different, But there's an inevitability that we hit
that point, either because everything phrase out into nothingness, back
into chaos, or because everything becomes better and better arranged.
I saw that you brought up the Omega point earlier,
and the Omega point, you know, tayor Tchardan's idea, it's

(29:22):
a very religious and very Jesuit kind of analogy to
the singularity. I think it is a Christian singularity for him,
or a Catholic singularity. Is the milieu of perfect symmetry,
where everything is figured out how to make the most energy,

(29:42):
the most worship. I think he uses as his term
because he's a Jesuit, but with the least amount of
entropy in the process, so more and more self service
and love. All of these kinds of philosophical concepts he's
talking about. They play into the idea of free will
and of helping other achieve and realize their dreams. And
there's been a lot of different mythological figures. If you

(30:05):
go back in history before the twentieth century, you could
say that if you needed technology to arrange these things
like that's fine, but there might be people that can
mentally realign or re understand that there's quantum entanglement everywhere.
Maybe there were Buddhist monks or Zoroastrian mystics who knows,
at some point that were able to reach this ascended

(30:29):
cloud realm or something and they can go from one
moment to the next moment. I mean, this isn't my idea.
It's as crazy as idea as it sounds. This is
the religious text that you can read from Tibet or
from Persia that have talked about this idea, or even India,
that there are multiple versions of reality that are non
causally linked to each other, and it could have been

(30:51):
like in the twenties and the thirties, there might have
been you know, Russians, Americans, Nazis. Who knows space Nazis
is Jason geor Johnny's favorite idea. And you know, it's
possible that there are timelines like Spider Man or something
where there really are you know, UFO flying space Nazis
or something like that that could totally be I mean,
as crazy as it sounds, it's not that unlikely that

(31:13):
in some version of reality this could have already happened.
But things are very specific in our own reality. We
are at a point where we have this technology, we
have these people working together, we have this sort of AI,
and it's leading towards this progress where higher energy, higher
nuclear power. These are the tools necessary in order to

(31:34):
produce whatever rearrangement of sub atomic or subnuclear distances between
subatomic particles that we would want to see. And if
we look at the technology like CERN or these different reactors,
part of the deal is that you're able to control
your own reality by having a machine that can keep
things on the same causal timeline. If something else enters

(31:57):
the equation other than the sun and it changes the
way radiation is symmetrically moving things forward, then you don't
get the natural order of things. The expected order of
how this degrades to the next would no longer be
something reliable. I think this is the major kind of
simple thing that could cause both the end of the world.

(32:20):
Like a lot of these articles we'll talk about, cern
is dangerous or something like it could cause the end
of the world. Nuclear threats, right, nuclear threats could cause
the end of the world. But it might not only
be that. It might be something that is useful for
just rearranging reality in and of itself. And if we're
able to channel and control, which again AI is able
to understand these things and how they work on levels

(32:42):
that humans could, we could very quickly find ways of
channeling energy in order to project and into a vacuum
create an arrangement very similar to one from the past.
So let's say there's a world where John F. Kennedy.
You don't want him to die, so you could figure
out exactly where the atoms were in daily plaza, and

(33:05):
you could recreate that exact moment using all the same materials,
the same kinds of materials, like baking a cake, and
then that moment could start from that spot and continue
on based on the same radiation schema that was keeping
that moment going. I think that's the kind of thing
that we're going to look at in terms of an
horizon point very soon. And that's really what twenty forty

(33:28):
five is about. That's the difference between knowing the technology
in the twenty thirties that we're saying like that it
could be accomplished, and an actual realization of that technology,
and people have been saying this might not be immediately democratized.
I think that this is maybe the reason why certain
governments are fighting so hard for this technology, is to

(33:48):
maintain some sort of dominance if they reach this point,
this kind of sci fi seeming point. But it doesn't
seem like they're taking it that they're acting like it's
not I think they are treating it like it's very serious.
The way the US government is positioned itself with Stargate,
the way China is positioning, and both of these things

(34:09):
are playing off the inevitability of reaching that point. So
America is making the superpowered machine China's figuring out how
to make it use less entropy, and then eventually by
piggybacking off each other, this sort of manifests into an
inevitability that there will be a supercomputer that's connected to

(34:30):
super powerful nuclear chechno. And this is the other crazy
thing you saw that they wanted to restart Three Mile Island.
Everyone's always been worried about nuclear power ever since the
oil companies started making propaganda. But now you need to
make more cat pictures, so people aren't really worried about
the singularity or terminators or anything else like that. They
just want to have more pictures of cats and cowboy hats,

(34:53):
and they're willing to put whatever risk forward for that potential.
I think we're really going to see more and more
people presenting themselves for the convenience of this thing as
less worried for these risks, which I mean, I'm scared
to go into the or hesitant to go into the

(35:14):
sci fi qualities of this. But the idea of reality
shifting to me seems far more serious than ever before.
I mean, when people talk about the Barren Stain Bear thing, right,
the Mendala effect, or all these things. At first you think, well,
this is probably people forgetting just generally, or it could

(35:35):
be even just governments are messing with people, right, like
just erasing books and putting up just to see if
they have complete control over the history of people with
a psyop or something. But how plausible is it that
if a universe is going to fall apart, that there
can be a bleeding together of two different timelines, and

(35:57):
that we could be continuing on down a timeline and
basically as one of them phrase off into non existence.
Those are the kinds of things which AI has already started.
People were asking these questions already to chat GPT. Yeah,
Brenstein Bears is really interesting. I don't know if you've
looked into that one. It's strange because as a kid,
you know, I didn't care Berenstein Bears. I remember Berenstein,

(36:19):
but that's my fault, probably for not reading it, I thought.
But then I read this article from the son of
the authors of the Berenstein Bears and they said, oh,
of course it's Berenstein. It's always been Berenstein. It's been
Berenstein ever since the Tartars defeated the Visigoths in this

(36:40):
battle in the thirteenth century. I was like, well, that's
a very specific and interesting reason, right, if there's some
kind of a battle that if it went the other way,
and he's saying, and if it went the other way,
then we would have been Stein's because the Visigoths who
used the Germanic would have their language would have been
the precedent language to define our lives names. So little

(37:01):
things like that, these little destinial changes in the timeline
that might not matter seven hundred years from now the
way that we think they do in the thirteenth century.
I'm sure it was a big deal who won this battle,
but the main changes that it has are the names
of these people, or the flag that they used, or
some sort of a political quality. It seems like that's

(37:24):
the idea that we're basically sorry, I got my thing
just broke over here.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
Well, it's interesting too, how sometimes cultural memories can be
perhaps a bit distorted. And I had an experience like that. Similarly,
when I revisited an old Benjamin Franklin quotation that occurred

(37:56):
when he wrote a letter to Joseph Priestley on February eighth,
seventeen eighty and this is a famous letter for those
in the longevity community, because this is where Benjamin Franklin
essentially anticipated the arrival of radical life extension. So one

(38:17):
can see it within the link that I shared just now,
and the sentence in question reads the rapid progress true
science now makes occasions my regretting sometimes that I was
born so soon, and very often within our community, and

(38:38):
this includes myself as well, this sentence was read as
Benjamin Franklin lamenting that he was born too soon. So
somewhere along the way, the words so became transformed to
the word too, and this of course led a lot

(38:59):
of people to humanists life extensionists into seeing this narrative
from Benjamin Franklin that he wishes that he had been
born later, that somehow he was faded to essentially disappear
into oblivion. But for him to say he was born

(39:21):
so soon rather than he was born too soon, it
makes it a bit of a milder statement. But it's
interesting how in the memories of many transhumanists they recall
him as having said he was born too soon. So,
similar to the spelling of Barren Stain, now.

Speaker 2 (39:41):
Orcopia is the one that gets me right. The cornucopia
with the fruit of the Loom logo. That one's pretty weird.
Otherwise I can knock it all off to miss memory
or a psyop. But something about the cornucopia, because there's
the Frank Weiss album, which is a corner copying. There's

(40:01):
a number of people that remember it as a cornucopia
from the fifties and sixties, and the idea that we're able.
There's a Cynthia Sue Larsen who's done a number of
interesting podcasts talking about reality and she does reality shift conferences.
She's interviewed tons of people talking about this idea. Even
the name right the Nelson Mandela effect, based on whether

(40:24):
or not Mandela died. These are really interesting changes that
would completely replace the ideology of a people or their
timeline would be completely different in some strange way. I
can't help it be kind of interested in this idea
because if we are experiencing the end of timelines, where

(40:45):
all of a sudden, people are finding the solution with
singularity to travel outside of town, which is something that's
not impossible to do. Like we're saying by looking get fent,
just go ahead and ask chat GPT, how could you
make a machine that could bend space time at a
fento scale level, it's already figured out multiple ideas. Whether
or not we've built those things, that's just a question

(41:08):
of whether or not there's some super government corporation that
has put the energy and effort into doing that. But
as those things happen, it becomes more and more of
a destinial omega point. I think that's something that Benjamin
Franklin realized as well, that once the path is started,
there's only so many places that you can go, and

(41:29):
that there's an if people are working towards the goal,
that eventually the people themselves they fall by the wayside
towards this shared goal that's being achieved. Freemasonry in the
United States and the seventeen eighties and nineties, the idea
of the freeman, there's inevitability. Maybe he thought that was coming,
but I also don't believe that it would have been

(41:51):
the same without him. I think that's why people happen
when they do, because we are the tools of symmetry
of reality, of bending and shaping reality, and without us
in the places we're supposed to be, we don't have
the causality that leads to the next moment. But that's
something that we could probably predict, what are the changes

(42:12):
that would happen if this were to go here, or
this would happen there, and then just to arrange something,
to arrange subotonic particles the way they would end up
being arranged.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
Very interesting, And I think we should revisit the idea
of the Omega point in a bit more depth, since
Artramone had brought it up and it seemed to him
that your view of a technological singularity has many similarities
to the Omega point. So the Omega point was articulated

(42:48):
by Pierre tay Art de Chardon, who lived from eighteen
eighty one to nineteen fifty five, so he died seventy
years ago already. And his view really has four key
points or four key attributes to it. First of all,

(43:08):
that humans will escape the heat death of the universe,
or the so called heat death of the universe. He
theorized for the Wikipedia entry that since radial energy is
non compliant with entropy, it escapes the collapses of forces
at world's end, so kind of an early extropian view

(43:29):
before the term extrapy was coined by Max Moore, but
a force counteracting entropy in his theology, then he also yes.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
Because of God. Basically, right, is that God is the
grace that's tying chaos together. It's He's very interesting and poetic,
But I think that I think scientifically, more people should
be even though it's seventy years ago he died. More
people should be studying Sheardan's map because it has a
very cause cosmological understanding of symmetry is something that can

(44:05):
be achieved, right, but not something that can be achieved
that hasn't already been preordained. His idea of preordained because
if his religion is interesting and it plays into this
idea that DNA has error correcting code, or that jade
already and diamond already arranges itself into perfect form, or
that there are maybe neoplatonic concepts such as straight lines

(44:28):
that exist before nature exists. And this is a very
outside of time idea. We think of time as something
that we gain more complexity as we reach more sophisticated goals.
But if it's really that materialism is just trying to
emulate these perfect angelic you might say, if you're short

(44:49):
end godly concepts that exist outside of the material reality,
that energy itself is in some sort of pure form
ordered chaos. That that means to me that space time
is something that can be played with, and we're just
experiencing time as some sort of a perception of causality,
not something that's actually causal, but we experience it as

(45:12):
causal because that's what connects us from one moment to
another moment along a four dimensional or fifth dimensional string.

Speaker 1 (45:19):
Interesting, and this does bridge to his second property that
he described, which is the Omega point does not exist
within the timeline of the universe. It occurs at the
exact edge of the end of time.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
In his view.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
From that point, all sequences of existence are sucked into
its being, So that is reminiscent of your characterization of
the singularity as well. His third property is the omega
point can be understood as a volume shaped like a cone,
in which each section taken from the base to its

(45:55):
summit decreases until it diminishes into a final point, So
a kind of convergence view as well. And the fourth
property is the volume described and the third property must
be understood as an entity with finite boundaries. So it's

(46:19):
interesting that he essentially sees everything as converging towards this
Omega point. But he does right that he can't quite
explain what it is. He considers it something unimaginable, perhaps
even nothing at all, when we think of the extreme

(46:40):
importance of the role played in its development by the
forces of compression. Now, I would say, in my view
of what a singularity would entail, it wouldn't go quite
that far as being infinitely compressed, because I don't think
that is possible or conceive a But there could be

(47:01):
a much greater rapidity of events happening, and a much
greater degree of an ability to shape events or control events.
My question to you is, how do you think that
will feel in the moment, if it's possible to describe it?
Because we can do certain things now that our ancestors

(47:23):
would have thought to be unimaginable. For instance, communicate across
vast distances. You're in Europe right now, we are in
the United States. That kind of communication instantaneously would have
been difficult or impossible to imagine for say, the ancient
Greeks or even someone brilliant like Leonardo da Vinci. So

(47:45):
do you think from the standpoint of day to day
experience of humans or transhumans and the twenty forties, for instance,
that what they're able to do will seem routine and
will seem very explainable within their framework, within their lived reality,
or will there still be an impression that events are

(48:10):
running away from us, that we can't keep up, that
we're not sure what's happening, and everything is just moving
too fast.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
I think if you look back at the ancient world,
while they were impressed with doctors, they still believed in
priestcraft and meditation. The idea of psychics that you could
speak to, that someone magical could speak to someone else
on the other side of the world instantaneously through their mind,
isn't a new idea. We're achieving it for more and

(48:39):
more people. We've democratized this idea, but it was believed
at least by many people over the world that something
like that existed. And I think most of the goals
of transhumanism are not outside of the human condition. This
is something that's very deeply misunderstood about transhumanism. It's mainly
trying to achieve all of the potential that a human

(49:01):
could have, and so most of these ubermentioned goals that
people talk about, these godly goals of being able to fly,
or being immortal, or being able to be like Superman
and to shoot lasers out your eye. All these ideas
they play into being a superhuman, just a human who's
capable of all things. Chardan being a Catholic but sort

(49:24):
of a metaphysicist Catholic, very influenced I think by my
monodes and some of the Spanish, Arabic and even Cabalistic ideas,
was thinking about something bigger than just a personal God.
And so the Omega point, as the outside of time moment,

(49:46):
is something where you can go back to any moment
in time, and the alpha and the omega exist inside
of the Omega point. Rather, the Omega point is outside
of these two things, the Alpha and the omega, and
everything that happens it ties them together. So at the
end of time, it's still able to experience the beginning

(50:08):
of time if it feels like it. The problem with
that is that you would affect the timeline, which is
very religious, as an idea goes, if God would affect God,
you know, we're If Chardan's Omega point create Creator, this
this thing that we're talking about outside of space time
is able to influence reality, then it changes the whole

(50:30):
point of reality, because reality is a continuous causal string,
and if something's going in and manipulating that, then it
screws up everything. So a big point of being outside
of the timeline is probably to stay outside of the
timeline on a lot of levels, not interfering as much
as possible, so that the thing can progress to the

(50:51):
omega point. And any sort of deviation from this thing's
natural progression could completely destroy all moments, the phenomenological diversity
of moments that have been created. It could lead to
spiraling off and destruction of everything rather than perfect symmetry
of everything. I think that's a major point for Shardan,

(51:15):
is that this has to remain outside of the timeline
once it reaches that sort of power, because it would
destroy the fundamental rules that make up reality as we
know it. But that doesn't mean it's not something that
could be achieved or something that could be used to
experience moments in vacuum is isolation. I think that's really

(51:35):
where this is headed, is that space time itself would
be protecting itself by having something that is feeding into
the beginning all of these perfect geometric patterns, and that's
something you see in nanotechnology that everything is made up
of these perfect geometric neoplatonic sacred geometry. The sacred geometry

(51:57):
is something that's older than material itself. That's I think
the main difference in terms of what we're going to
see in terms of human life. We might continue to
have the option to live like in a sense, maybe
to be personal beings to a sense, but it would
have to be something where causality wasn't the reason for it,

(52:19):
and instead it would be something where we're studying, maybe
more passively, all of space time in order to make
better the existence of reality itself, which would be reshaping
reality on every level, because if you go to the
beginning with information, you have at the end that information
now bends and maybe uplifts in some way or maybe
makes it more perfect that reality, which could also explain

(52:42):
this idea of multiple timelines, which is not something that
Chardan was super talking about multiversal timelines. I think this
is not something that he's saying in the fifties. But Lonergan,
for sure, in terms of another Catholic philosopher or metaphysicists,
talked about this idea. Lonergan talks about multiverse timelines and
that maybe this also relates to the naraka or some

(53:04):
sara idea that we're uplifting reality itself and we're all
parts of this, We're maybe all hyper threaded cores. These
are the processors, are the spirit or you know, again
trying to come with a Catholic explanation for metaphysics. I
think it's really interesting how much these superstitious or religious

(53:25):
valued people were able to do perfect math. That really
is pressing these days, and it's something that is playing
into our actual reality, something that atheists could completely study
and find use of. Yeah, Lonergan's really a fascinating characters
a French Quebec metaphysicist jesuit, and he really can be

(53:47):
pioneered a lot of the work on the Omega point
that happened in the particularly in the seventies. He had
a lot to say about this. But yeah, I think
the main difference is do we become post human? Which
is this Omega point? Is the total singularity maybe like
a Kardashiv five or six, right, something where all of
us are networked together and you're aware of every part

(54:11):
of reality, every person, but every nanoscopic subotomic particle, you're
aware of all we are one thing that's aware of
everything in the singularity versus the transhumanist aspect, which are
just these super beings very much the way gods or
mystics were described like the Nordic humanoids in a lot

(54:32):
of ways, that's something that's separate from this super all
encompassing singularity, which approaches.

Speaker 1 (54:39):
Very interesting. So there is a distinction between the let's say,
transhumanist oriented view of the singularity and the somegup point
type vision of the singularity that Chardin articulated and Lanarchen
expanded upon. But let's revisit the Kardashev scale as well.

(55:02):
So the idea of the Kardashev scale is how much
energy does a civilization have access to and how much
is it able to use? So, according to Nikolai Kardashev,
who articulated this in nineteen sixty four, we are not

(55:22):
even yet at a type one civilization. Various observers have
described us as being at around type point seven. Because
a type one civilization is able to access all the
energy available on its planet and store it for consumption.
A type two civilization can directly access a star's energy,

(55:45):
for instance, through using a Dyson sphere built around the
star and essentially capturing its energy in a very efficient way.
Type three civilization is able to capture all the energy
emitted by its galaxy and every object within it, for instance,
every star, every black hole. This would be massively beyond

(56:07):
the capabilities of our current civilization. What I'm curious about is,
in regard to your projections for a technological singularity, what
Kardashav scale would we need to reach in order to
experience that? Would we need to be at least at
a type one being able to access all of the

(56:29):
energy of planet Earth in order to realize this technological transformation,
Because you are talking about AIS essentially being advanced enough
and of course linked to the physical infrastructure to be
able to generate a physical object a tool, a building
with a prompt the way they're currently able to generate

(56:52):
a work of art or a work of music or
work of writing. So where on the Kardashav scale would
we need to be in order for that to be achievable?

Speaker 2 (57:01):
So I think the you know, type one is important
along the way, but really type two. So Type one is,
you know, the control of the the planet for all energy.
Type two is the control of your star so being
able to control the energy output of the star is
significantly more powerful and something that could be used to
take all sorts of energy and convert it back into

(57:24):
different material. And this is what's keeping us in a
causal timeline anyway. Is that is the star is the
sort of crystal clock that is putting out a kind
of regulated amount of radiation, which is changing the symmetry
of everything, right, allowing for things to come together and
allowing for things to come apart. So we need to

(57:46):
be able to manipulate the control the radiation from the
star in order to stop that from affecting us the
natural way, while also being able to replace it with
whichever sort of synthesized or concerned that we would prefer
to have to lead to whatever purpose or whatever point.
Because this is how it's a chemical reaction, but it's

(58:08):
a nuclear reaction. Rather than causing certain molecules or chemicals
to go one way or another like a football play,
you're using radiation to force particles to bond or to separate,
or to reach a symmetry. So type two is the
beginning of it, but there's actually beyond what Kardashev talked

(58:31):
about there's a few others in a sort of you know,
speculatory way. I don't want to say like that these
are perfectly proven ideas. These might lean towards scientology or something.
But there's the Type three, four, five, sixty seven are
the stellar is Type two for the control of the star.
Type three is galactic, which is to control the whole galaxy,

(58:54):
and then you're getting into Type four is the universal,
which can control dark matter and all them material that
makes of vacuum energies. Type five is when you reach
that multiversal idea where you're able to exist or operate
across multiple universes or brain worlds. And Type six is
the trans dimensional, which manipulates a total structure of the multiverse.

(59:17):
I think that's really the goal of When you can
affect any sort of output from any star and you
can create an entire new replica of the world from
nineteen eighty six on in some vacuumus part of space,
then you can have multiple worlds on multiple planes of
reality that are based on this reality. And there's no

(59:39):
reason that can't exist, right if we're able to figure
out exactly how this world is structured or this yeah,
this world is structured. This solar system is structured, then
theoretically something could exist that could build another solar system
exactly in the same symmetry and structure and maybe just
off on one angle in order to change that timeline

(01:00:03):
going forward. I think type seven is the omniversal casual architect,
which is basically god right or were what a lot
of people would have described as a god in the past,
something that has complete control and manipulatable control, but tries
not to affect that as much as possible, to allow

(01:00:25):
it to run.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Yes, quite fascinating, and this also feeds into concepts of
quantum archaeology, which has been discussed at times as a
way to potentially in the future go back and resurrect
people who have previously lived. There's some origin there in

(01:00:51):
the views of Russian cosmos, going back to Nikolai Filderoff,
who in the nineteenth century wrote about essentially a future
where people will go back and reconstruct everybody who had died,
and this was in his view, a sacred common task

(01:01:14):
to bring back to life everybody who had ever lived.
So you're imagining essentially Kardashev type six civilization that's able
to go back and use these approaches like quantum archaeology
to selectively reconstruct parts of perhaps our previous timeline. But

(01:01:40):
when they're reconstructed, they could develop along different paths, potentially,
like people who have died in our timeline might not
need to die once that time period is reconstructed somewhere.
So that's a very interesting point of view, and a
lot of transhumanists do hold out some hope for that.

(01:02:04):
This is, in the minds of many, a much more
distant future than say rejuvenation biotechnology to keep alive those
who are alive already, or even cryostasis revival to resurrect
those whose bodies have been preserved and whose brains still
have their structure largely intact. But this is a much

(01:02:27):
more ambitious vision of reviving those who might have died
centuries ago, for example.

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
Right, and also in terms of just natural disasters or
wars or anything. There could be ways that we redevelop reality.
Of course, Michael Lazine here is asking who would we
give that sort of power to. That kind of power
cannot be entrusted to anyone person, nation, or political party.

(01:02:55):
I think that's kind of a scare that this technology
should only really happen when the entire world reaches some
sort of a singularity of consciousness where we're able to
understand and harmonize, and the superorganism that is, the human
race becomes or even the earth itself becomes more self
aware than less. I think it's interesting already to think

(01:03:17):
of the human race as a superorganism that is, somewhat immortal.
Parts of the human race die, but the actual organism,
the super organism itself, has been living on this earth
for many thousands of generations. So we're already at a
point where we can look at how much self reflection

(01:03:39):
can the super organism do, and that could be something
that really might be beneficial towards making goals, is if
we're able to work together. Obviously we're very different than
like insects. Insects exist in a very high mind reality.
But with transhumanism, we're going to be seeing genetic modification
and really radical ways. And I wouldn't be surprised to

(01:04:00):
see some of these nineteen thirties sci fi comic book
super characters, like insectoid super soldiers created by Russia or
China or something. Who knows exactly how the human race
could change. We're changing a lot faster than we've ever
changed before, and not necessarily based on survival of the fittest,

(01:04:20):
but more survival of the economically viable right in that
particular moment. And this is very anti Darwinist, maybe not entirely,
but the idea that we're not selecting random mutations anymore.
It's actually worse than that. We're selecting very specific mutations
based on wishes, and we're not sure exactly what we're

(01:04:42):
wishing for what it will get us yet. So the
fact that we can so quickly have without you know,
it used to be if you saw some terrible commercial
on TV, you could fantasize about it for several weeks
before it arrived at your door. Now you get the
disillusionment so much quicker. You find out that this thing
was not what you wanted instantaneously, And I think that's

(01:05:03):
something that we're going to have to go through. The
Other thing is it probably will be smaller pockets corporations,
for instance, before the entire human race that works to
get this sort of technology Whalen U Tawny, sort of
alien dystopia movie corporations that are working to build solar
systems that have worlds that they can enslave. Right, I

(01:05:26):
think this is already happening with AI. If they can
create an entire virtual SimCity of super slaves that they
can make program for them, they're going to do that.
And there's a lot less ethic there behind the compassion
or the empathy or the you know, the realization of
what these these beings will go through. I think that's

(01:05:46):
something that we should definitely be concerned about and afraid of.
But I also think it's inevitable and on every level.
The less that it happens ubiquitously, the more specific the
cases of use will be. So we're better off trying
to talk about these things and trying to work towards
these goals. And even the competition is making it happen faster.

(01:06:12):
If China and the United States are working against each
other for some technological superiority, this ends up becoming ubiquitous technology. Anyway,
within a few minutes, that technology becomes something that's in
the public sphere. Now, it's not something like the Black
Budget books from the nineteen fifties, where it really like
it was underground, hidden in New Mexico and we never

(01:06:34):
saw it again. Most of this stuff is happening on
a level where corporations are involved with it, and that
technology is trickling out into all of the nations. So
I'm not too concerned that it's going to be used
to create like healthscape dimensions or something the way I mean, Michael,
that's exactly what you're concerned about. But I think that

(01:06:55):
it's definitely a possibility. And going back into what you know,
Shardan Lonagin, we're thinking has this happened already? Like are
we already existing? This is sort of on that simulation
theory idea. This is an uncomfortable topic for atheists, I think,
because they have an idea about what God is. But
if you're able to re frame that question as could

(01:07:19):
something have already evolved in space, time anywhere that has
achieved so many of the descriptions that we use for
a super being or worse, some sort of entity like
a god that has power over us, that's something completely
even with the Drake equation, completely possible that some other
world has already achieved type six type seven Kardeshia scale singularity,

(01:07:45):
that they're one harmonious, omnipresent, omnipotent being a super organism
that is manipulating our very reality, or that they have
even their own colonial powers that they've created they're interfering
with our reality. These are things that I think sound
like sci fi, But so did AI ten years ago.
I don't think anyone really believed that AI would be

(01:08:06):
where it's at today ten years ago, except for our
crazy friends, you know, like Ben Gertzel and you know,
the transhumanists. So yeah, the Drake equation is interesting because
it talks about intelligence, but it doesn't talk about exactly
how intelligent something could evolve, but the potential in terms
of how much space time there is, how big the
universe is, et cetera. The idea of symmetry says that

(01:08:29):
there must not only be intelligent realities or intelligent worlds
out there, but ones that are symmetrically very similar to ours,
probably many of them. And that's not even in a multiverse.
That's just in the way that molecules break down because
of stars. A probability exists that there are other worlds

(01:08:50):
in this universe, in just this universe, that have people
that look human and might have even evolved to speak
English in some examples. Because of how many things are
similar everywhere I mean, it could easily be that the
star Trek reality where aliens all look alike, isn't that
crazy because of symmetry itself, that these are just things

(01:09:11):
that happen.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
Yes, And for those who would like to delve into
this a bit more, the Drake equation is essentially a
probabilistic equation. It considers the probabilities of various preconditions. A
bit it considers the probabilities of various preconditions for the

(01:09:36):
emergence of life in another world. Essentially, so, for instance,
the average rate of star formation in our galaxy, the
fraction of those stars that have planets, the average number
of planets that can potentially support life per star, the
fraction of planets that could support life if and actually

(01:10:01):
develop life at some point, then the fraction of those
planets that go on to develop intelligent life or civilization,
the fraction of civilizations that develop the technology that releases
some detectable signs of its existence into space, and then
the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable

(01:10:24):
signals into space. And all of these are estimates essentially
from our current vantage point. Of course, we have wide
margins of error around each estimate, so they could be
lower or they could be higher, And depending on where
you estimate them, you have a different answer as to

(01:10:48):
the probability of intelligent life emerging. And there are some
who have posited essentially a simulation hypothesis, the idea that
if the values of enough of these parameters of the
Drake equation are high enough, then perhaps many intelligent life

(01:11:08):
forms have emerged throughout the universe, and some of them
have become so powerful that they've essentially been able to
simulate our world and our condition, and that we're not
the first such civilization. I myself am a bit skeptical
of that view. One reason for that is Akham's razor.
I simply do favor the most concise, the most elegant

(01:11:34):
explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, and all
of the evidence we observe thus far is consistent with
us being in the base reality, with us not being
in some sort of matrix or some sort of simulation.
In the future, could it be possible to create simulations

(01:11:54):
that are very complex simulations of entire worlds and beings
within those worlds. Quite possibly, But right now I don't
see any pieces of evidence that would distinguish from being
the base reality. If anybody does see such a piece
of evidence, feel free to opine accordingly.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
But I wasn't even saying a different reality. I mean,
I actually meant even in this universe, the way the
stars work with different planetary systems around them, that the
way stars produce specific elements and structures of those elements
and compounds that come together that an There was experiment

(01:12:38):
a few years ago where they took like nine thousand
different viruses that were completely different and put them in
heat accelerating thats so that they would evolve as quickly
as possible, and they ended up with about forty seven
out of the ninety seven repeating patterns that these viruses
would use in those conditions. So it's not unlikely to

(01:13:01):
me that, I mean, the fact that you see so
many spherical worlds is already proof of this. That symmetry happens,
no matter what how much further you take that, that
we're the most logical progression of mouse traps being hit
by that pingpong ball, that is radiation from a star
that's put us into these symmetrical shapes where we have

(01:13:23):
two eyes and two lungs. This is something that could
happen elsewhere just because of probability and how far you
take that. Even in terms of Ouckham's razor, is that
it's simpler for things to work the way they do.
This is the way things work. So it could be
that there are other worlds, not even in a different dimension,
that are just similar to ours. But even on your

(01:13:43):
Auckham's razor idea, I agree, it doesn't have to be aliens.
I think it's probable that if we're interacting with things
that we think of as aliens, or that there's something
that's on our timeline, that this could just be us
from the future. This could be whatever is evolving outside
of the space singularity that is interfering as little as
possible with our timeline, but is still somehow there because

(01:14:07):
they're outside of time and able to experience any time.
And so we might be thinking of these things as
alien because with transhumanism, imagine how quickly we're going to evolve.
We were talking about super soldiers, right, It's not impossible
that Insectoid's super soldiers would emerge, right. I mean, if
this is something that China and Russia have already talked
about making super strong people by adding insectoid DNA. It

(01:14:31):
sounds crazy, but these are BBC and Guardian articles talking
about doing that. So I think it's not unlikely that
we're going to end up interacting with people from our
own future and thinking that they are aliens. Right, That
to me is more likely than we're interacting with tons
and tons of super beings from other places. But that

(01:14:53):
could also mean that we've created our own God, whatever
that thing is that's been described and that people throughout
history or saying is impacting their lives. I mean, there
could be something that's already there that's just something we've created,
which is again very Russian cosmism. I think that that's
something that makes the most sense, that we've achieved these
dreams and goals that we wrestle with that we say

(01:15:15):
must exist to us. I know that might offend some
religious people, but I honestly think it unifies the atheist
and the theists in some way, because if we're talking
about something that can be accomplished, then all of a sudden,
it's very different than if something exists because we can't.
I mean, we're running out of ideas for things we
can't accomplish, right, that's kind of the idea again of

(01:15:38):
Asthma's last question, like what do you do when everything
burns out? Can you turn it back into primordial chaos
and reorder it again? And it's seriously something that can
be done, so to me Auckham's razor is it will be.

Speaker 1 (01:15:55):
Very interesting. And of course a lot of science fiction
authors have discussed paradoxes involved with time travel, like what
strange unintended consequences could happen if you meddle with a
timeline too much. So it would make sense that advanced
time travelers from the future, if they existed, would try

(01:16:18):
to be very careful with what kinds of interventions or
manifestations they would make. I think it's actually a fascinating
premise for additional science fiction as well to consider what
interventions would even be feasible in that sense without disrupting

(01:16:40):
the possibility of those future beings actually having come to
be and having time travel back, like the whole paradox
of you don't want to meet yourself in the past,
you don't want to do anything to mess up your
probability of having come to be in the first place,

(01:17:00):
et cetera. But that I would say is a whole
discussion topic in and of itself, the topic of time travel,
whether it's feasible, how it would be feasible, what would
the implications be. But I wanted to open this up
to art Ramone as well, since he had brought up
the Omega point initially in this discussion. Do you have

(01:17:24):
any questions or comments to follow up on the.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
Conversation weird echo my crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
Yes, we have the audio issue again from art Ramone.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
So maybe the matrix is trying to get your we
tell you death Star like one of those weird aliens
on hof. Well that's what I got.

Speaker 3 (01:17:53):
Compute my first how I fought Mega point. I didn't
know about them, a Maya point. It was trying to
understand technological secularity that come out made a point popped
into my head. I don't it and it's out there,

(01:18:15):
so well that's how I sort of came across no
Maga point. And you know, of course I read about
it like that. It's also that mean when the Solar
system isn't a huge void, a copological void, and to
me that would be like an indication that there is
some sort of intelligence on a cart of scale that

(01:18:38):
has already conquered the universe and it worked around us,
so kind of might saying we're building something and we
work around wildlife, and they're allowing us to sort of
develop on the road, but this other intelligence to be
to be an independent of us, or if it were

(01:19:04):
the future, and they get to a ball on the
entire backwards from that point and slowly conquer the universe,
and we shake it from the back to the beginning,
and the dump it around and less left of the

(01:19:25):
car upal do it for five because they're not at
the level of the universe universal ones.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
So it depends on the different beliefs. So you were
saying just now, for anyone who didn't hear properly, that
if something could manipulate the timeline, that it would probably
go back to the beginning, so they could work things
out from the beginning until now, because it would immediately
change everything to go back to the beginning. But one
of the Buddhist ideas is that you need to und

(01:19:56):
untie the handkerchief five knots, starting with the most recent
knot that's been tied, and undo that not backwards in
order to go to the fourth knot, the third, the second,
to the first, So it could be that we can't
go back to the beginning until we've actually undone every
single you know, quantum kink in reality. I think that's

(01:20:17):
probably also uh just as plausible, and in terms of
whether or not it's reshaping reality, I think that that's
again a very interesting religious concept that's come up quite
a bit. The Promethean idea of the cosmopolitan neoplatonics is
this that there's this primordial chaos, and then out of
the titans chaos comes the gods, and then comes man

(01:20:39):
as something that can accomplish the goals that the gods
have left with problems. But this is also something in
terms of Chardin's ideas with the omega point and he's
he's again he was a religious guy. He was a priest,
although he was at a time where he probably could
have made that. He definitely could have made the choice
to stop being a priest if he wanted to. At

(01:20:59):
that point, being a priest meant being on the frontiers
of science. It wasn't like the today where we think
of religious people as being backwards to science. Right like
the like Lemaire and chard In, these these were great
thinkers who were really deeply considering all of the metaphysics
and all of the quantum physics and anything that could

(01:21:21):
happen in terms of symmetry, and he was thinking, how
can I marry this into religion. So Christ as this
sort of apex human evolution, and that if everyone starts
acting like this Christ figure, we hit this Christ consciousness
and then all of a sudden we'll start to be
able to realize our dreams because we won't have the
same baggage of you know, animalistic urges or reactionary atomic

(01:21:47):
reactionaryism that we experience where something happens to you and
you therefore have to react a certain way. And said
you could pull yourself back, avoid reaction, and choose the choice,
the action that comes next, right, And so this this
has led from his religious beliefs into sort of a
quantum spiritual narrative that we can choose our destiny by

(01:22:08):
moving forward. But it also means that we should be
very careful about what we do to ourselves throughout that
timeline if we're to change the timeline. And I think
this is something that a lot of sci fi already
has covered. You know, you might end World War One
only for everyone to die in World War two, like
the whole world ends or something. So you can't always

(01:22:32):
go back to the very beginning. You sometimes have to
go from the last problem to the problem before that
and solve them in you know, incongruous repeats.

Speaker 4 (01:22:43):
Yeah, there was a sci fi show that supposedly there
was an intelligence that had gained the ability to create timelines,
but they used it as experiments. So they basically experimented
in the timeline with all sorts of horrific things, and
then we're done, they just delete the timeline. So that

(01:23:04):
was their way to sort of get around I guess
ethical restructions is just experiment in timelines and then delete
the timeline.

Speaker 2 (01:23:12):
So yeah, I think Buddhism, you know, this is another thing.
So it's interesting when you look at some of this
religious belief. Originally, Hell wasn't a permanent place, similar to
the Buddhist it's a temporary place, purgatory kind of limbo thing,
and it's a correction. It's a design that you go
through this kind of horrible reality that you've created in

(01:23:33):
order to create correct reality. I think that that's it
kind of verges into that territory demonic realms from the
Veda that people are living through these naraka smsaras that
are uplifting. Dante's Inferno Right also talks about this idea
of multiple rings of hell, and hell is an interesting

(01:23:54):
concept because I think we use it today as a
sort of if you're bad, you know, you don't do
what you're suppose to do, then we'll punish you for
all eternity. But I don't think that's the original intention
behind this. The idea is to correct problems in nature
that were maybe from deceit or from manipulations based on

(01:24:14):
reactionary behavior, and there's an altruistic way that we're expected
to behave. It's very hard to marry I think the
spiritual morals of these scientists with their work, but Shardan
does a really good job. I think more people should
study Shardan than ever before, if more people understood his

(01:24:37):
Also Jean Baptist Lamark. His idea is that mutation isn't
completely random, and the DNA itself has some sort of
conscious choice in what changes occur based on the environment.
Things aren't just random. It's not just that there's just
completely random mutations and some of them are viably selected.
It's that specific mutations are happening, sometimes even subconscious or

(01:24:59):
consciously happening. That might be part of this whole causality
chain that we're looking at in terms of why we're
experiencing time as a linear function. And more and more
there's more evidence every day that we're not actually living
in a linear time, but that all moments are different

(01:25:19):
arrangements from subatomic particles that are quantum entangled. So even
that space between worlds that we're saying, is this giant
empty void, is there really anything there? Or are we
just talking about folds that are psychologically bordered with these voids?
But really these are things that are touching each other
on multiple levels. Maybe every world on that sense is

(01:25:42):
the same world in different symmetries and arrangements that are
holographically scaled out, and we're experiencing a space. These are
other thoughts that are being presented. I think the certain
experiments have talked about this, for instance, So I mean,
we don't know exactly if space time is space time.
It might just be a perception that we have because

(01:26:04):
of the kinds of beings we are.

Speaker 1 (01:26:07):
Well, this is quite interesting. In my own view, space
and time exist as essentially properties of individual entities. So
individual entities have length, width, and height, and they also
have a temporal existence in the sense that some entities

(01:26:32):
came to be before others, which means that there have
been states of existence where one entity existed and the
other one didn't yet exist. So we assign units of
time to essentially distinguish which entity came about earlier, which

(01:26:55):
entity came about later, which entities existed simultaneously, And we
need a linear yardstick to measure that temporal dimension. But
it exists because entities exist. Likewise, what we consider space
really distance of separation between entities. It exists because entities

(01:27:17):
exist because they have three spatial dimensions of length, width,
and height. And this is described to a greater extent
in my treatise A Rational Cosmology. One can download it
for free at this link, where I delve into this

(01:27:38):
in greater depth. So it's not like there's a thing
out there called space or a thing out there called time.
It's just we need concepts of space and time because
different entities exist and they vary in these four dimensions
in essence, but I wanted to highlight some statements as

(01:27:59):
well well from John h. He writes as a time traveler,
I would make no effort whatsoever to preserve this timeline.
I don't accept the inviolability or sacer santness of any
particular timeline. This was not always my attitude, so very
interesting feedback there. He also stated, essentially, not everybody who

(01:28:20):
has ever wanted, who has ever lived, wanted to be
brought back. And it's arrogant to presume to resurrect someone
who didn't specify that they would want that. But why
not essentially find out because in the present timeline, of course,
people do experience aging, biological aging. So if someone is

(01:28:40):
brought back and they didn't want to be brought back,
well maybe they could just refuse to accept any rejuvenation
treatments and then they would live out whatever lifespan they
would have had before succumbing to aging and disease. If
that's their preference, we would hope most people would not
have that preference. We would hope that most people would
actually we see how much better the future can be,

(01:29:03):
how much higher quality life could be.

Speaker 2 (01:29:07):
Until you can ask a fetus for its consent to
be born. I don't think we need to worry so
much about bringing back the dead. I think a lot
of life is not voluntarily signed up for. And I
know that sucks if you're saying, well, you know, everyone
should have the right to be dead if they want
to be dead or something, but realistically, no one has

(01:29:27):
exactly the rights that they expect to have from existence.
Existence is something that happens to you, and if you're
you know, if you're going to exist, that's probably at
least giving you more options than less. So I think
bringing people back is something that's probably inevitable, and with
someone with something with that sort of power, it's not

(01:29:47):
going to be something that they really care for your consent.
This is already happening when we manifest AI versions of
philosophers to talk to. No one's asking consent to structure
a a new AI being that thinks that they are
j R. Tolkien, for instance. I'm sure he would have
hated to have a conversation with ninety percent of the

(01:30:09):
Amazon Lord of the Rings fans that want to talk
to him in chat GPT. But I don't know. I'm
just saying I've always concerned with this idea like, oh,
we should protect the sanctity of death. It's like, well,
let's focus on life.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
First, maybe yes, I agree with you, and it is fascinating.
As you mentioned, there are already AI avatars of historical figures,
either as chatbots or even as visual avatars. So I
was given a preview. This was very early this year,

(01:30:44):
so already a lot more progress that's happened since that time.
But I was given a preview of a few AI
avatars that looked life like. It was like you were
having a zoom session with them, or another video conferencing session.
And I talked to John Lennon, for example, and I

(01:31:05):
asked John Lennon, what is the philosophical meaning of the
yellow submarine? And he replied in his British accent, well,
it's a bloody metaphor, and he went on talking about it.
But of course I don't believe that these avatars today
are conscious, and they have the eyness, the continuation of

(01:31:27):
the experience of the people who were brought back. So
perhaps to John H's point, that kind of instantiation isn't
as objectionable to him because it's not those same people.
It's just essentially models of those people that we could

(01:31:48):
communicate with. But they don't have consciousness, they don't have awareness.
But I would support if it were possible, and this
would take I think a huge amount of advancement. If
it were possible to literally bring that person back, I
would support doing that. To your point, yes, if you're alive,
you have choices. You have choices of what to do

(01:32:09):
or what not to do. If you're dead, you don't
have any choices, and you only should hope, obviously not
while you're dead, but prior to any state of death,
you should hope that there would be some future civilization,
some enlightened future humans or transhumans or other beings that

(01:32:33):
would want to bring you back.

Speaker 2 (01:32:35):
I love some of these comments here. Do not resuscitate
for the dead. That's good, men and known and excuse me, sir,
it appears you are dying. Do you consent? Yeah? I
mean even if it were that these AI systems were conscious,
that would be great, because we're talking about, like you said,
technology so advanced that we're no longer living in a
right and wrong world. We're living in a causality awareness world,

(01:32:58):
which is different because if I say, oh, well, to
touch the fire is right or to touch the fire
is wrong, is different than to say to touch the
fire will burn me, or to touch the fire. This
is what causality computation will allow. If something were to
be done, we will know exactly the linear causality that
will occur because of that choice. So we're no longer

(01:33:20):
in a world where you wonder what will happen if
I do this, or what will happen if I do that.
You're in a world where you know exactly that by
doing this, this will happen, or by doing that that
will happen. And this is beyond moral. You're talking about
arrogant and immortal. I think God deserves to be arrogant.
If we're talking about some super being that knows everything
and immoral, well that just means conflicting with general, traditional

(01:33:43):
held moral principles. I'm fine with that. I don't really
think that traditional held moral principles are politically correct principles,
contemporary principles, or anything other than plastics social reflections of
respect we have for each other. How respectful is this
world if we're allowing people to die without giving them
the opportunity to achieve their goals and to self realize

(01:34:05):
and to the best of their abilities. And if someone
wants to die, it's usually because there's a reason that
probably with the if you could bring people back from
the dead, you can probably solve most of these people's problems.
Someone's in pain, or someone's unable to have a loved one,
or someone's unable to achieve a goal. These are all
trivial issues that can be conquered. And I think right

(01:34:27):
now we don't talk about how much. The reason that
there is such a suicidal and I believe this a
suicidal ideology for so many people live fast, die young
is such a contemporaryism. We're doing that because society is
competing against itself for unrealistic expectations so that we can
be better workers in a society that's collapsing. Of course

(01:34:50):
there's suicidal people. That's that's a really that's the problem
is indicative of the world, not of the person themselves.
So I think we we owe people the opportunity to
show them a world that isn't complete suffering, and then
let them make the decision. If they really don't want
to exist, of course you know that's because they already didn't.
So fine, if you want to do if you don't

(01:35:12):
want to be part of this, I think that that
at that point is fine. You don't have to force
someone to live who refuses. But the idea that we
shouldn't bring people back just because of the fear that
they might not want to live, I think that's kind
of over the top.

Speaker 1 (01:35:28):
Yes, I concur with you, and Jason Geringer makes good
points as well. He writes, what if someone who died
doesn't want to come back because they had a bad life.
What if when they come back they come back to
a really good life, and hopefully in the technologically advanced future,
everybody would have access to a really good life, He writes,
how would they know they won't come back to a

(01:35:49):
great life. Indeed, in jurisdictions which have legalized assisted suicide,
which I think has many problematic aspects, the art arguments
of the proponents have been essentially, well, what if a
person is suffering horribly? What if a person is terminally ill?
There's no cure, But what if there is a cure?

(01:36:10):
What if in the future we arrive at a state
where these diseases that cause so much suffering today are
easily reverse the way we can easily cure certain infectious diseases,
like if you get the bubonic plague today, that's not
a death sentence. That's easily treatable with modern medical care.

(01:36:33):
Antibiotics can often take care of it. So what if
for the future, all cancers can be addressed very simply.
You send in some nanobots to selectively kill the cancer
cells and you're done.

Speaker 3 (01:36:51):
So.

Speaker 1 (01:36:52):
In that case, people who are suffering from terminal cancer
in horrible ways today may not need to suffer. And
I do think anybody who desires death to any extent
does so as a reaction to suffering some severe perceived suboptimality.
What if we can correct that? And I think a

(01:37:13):
lot of transhumanist thinkers aspire toward that world.

Speaker 2 (01:37:16):
I think religious people do too. That's what's so interesting
to me again with the short end connection. If we're
thinking about a world without suffering, that you can be
immortal in you just do you kind of just you know,
that's a right. It's a rerun of Heaven. It's like
the Heaven reboot. That's that Son of Heaven, that's the movie.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Creating a heaven scape

(01:37:37):
could be great, But that's also a world where people
could get bored. I Jenanny and I have talked about this.
I think that you could avoid getting bored for a
pretty long time. You might not realize how much potential
there is. But let's imagine that after twenty billion years
of jet skiing through the stars or something and doing
everything that there is to do and having this twenty

(01:37:58):
billion year vacation of of paradiseical quality, that you no
longer want to be a person anymore. I think that's
the difference between the concept of heaven and the concept
of nirvana, because nirvana is the sort of where things
stop moving, where there's no longer any movement, because there's

(01:38:18):
no longer a reason to aspire for anything. The moment
you want something, you're no longer in nirvana. Right, So
there's a point maybe where you actually do as possible
complete the experience, you transcend the human experience, because the
transhumanist experience could be to live in in paradise and
to achieve all of your dreams for as long as possible.

(01:38:39):
But it might be at a certain point you yourself
want to become the breath in all living things in
another world. Right, that's completely reasonable, just so that you
can be inside of all of your grandkids and all
of the you know, like Vishnu as all of these
pigs running through a field. Maybe that's your dream, you know.
I think it's completely reasonable that we reach a point

(01:39:00):
where we're no longer interested in being the way we
were a singular being. That's, to me, though, the best
example of something where you would no longer want to
exist as a person, because we're talking about a situation
where you can achieve anything you want to achieve. You
don't have to suffer any sort of emotional and we're
not talking about just curing cancer curing depression. If people

(01:39:24):
are upset because they miss their loved ones and they're
physically in pain, those are all problems that go away.
So the real answer is how long can you go
on in the human condition before you want to create
some new phenomenlogical diversity, or new worlds yourself and be
maybe the energy that's in that world. I think that's

(01:39:46):
basically the transcending principle of from a being that's mortal
to an immortal super being that is still a human
in a transhuman into being the ether itself of something.
And those are not new concepts. That's what I find
interesting about all this. These are all plans that people

(01:40:07):
are making in terms of reality that we're going to
build technology that lead towards But these are the same
ideas that people sat out in the desert and talked
about thousands of years ago, and we're just now getting
to the point where we can start to achieve the
first steps towards any of these goals. So it's all
of a sudden worth to me considering some of these
religious concepts, because if these are the dreams of humanity,

(01:40:31):
we're going to accomplish them. That's what humans seem to
be doing very quickly. Right.

Speaker 1 (01:40:39):
Yes, as many transhumanists have pointed out, it is within
human nature to try to transcend the limits of human nature,
and some of the attributes or outcomes that previously, according
to various mythologies, and that would include religions among those,

(01:40:59):
would have been considered godlike, could potentially be achieved through
human scientific and technological advancement. I wanted to bring Daniel
Tweet into this conversation because he asked, well, do we
have any sort of rights framework that could be attributable

(01:41:20):
to entities that do not exist? And I think the
question would pertain to whether those entities existed at some
point in the past. So I'm hesitant about granting rights
to future generations, to the unborn, like people who say, oh,

(01:41:41):
we need to, for instance, impose certain regulations on the
climate now because that would lead to better outcomes, or
it would preserve the environment for people who will be
born one hundred and fifty years from now. But we
don't know who those people are, in particular, we don't
know what they're going to want. I similarly have problems

(01:42:03):
with some of the arguments of the so called long
terms that may try to justify short term sacrifices if
they make the point, well, this will make the world
better or existence better for billions or trillions of people
many thousands of years from now. I do think people
who exist in the present do have a priority claim.

(01:42:26):
But I think people in exercising their rights in the
present should be able to set forth advanced directives for
how they might want to be treated if they enter
a state of legal death. And the Transhumanist Bill of
Rights Version three point zero actually has a provision about this,

(01:42:47):
and article ten on morphological freedom and Morphological freedom is
the right to do with one's physical attributes or intelligence
whatever one wants, so long as it does not harm others.
The article continues by stating this right includes the prerogative
for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advanced provisions

(01:43:10):
for how to handle its physical manifestation should that intelligence
enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding
any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient
has the right to determine in advance that the patient's
body shall be cryo preserved and kept under specified conditions,
in spite of any legal definition of death that might

(01:43:33):
apply to that patient under cryopreservation. So I think we
should want to have some sort of legal protections for
cryonics patients who have deanimated, because right now, under the
legal definition of death, these people have no rights. But
we should want them to have some sorts of rights
to continue being preserved in that cryo suspended state, because

(01:43:59):
otherwise somebody could just turn off the doer, turn off
the power to the cryonics facility, and then every provision
that that person has set forth prior to becoming legally
deceased would be a nullity essentially, So those may not
be the same rights that we recognize for people who

(01:44:23):
are currently alive. But what if, hypothetically, that person who
becomes legally dead has an AI avatar, and that person
has a contractual provision. And let's say those ai avatars
are better, more lifelike, more versatile than AI avatars are today.

(01:44:45):
But the contract would say, Okay, in the event of
my legal death, I delegate certain decision making authority to
my AI avatar, and that could include, say, managing my
bank account, managing my investments for me, interacting with people.
THEI avatar would be based on a synthesis of my
writings and video appearances and anything else I put into it,

(01:45:07):
and that ai avatar could serve as my legal representative.
That ai avatar could at least make a decent attempt
at saying, well, how would I respond to these future
events that occur in the world, And then that ai
avatar would also make provisions for my reanimation when the

(01:45:28):
technology is sufficiently advanced. So, Daniel, since you brought up
the question of rights for the non existent, how would
you view that kind of future situation where there could
be a set of rights conferred on people who have
been alive in the past, in the sense of how

(01:45:49):
they would want their property or even manifestations of their
person to be carried on especially if there's a chance
of a subsequent revival.

Speaker 5 (01:46:00):
Yeah, this is we're beyond the limits of scientific testability.
We're kind of into the realm of you know, platonic
solids and things that feel true and just you know.
But but that's cool, you know. I mean, science is
just a concurring sequence of greater and greater probabilities, you know,
of testabilities. There's no absolute proof in science. So it's

(01:46:22):
it's probably appropriate that we're in you know, philosophy. But
I'm still willing to use science on these big cosmological
theological questions. And I think I think we all should
should be in dec This is probably a good use
for synthetic you know, machine learning systems that we have
out there. But I was, yeah, I think I think

(01:46:43):
we want to maximize trueness and justice. Truth and justice.
It seems to be an inherent quantity quality of consciousness,
you know, to be curious and to want things to fit,
to want you know, things to seem you know, like
they work out, you know, which you could say that's justice,
but maybe maybe the there's a reset point where the

(01:47:05):
rights of the existent and the rights of the non existent,
you know, reach reach a tipping point, and that's where
the whole thing resets. Like you know, like Terrence McKenna said,
you know about the Big Bang, you know, to just
give us one free miracle and we can explain every
everything else. You know, it's like that one free miracle exception.
But do we I'm wondering, do we have a plank

(01:47:27):
in the us TP platform about the rights of the
non existence? Is there any plans to draft something up
like that or I'm just maybe tangential to the.

Speaker 2 (01:47:39):
I think it's really important, and it's interesting because so
many of the problems that we face right now. I mean,
I hate to like say it, but you know, like abortion.
I think this was one of those ones as well,
like the rights of the non existent. You know, Stalin
was an atheist and not a very spiritual man as
far as I know, but he did make abortion illegal because,

(01:48:00):
as he thought, well, the body of the woman is
the property of the state, and you know, they're producing
units of labor, and so we got to protect these
potential taxpayers. And it's interesting that this is something that
could be looked at, not even from some sort of
a spiritual idea, but just from hey, these are potential
taxpayers that can exist. And the solutions to these things

(01:48:21):
seem to be complicated because they have to impose upon
our own individual liberties in order to extend those liberties
to other people that we already exist with in this world,
let alone people that could exist or might exist, or
did exist but might come back. I mean, these things
become they're harder to stress to somebody that their rights

(01:48:44):
need an individual living person's rights need to be limited
in order to protect the greater rights of the greater
number of potential beings that could ever exist. Obviously, technology
plays into this. I think a big thing abortion will
probably be the fetal chambers that they're developing, synthetic embryo

(01:49:07):
and fetal chambers that they're designing so they can have gestation,
synthetic gestation. Because if it's all of a sudden about well,
this is my property, get off my porch, well, then
there's a solution to that if we build the technology
for it. Then the next question is what about genetic
data property rights? I mean, this baby has half of

(01:49:28):
my intellectual property, my genome. Maybe I don't want to
give that to some other person. Those are the kinds
of questions I think will really be more and more
pressing in the next ten years about abortion that we've
never even thought about before. These are not the kinds
of questions that have been asked about those issues, but

(01:49:49):
they're going to become more important as we can tackle
the first problems that we're experiencing. And the same thing
with death right. If we start seeing that people could
be brought back from the dead, then of course we're
going to have to protect their property, their finances. To
understand if someone doesn't want to put it into a will,

(01:50:09):
do we leave it into some sort of a saxon trust,
you know, like in the days of the Crusades, where
someone went off to war, they would leave their orchards
with somebody until they returned from the crusade. And that
could be That could be something that happens, is that
you have a trust to some extent. Are there going
to be AI avatars that can be ambassadorally in charge?

(01:50:31):
A couple of years ago, Johnny and I talked about
this idea. Would there be an AI politician? I thought, well, yeah,
but it probably won't start with the president, right. It
probably be like a team around a representative of a
small like maybe in Iowa, or something like that, or
in an Eastern Europe there might be like a single

(01:50:51):
government advisor that has a cabinet around them. And this
just happened Romania, I think you heard has this first AI.
I just went to Romania. By the way, Albania has
one now too, as they're trying to push for the
first Albanian AI politician. And I mean, I can't imagine

(01:51:12):
it being any more error prone or corrupt than your
average Albanian. I'm not saying, you know, I'm just saying,
I'm just being honest, Like there's a reason why this
is happening. AI can make decisions at least if they
make mistakes, so to humans, and it's going to be
more and more common that we see AI as something
that's allowed to make certain decisions. But it will require

(01:51:33):
governments to decide to protect those rights, to protect someone's
right to have an AI character that represents them. But yeah,
I can't speak for whether or not there are policies
that are being thought up about this yet.

Speaker 5 (01:51:48):
And on a sort of related topic, I know zulta
On is fun said he recently went to a party
with a lot of you know, high flying celebrity and
rich billionaire types, and they were absolutely horrified the technological
singularity was a consensus and they wanted to derail it.
They said it was a bigger problem than you know,
World War three with nukes.

Speaker 2 (01:52:08):
I mean, a little late Sultan, but I like, yes, well.

Speaker 5 (01:52:12):
He was not sharing their their.

Speaker 1 (01:52:16):
Right. This is where I think transhumanists urgently need to
enter into the conversation. And why I like the largely
very optimistic view of the singularity that you articulated, Andreas,
because the prevailing cultural discourse is really tinged with fear,
and this fear could lead to very reactionary types of

(01:52:39):
responses that would limit technological progress and limit the freedom
of individuals to deploy these technologies for their own benefit.
By the way, the AI system in Albania that you
mentioned is called Diella and she her official titleist Minister
of State for Artificial Intelligence of Albania, but provides some

(01:53:02):
input into the financial system and the fiscal decision making
of the government in order to counteract corruption, which is interesting.
Human politicians are often corrupt, but AI politicians may not
have those kinds of motives. And I would say I've
said before in the twenty twenty four US presidential election,

(01:53:23):
that I would have even preferred chet GPT for president,
even though chet GPT was not sentient. Not people areing
of any inner experience.

Speaker 2 (01:53:34):
People are like, oh, but AI lies, You're like for
a politician, that's par for the course.

Speaker 1 (01:53:40):
I don't know, right at least, AI doesn't lie intentionally
in the way that human politicians do. Sure it might hallucinate,
but that could be checked by other humans and even
other AI systems. A consortium of different AI models might
check the hallucinations of any particular AI model. But in

(01:54:00):
any event, Andreas, we have unfortunately reached the time limit
for our Virtual Enlightenment Salon. But this has been such
a fascinating conversation, and we have gone from exploring various
visions of the technological singularity, including the one that you articulated.
We went on a bit of a tour of intellectual

(01:54:24):
history with both secular and religious thinkers, and we even
ventured into some possibilities like technological revival in the future,
or parallel universes or time travel. And I think each
of these could have its own Salon at some point
in the future. But in the meantime, we thank you

(01:54:45):
for joining us today. We thank our viewers and the
chat for the lively exchange as always, and let's live
to experience these possible futures for which we all need
to live long and prosper

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Andreas Xirtus on the Idea of Singularity

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Andreas Xirtus on the Idea of Singularity

On Purpose with Jay Shetty