New Music Favorites - January 12, 2013

Here are my latest music choices that I've been listening to over the last few days, to which have been specifically helpful in increasing my concentration:

The Tunnel - Magnetmus

 

We (All) Search - Magnetmus

Psyk - Magnetmus

 

Cosmosis - Gift of the Gods

 

Hallucinogen - LSD

 

Imperial March Piano Duo

 

Mozart Symphony 40 Piano Duo

 

Mozart - "Dies Irae"

Blog Update January 11, 2012

I've been posting up on a lot of science and tech news lately. Mostly because they are of my primary interest, but I have intended this blog to be designated to be more broad and personal as I mentioned in my first blog post. And so I have been left with the dilemma whether to create a separate blog specifically targeted/tailored/dedicated purely to jut sci+tech findings, and retaining this one for my own general personal expressions which will just include my everyday experiences, or whether to continue as I am now, synthesizing and merging it all into one.

The problem it seems then, is separating out all the posts that are of sci-tech relevance and moving them into a new blog. Then again, even those posts seem to have a piece of personal relevance and value to me which I can't really separate out. By moving out the posts, they will become less personal and will just become regurgitated, "retweeted" news findings, which to me doesn't sound all that exciting.

I think I may have a solution, I will need to re-do all the labels on each post so that they can be categorized accordingly i.e. category 1 = 'Personal Stuff', category 2 = 'Science & Tech', category 3 = 'Favorite Music', category 4 = 'Diet & Nutrition'...etc I'll give that a try and see how that goes.

The Truth on Innovation and Eureka Moments

This topic has been increasingly important and valuable to me. I have always wondered what the secrets to innovative new ideas and creativity are, how they are formed, what the underlying processes are that give rise to such, so that they can be replicated, and its power harnessed for our own benefit, and what kind of effects these have on our collective species as a whole.

First off, I want to post this video, it's a TED Talk by Matt Ridley, called 'When Ideas Have Sex':

What I find intriguing is how the rate of innovations have increased exponentially over time since the moment our ancestors created the first tools. In the example given in his talk, stone tools hardly changed in design for about 1 million years (1.5 million to half a million years ago). Homo Erectus had essentially used the same tool for 30,000 generations. There were some changes, but not as much as the biological changes of those who used them. In other words, no new innovations whatsoever. Today however, the opposite case is true, and Matt uses the humble computer mouse as a perfect example, which pretty much goes obsolete in less than a year.

What's more intriguing is the fact that hardly anyone knows how to make a computer mouse, and how we've gone from something as simple as a tool made of stone using only one material, from something of far greater design complexity, using all sorts of sophisticated materials.

Matt makes the case of increasing specialization of skills, which have contributed to this using the example of how much more efficient it would be for one man making an axe, and another man making a spear, compared to the generalist approach of each man making both an axe and a spear. We have grown as a culture to focus on specializing on different subset areas, starting as early as gender roles where men would go out to hunt and females to look after the young, all the way to nations producing one thing and another nation producing another to which they then trade and both benefit from this transaction.

By having this kind of system it seems, we can actually improve the way we make things, which creates further momentum for increased specialization, leading to increased exchange hence, the birth of innovation.

And what is more shocking is that the opposite case can be observed in regards to exchange - if you cut off trade from one group of people to another, this will in effect hinder technological progress and in fact throw it into reverse, experiencing a regress / decline of innovation (the case of the Tasmanian islanders gives as a powerful example of this phenomenon).

Matt also highlights the importance of having a large population size to maintain innovation, declaring that it requires millions of people just to be able to produce a computer mouse today, just from drilling the oil to turn to plastic, creating electronic components; designers, engineers, and scientists working in the material and computer sciences, all the way to the farmers producing the food needed to sustain the people working in those higher sectors. A really mind-boggling process.

So to summarize, it takes specialization, exchange, and the power of numbers, as the key main / general ingredients to spark and drive innovation.

How relevant is this to us on an individual level in this day and age?

With our growing use of social network mediums on the internet, to the use of smartphones and other information communication devices, we as a species are at a point where we are more connected to everyone else than ever before. And it seems that if we want to experience greater innovation and progress it's vital that we do not disconnect ourselves from these powerful mediums, especially when we are in the day and age where we need more solutions to our growing global socio-economic problems. In fact we need more connections, more interaction, and more exposure to easily accessible information mediums. We can't just sit in silence watching the world go by.

We need to work together as a collective, where each of us are focused on one specialized skill, so that we can get better at it, and we must be more willing to exchange our knowledge, experience, and ideas more than ever, so that we can benefit globally altogether. I don't think this should  rule out the need for 'generalists' entirely however, for I believe they do serve a vital role too, as system engineers and project managers with sound understanding and experience of how to connect together all the key component fields to make them work properly -- this can be seen as a kind of 'specialization' in a sense.

Now, the next piece to the puzzle can be seen in this next video, entitled 'Where Good Ideas Come From' by Steven Johnson:

It's actually a take on the notion of "Eureka" moments, suggesting that the phenomenon doesn't actually occur in the way imagine. As he put it in his own words:

"One pattern that I call the slow hunch, that breakthrough ideas always never come on a moment of great insight in a sudden stroke of inspiration."

"Most important ideas take a long time to evolve and they spend a long time dormant in the background."

"It isn't until the idea has had 2 or 3 years, sometimes 10 or 20 years to mature, that it suddenly becomes accessible to you and useful to you in a certain way."

"And this is partially because good ideas come from the collision between smaller hunches so that they form something bigger than themselves."

 This realization is actually fairly profound. Ideas require an "incubation period", and they need to collide or "mate" with other ideas, so to speak. And this goes back again to highlighting the importance of making connections with groups of people, sharing / exchanging ideas in order for innovations to flourish. This is also reflected in our own brains needing time to form new neuronal connections that will lead to that "breakthrough" moment.

As Isaac Newton once wrote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." coming to mean that all great "AHA!" events don't come from a simple apple dropping on the head, but developed on from an earlier body of work that our predecessors have left off. And this is certainly the case with the field of science, as it is with technological innovations. This it seems, is the real "Eureka".

Robot Musicians and Composers

Haven't wrote here for some time (again) as I'm *busy* with several other priority task functions the likes of which shall not be entertained here.

In this post I want to mention about something that's been on my mind for a few days now. It's about AI and its role in music performances and compositions. Here is a compilation of what I've discovered to date:

Robot trumpet player:

Robotic music playing system by Intel:

 

Robot violinist:

 

 

Robot pianist:

Robot band:

Festo Soundmachine:

...And probably much more floating around on YT.

Unfortunately however, while these robotic systems are indeed impressive, they only appear to play what they have been pre-programmed to play, and are no more than sophisticated forms of playback devices. In other words, they cannot create their own, "original" musical compositions.

The good news is that we're in luck. There are AI / computer programs out there that do have the capability of seemingly doing just that, by taking advantage of principles in music theory, and taking "inspiration" from various existing musical pieces and their styles to be "remade" via its algorithms, and in the process, creating entirely new styles and melodies. When you hear of news like this (Iamus, a computer cluster), and this (Emily Howell, a program by David Cope), it pretty much leaves us with less doubt that this really is indeed the case. Another interesting find is WolframTones, which can generate an almost infinite array of possible compositions in Midi. While it might not be able create a piece of Beethoven, the output may yet have sound application as background music for 2D platform games (pun intended).

And even though all of those are, as of yet, still primitive in its capabilities, it will only be a matter of time before they are able to replicate what we do so passionately: be able to play a piece of Beethoven, Chopin, Bach, Mozart, or any great musical genius's piece, with feeling, with ability to vary tempo/speed, and volume/percussion/intensity in an appropriate manner. They will play a piece in not just one, but also multiple interpretations, with slight variation in the notes played, where they can be influenced by whatever sensory input they receive: flash a variety of colors through its visual sensors, vary the temperature of its environment, allow it to 'feel' and 'taste' the quality of air flowing in its chemical and pressure receptors...and the next time it plays the piece, they will play a new variation of it; we could say then that it had been "inspired" by such "experiences". Goodness knows what results would be generated from this kind of approach.

This is just one simplistic example of such a system attempting to replicate our own neural processes and how we come about in expressing "feeling" when playing a piece of music and most certainly additional layers of complexity can be scaled to achieve greater effect. Though of course we still expect to have limits as to how far we can do this, considering how complex our human brains are and we are far off from replicating the effect we get from say, as an exaggerated example, when we're madly in love with someone, to which many great artists of the past have been known to have demonstrated elevated levels of creativity under such circumstances.

I one day envision a point when we would have such advanced AI musicians churning out at hyper-speed, the most human-like, ingeniously-formulated compositions, each new composition as chillingly exhilarating, and emotionally captivating, as those made by the great musical geniuses of the past, if not far more each time, and creating an endless stream of what can be made possible in the universe of music, if not saturating all the musical possibilities that could ever be conceived...we could almost go far as to say that music itself then had experienced a singularity event.

When AI Meets Politics, and Typical Luddite Themes

So, just today, I was remembering an old computer game I used to play, called Empire Earth (the very first version). 

One particular campaign that left its imprint on me was the Novaya Russian one, where an artificial intelligent machine overlord takes over an empire that its previous dictator had built and left off.

Its designated identity: Grigor II.

My exposure to this game in particular was probably the single most strongest influence in forming my interest about the future, advanced technology, and AI robotics, that is - outside movies like Star Wars, iRobot, A.I., Terminator, etc, and sci-fi TV series like Star Trek.

Even though the game is fairly old (graphics are primitive and the game itself is not as popular as other RTS games) I thought I'd take time to put together some of my favorite cinematic scenes from it into a "fan vid" (wanted to do this for a while now) for the topic of this blog post in particular, which I will be addressing.

It's not difficult to find the typical "Luddite" theme where robots rebel against either their creator and or ultimately humanity itself. Normally it's shown in a very typically negative way, one that's almost seemingly very narrow in perspective, and naive. One could almost consider it "speciesism" mentality.

For instance, with the video of Grigor II as an example, it's somewhat kind of assuming that that's what such, if not all, highly intelligent machines will eventually and ultimately conclude if it were in power - to kill off large numbers of humans with their "cold logic" as if that were the ONLY logical option, which I highly doubt. I find it quite irrational as 1. my own logic cannot see the logic in this (why not "assimilate" them instead like the Borg?)  2. there are other potential outcomes (what about benevolent AI,  where their logic leads them to conclude otherwise) 3. we simply do not know what these advanced AI's will have in mind, what goals they will eventually set and execute. We are simply bound by the limitations of our own human-based imaginations after all.

Here's another typical scenario, and one that I recently found. It's a rap satire (made by 'The Juice News') of a project I've been acquainted with since 2008, called 'The Venus Project'. In the satire video, it outlines the vision of using supercomputers to manage our planetary resources and economy, but presents the supercomputer as some sort of AI robot called 'VAL-T 9000' (wherever that came from), claiming to be "a fully rational intelligent cyber being" that eventually concludes humanity to be the source of the problem hence must ultimately be exterminated. One cannot help but be left with a typical 'palm-face' reaction.


While all of these examples may just be for entertainment value, I do ask why this single most negative perspective is so dominant and pervasive in society? I might go as far as to suggest that it seems to stem from possibly a dark hidden part of our psyche that inevitably WANTS to see this scenario happening, considering we're so obsessed with all other gloom-and-doom scenarios, with a twisted desire to see some sort of mass apocalyptic calamity...maybe to bring some excitement to our dull and monotone lives and wake us up from the sterile state of familiarity? (hint: 2012 End of the World hype that never came true?).

I do realize that such devastating scenarios shouldn't be ruled off from the list of possibilities (to ignore that and simply be overly optimistic, believing with absolute conviction that the future will truly be bright and flowery... would be equally irrational and delusional), though it would be nice to see more positive perspectives being shown out there, highlighting more of the possible advantages of becoming something beyond human for once, or simply showcasing a more balanced perspective consisting of all possibilities from both sides of the spectrum.

This post will raise another key point and questions before I forget - about the role of AI becoming some sort of alternative to human leaders.

Do you want an AI President as your future leader? Image Source

Will there ever be a time one day where we will build a fully-functioning AI with the ability to act as an alternative to human politicians? Even becoming elected as a kind of Prime Minister or taking on a Presidential role in the future? The ultimate arbiter for all humanity's disputes/problems?

Can we make them so that they can only compute out truly the best decisions regarding policies and social management by what scientific data we feed them and ensure that such decisions do not lead to detrimental harm to humans?

Can they successfully interact with other politicians/will they get along with people?

Will they be merely machine boxes with a robotic voice churning out answers or take on humanoid form with great level of physical dexterity?

Can they be made to compose moving speeches to persuade and captivate the hearts and minds of the people, exploiting on their psychological weaknesses/loopholes (taking advantage of the personality-cult phenomenon)?

Will the masses even come to accept such a thing? (I am highly skeptical of the likelihood)

Can we make them so that they perform far more effectively than our humanly elected candidates to the point that re-election becomes irrelevant?

Will that lead then to the end of "democracy" (as if that's inherently a bad thing)?

These are all daunting questions to ponder about, and many more.

Human Brain Project

 Another interesting find. The Human Brain Project (HBP) is now being initiated in the European Union.

The aim: simulating the human brain inside a supercomputer. A very exciting project.

Once completed, its potential applications are beyond enormous, from developing new cures to illnesses/diseases, new ways of solving computational problems, that and much more than I can conceive right now.

I could almost envision one day when these new thinking machines become the norm where everyone would have one in their homes as a household computer, or better yet, fitted into something as portable and miniaturized as a smartphone.

Here's their opening video presentation:
Here's a short excerpt of the transcript:

"100 billion neurons, connected by 100,000 billion synapses. The human brain is the most complex machine we know of, and the most mysterious one."

"We face huge issues in neuroscience, to understand how the pieces of the brain fit and work together.

We face huge issues in medicine, to understand how to objectively diagnose and treat brain diseases."

"This is a big big challenge. It'll have an enormous impact on the health of the aged."

"European researchers propose a radically new approach to study the human mind. Their idea is simple. To simulate a complete human brain in a supercomputer."

"We have a giant intellectual problem to solve here."

"As a scientist, I mean it is really the, central project for brain science."

"And that could revolutionize computing the way we do it today."

"The Human Brain Project brings together hundreds of scientists from leading European research institutions. It is one of the most ambitious neuroscience projects in the world."

"What we are proposing is to establish a radically new foundation, to explore and understand the brain, its diseases, and to use that knowledge, to build new computing technologies."

"The project is coordinated by EPFL located in Lausanne, Switzerland. The researchers will systematically study neurons, the building blocks of the brain. They will collect and consolidate all the biological data produced by scientists around the world. They will integrate this knowledge into a massive simulation running on a supercomputer. The result will be the most accurate model of the human brain ever produced."

 To end off, I'll post this TED Talk by Henry Markram on the work that's being done. Near the end of the middle there's a really awesome visual simulation of one particular brain and how it sees a rose. Totally mind-blowing stuff.

We WILL Become Gods, According to Physicist, Richard Seed

A chilling speech by Richard Seed (physicist and human cloning researcher) taken from 'TechnoCalyps - Part II - Preparing for the Singularity':

"We are going to become Gods, period. If you don't like it, get off. You don't have to contribute, you don't have to participate but if you are going to interfere with me becoming a God, you're going to have trouble. There'll be warfare."

General Grievous Tribute, Humanoids, AI Robotics, and DARPA

Probably one of my lasting enduring favorite 'cyborg' characters in Star Wars would happen to be:

General Grievous. 

 
Don't get me wrong, Darth Vader surely fits the bill too, but I have come to see General Grievous to be of far more curiosity. While Darth Vader is certainly an interesting character in himself (more like ITself)- an example of the dream of man becoming a machine, General Grievous appears to go a step further in transcending the limitations of our humanoid stature and performance, and that is one of the prime focal areas to which I am motivated to point out. With greater level of dexterity, flexibility, and speed, with 4 arms and hands, really cool legs and feet, a bad-ass armor-like head, to me he seems to be the very icon or model and vision of the future of AI robotics.

I must say though I didn't appreciate the way he was depicted like a wimp in the main Star Wars film (Episode III: Revenge of the Sith), in my view it didn't do justice to his true capabilities. Only in the 'Clone Wars' animated series and the video game CGI can we better appreciate the character I feel.

I couldn't care more about the light saber fights / wars / battles / the violent, sinister manifestations associated with this character, but I am definitely intrigued as to what can be made possible in the end. Can we go as far as to create something very similar in performance as this seemingly malevolent persona out of some sci-fi movie?

Most probably. I have seen the developments made by DARPA, and it leaves me with little doubt that somewhere down the line we will begin to see General Grievous-like robots, probably entering the military. I certainly hope they won't be used as malicious killing machines, that's something I'm totally against. However, I myself wouldn't mind having a physical body similar to Gen. Grievous. That's something I would to delve more deeply into though in another topic.

Anyway, here's some videos of the latest developments made by DARPA:

And finally, I pay my tribute to General Grievous in this short fan vid. Actually there was a better version with 'We're All to Blame' by Sum 41 playing in the background but for some reason I can no longer find it. That was my favorite one but alas, the one below will have to do.

The Cosmist's Vision - Superintelligence, Matrioshka Brain

Should we engineer a superintelligence? A single god-like technological entity that will essentially turn the entire earth into and become a giant thinking machine (hint: a Matrioshka brain) ready to engulf the rest of the universe with its intelligent processes, and continuously/recursively improving its intelligence? Will that mean the end (death) of humanity, through reassembly of all our atoms towards maximum utility function? Is it really a bad thing? Will there truly be an 'Artilect War' i.e. Cosmists vs Terrans as Hugo de Garis describes? What happens if there's two superintelligent entities with different goals? Will they eventually merge to become one, or out-compete one against the other?

Will it take on a swarm approach?

In my personal view, yes, I would like to see one finally being created. As twisted as it sounds, I think it's a morally superior imperative. I wrote about this before in a FB note, though will be the subject of another post. Instead, I'll just post more material for reference, and also something to further contemplate on.

Finding a Future Partner - Relationship with a Robot

Would you prefer a robotic relationship?

For a long time now I have been yearning for the feeling one gets out of being in a fulfilling long-term relationship with a special someone. Just finding the one who is right for you, your soul mate. Someone to love and care for, and someone who will reciprocate by loving and caring for you back. And that love has to be pure, and not love that's necessarily just limited in the sexual context. A simple hug and holding of hands would do for me, and ability to sleep next to in bed. Someone who will always be by your side, ever loyal, ever tending to your needs and desires (provided they are within reason), someone truly and endlessly loveable. Someone who will be with you until death do us apart (unless death is conquered).

Never be lonely again. Credits: Mark Beernink

 

 

That, AND also someone who is willing to do all the domestic chores without feeling some sort of resentment for your lack of contribution, lol. Someone who will not get envious, get tired of you, gets angry or annoyed, yells and screams at you, and throws other ill forms of abuse, both verbal and physical. Someone who will not betray or demand so much of you, someone who doesn't complain. Someone who won't criticize or judge you negatively. Someone who you don't have to fear will become a liability to your well-being. Someone who won't disappoint you or won't get disappointed with you.

Someone who will help you to improve the best qualities in you, someone who can help teach you new things, help correct your mistakes, contribute to your success and happiness in life, someone who will grow with you and expand their own knowledge/experience. Someone who will identify with your beliefs, principles and values in life, goals and visions for the future. Someone who you will forever share similar interests and aspirations.

Someone who is essentially -- more than human. And this will be no ordinary, typical, traditional relationship. It will go far beyond just a normal romantic/loverA-meets-loverB relationship, something beyond gender roles or a family role. This is much a relationship with an idea, a process, a system, that will guarantee your own self-improvement. A relationship beyond friendship or best friend, beyond romance, beyond something akin to having a twin, or father or mother or teacher/mentor. A relationship where the other recipient essentially becomes an embodiment of everything you hope to ever achieve, someone to gain inspiration from, someone who you would look up to and idolize like a savior, hero or sage, and want to strive to become; someone who essentially becomes like the future you, or you and the other become unified as a single entity.

What I am probably describing is my vision for a futuristic transhumanistic relationship - with a cybernetic robotic being, and it is something I am seriously wanting to pursue. I WANT to be in a relationship with a robot, one that has been developed to such an advanced stage so as to encompass all those qualities I have mentioned. And gender will no longer have any relevance (the robot doesn't need to be male or female, it can take on a more "neutral" appearance), it won't be a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. I wouldn't call it a lover robot, but more like the ultimate-form-of-companionship robot.

Credits: DiruFan

Will there be any kissing involved? Who cares! Well maybe other people will care about a lover bot to make love with and has a specific gender (like those geminoids and sex bots that we see now) but personally such qualities are irrelevant for me. I also hate using the word 'robot' in this typical scenario. They would be so much more sophisticated in its designated purpose and function. I prefer 'cyber companions'.

Personally, the topic of having a relationship with someone is something that I try to be very private and secretive about, for various reasons. In fact, every time I come to think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that a relationship with another human being will just not work out, or has a very high probability of failure, or just simply, is not worth it, as it is let alone, very taxing on your time and other resources just to try to find that special someone, build a relationship with, and maintain. It's a very tricky and risky process, with little guarantee that the relationship would turn out the way you want it. Even a "successful" human relationship has its limitations i.e. in old age, someone will bound to die first!

As much as my primitive biological urges wants me to, I actively refrain from seeking a relationship on that level, no matter how much I crave it *CTRL+W dating site*. It goes something far beyond sexual desires, which really I don't care much for, for a start due to all those associated risks of sexually transmitted diseases. And secondly, there's an alternative remedy to such urges, it's called masturbation.

Another reason I'm not going for a relationship with a human is that, I am currently suffering from the dilemma over the urgent need of establishing financial independence first (no longer working for others) and this objective has my time consumed. In fact it is THE most utmost top priority imperative of the moment. Without being financially secure first, there's simply no point to a relationship anyway (unless they're rich and are willing to support until you can stand on your feet).

But even if finances weren't an issue, pursuing a one-on-one relationship with some human still isn't and shouldn't be on my list of agendas. I have more pressing issues to deal with, like, attaining indefinite lifespan, and acquiring knowledge and skills to better the world. So far, I'm heavily behind with all these endeavors. A relationship with a human may add to the delay as you would have additional responsibilities in ensuring their well-being, etc. They may even become a menacing headache wanting your attention (and money) all the time, as well as the threat that they may bring in even more problems. I cannot afford to waste my energy on all those distractions.

In any case, the first moment I can be with a fully relationship-capable constructed android being, I won't hesitate a second more to be in a relationship with one, and see how it goes from there. This probably won't happen until many decades into the future though, once the tech has 'matured' (no pun intended) and I can afford to purchase them.

There are other moral implications to this though, like what if someone is abusive to their companion bot? Well all I can hope for is that the bot has the ability to defend themselves and can change the violent tendencies of that person so they become a better person. Either that or the bot just shuts down and ceases to function, to teach the silly human the consequences of being an idiot.

Finally, there is the issue of having children and raising them. Would I want to have kids myself? As in creating one from scratch (if with a robot, a child will have to be made in the laboratory, using genetic engineering, artificial wombs and incubators). Ideally NO because there's already too many humans about but there are times I would like instead to run my own orphanage to look after children who have no parents. Look after the ones we already have on this planet that are being neglected. Then we can teach them advanced things such as Transhumanist ideals to which they shall become the future of whatever becomes of humanity. We are probably going to achieve biological immortality anyway and bringing more children into the world is not a fundamental necessity at this point.

All these ideas are probably something my basic human counterparts will never be able to fully comprehend, telling me that I'm crazy. That's okay, so was Einstein, for having a relationship with his cousin (even though this example is in no way equivalent to my case). I just hope one day I can be a fully synthetic cyborg too...

Futuristic Bikes, and a Short Note on Social Networking

Latest futuristic bike designs I have spotted on FB:

 

Source: FB Page 'I Am an Engineer to Change the World'

Source: Inhabitat

One day when I can afford it, I'll probably have one custom built so it contains both features, plus some more advanced ones (i.e. chain-less). I hope they can fit in a backpack too, similar to this:

On a side note, now you can see why I like FB so much, instead of going to each individual website to find out the latest stuff, it gets pooled into one stream. I recognize the limitations of this (some other equally cool quality info gets missed out) then again a good portion of high-end headline news still gets through. There's already too much information on the net as it is anyway, and one website alone like Inhabitat can quickly overwhelm. I also understand there's a lot of junk on FB, but it's slightly better than just a simple RSS feed on Wordpress/blogger, at least there's a wider range of mediums to interact with the global cyber community that are more flexible, and intuitive.

I've also begun trying to venture out into other social networking sites, I've had a Twitter account for a while but never really used it that much since FB is where I'm mostly active and find the place more exciting. So I've finally integrated FB and Twitter (can post to and from either FB or Twitter). Others include StumbleUpon, Tumblr, and god knows how many more (I've lost track and probably won't use them that much anyway, unless there's a strong enough incentive for me to do so). I started off with MySpace back in my college days but I've pretty much abandoned that since 2008!

I already feel so behind I'm like I'm never going to be able to catch up, I'll be like those guys who are stuck in the age of VHS players, radios/walkmans and what have you.

Who Would Win? Death Star vs The Borg

I posted up this picture in my FB Cyborg Imagery Album out of interest to see what reaction people would give (I was almost certain of it). I have to admit some of the comments have been quite amusing.

This also gives rise to my fascination of a certain psychological phenomenon that I've observed- people are more likely to interact (post a comment, click "like", participate in a discussion, and continue participating) if the post is wagering a question that gets our brains fired up with curiosity, with an urge to find out, or tell the world about what they think is the right answer, and also if it's a topic of something amusing, of humor value, or maybe confusing/ambiguous, or maybe too obvious perhaps. There's probably more to that as well,

The last time I posted up a poll, it had a slightly mathematical element to it. I believe over 300 FB users responded to that poll, which can be found here.

Brain-Computer Interface based Musical Composition

The other day I spotted this in my usual search of something of technological fascination:

Be made aware though, the video above is a hoax, whilst the one below appears to be genuine. This is merely highlighting upon the possibilities of the future.

I really do look forward to the day when it may even be possible to record any sounds coming from our dreams. For instance, there are times when my brain can come up with amazing music melodies the likes of which I can only hope to replicate when I'm awake (on piano). My dreaming mind seems better at composing for some reason compared to when awake. These technologies should remove those "mind blocks" that hinder creative expression/translation into the external world and make it easier to manifest attributes associated with what we call the phenomenon of 'genius'.

Imperar Hails New Year Extravaganza

I probably could've come up with a more suitable title, but never mind. There are about a dozen things I want to post, but in this instance, I shall present this one in particular, to "hail" the start of the New Year. It is a website I spotted called, 'The Hedonistic Imperative'.

I like the title, and I also like its Transhumanist philosophy, which similarly resonates with that of my own (although encompasses something far greater). It states the following opening:

The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
 

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture - a motivational system based on heritable gradients of bliss. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice.